Wednesday, 16 November 2022

WEDNESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2022

WEDNESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

DEPUTY CLERK: Petition of Niru Wijesundara requesting that the House allow bona fide competitive shooters from gun clubs to own banned semi-automatic rifles for competition.

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

DEPUTY CLERK:

Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ annual report 2022

Government response to the report of the Education and Workforce Committee on its inquiry into migrant exploitation.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

DEPUTY CLERK: Legal Services Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Speaker’s Rulings

Application of Sub Judice Rule—Ministerial Responsibility

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday in question time, I committed to reviewing the exchange during question No. 7 to the Minister of Police regarding a reference to an alleged offence that, I understand, is currently before the courts, and to come back to the House on the intersection of the sub judice rule and the responsibility of Ministers to answer questions.

I have now had time to review the Hansard, and can confirm that there is no change to the longstanding application of the sub judice rule in this House. References or analysis of the facts, or seeking opinions in respect of specific cases of alleged wrongdoing that are before the courts should be avoided. I will continue to be vigilant to ensure the House doesn’t embark on questioning or debating those matters—Speaker’s ruling 32/3. It may well be that members and the Speaker do not know that a certain issue is before the courts when they ask their question; in some cases, the Minister will know and may decide to refuse to answer questions about specific cases, on that basis. Further, a Minister may refuse to answer if they feel it is not in the public interest to do so, but, if that is the reason, they should say so.

In the case of question No. 7 yesterday, I do not consider that the question would fall under the sub judice rule, as it only tangentially refers to victims of an alleged offence as individual business owners, like the business referred to. It did not ask about a specific alleged offence. The question was in respect of general Government policy on access to a programme or businesses that had been victimised once or multiple times. In fact, the Minister did answer the question when it was reworded immediately following, despite the member again referring to the victim of the alleged offence.

I am ruling that the Minister did have responsibility to answer the question about accessing the programme when it was first asked, but also that members, especially after they have been informed of a case before the courts, should take care when addressing broad policy issues and to do so without referring to those specific individual cases.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): Yes—in particular, our work around climate change. This morning, Minister Woods announced funding, as part of the Low Emission Transport Fund, that will see 11 new transport projects, including clever solutions for electric vehicle charging, ways to cut fuel costs in heavy freight, and the first marine project, which will pilot electric outboard motors. As a Government, we understand the need to tackle climate change, and this is one policy area where we’re working hard to support long-term sustainability and economic growth. Our climate change policy is clear: we know that it’s not good enough to sign up to goals but then not back it up with policy or action. New Zealand has had too much of that in the recent past, but I do welcome—I do welcome—the Leader of the Opposition’s commitment today to supporting the clean car discount.

Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that his Government is burning almost three times more coal than in any year of a National Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm is that last week we had 97 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources. That is not something the member can claim.

Christopher Luxon: Why has the Ministry of Education added an extra 280 managers, 60 lawyers and accountants, and 50 policy analysts since 2017?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we know that investing in education is vitally important. One of the things we’ve done is add thousands of teachers, hundreds of teacher-aides, hundreds of learning support workers, and we pay them properly. We need an education system that is well funded, well resourced, and well supported. We need education facilities that are warm and dry and safe. This Government has prioritised investing in that, unlike the previous Government.

Christopher Luxon: Why has he tripled the number of staff at the Ministry of Education earning over $120,000, and how many more bureaucrats will it take before we see any improvement in school attendance and achievement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we’re doing is investing in the attendance strategy, which, I note, was launched at an intermediate school that the Leader of the Opposition is so fond of. When that was launched, it was in term 2 of this year, and that school was actually having some problems with attendance in term 2 because of COVID. So the member is right to highlight the excellent work done in that school on attendance. We were proud to launch our attendance strategy to address those issues at that school.

Christopher Luxon: Does he agree that kids who are not being taught the basics, like maths, reading, and writing, are less likely to attend school regularly, and, if so, why has the Government not taken any action to raise standards in our schools?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Firstly, in answer to the second part of the question, that’s simply wrong. In answer to the first part of the question, what we do is invest in and support good quality teachers and good quality leaders in our schools. What we don’t do is go on television and run down the hard-working principals in decile 1 schools.

Christopher Luxon: What role does he think the Government’s failure to lift attendance has had on the rise in youth crime, when police figures show the majority of young offenders are not regularly attending school?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We all know that there is a variety of causes for what we’re seeing among the group of young people who have been involved in ram raids. That’s why you have to take an approach that is about getting to the root causes of that. What we also know is that every time the member stands up and ignores the fact that we’ve had COVID, which has caused a huge number of those people to fall into the category, he undermines his own argument. We’re supporting schools. We’re supporting principals. We’re not running them down like the member did on television this morning.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Acting Prime Minister been informed that the previous Government lowered the standard for achieving literacy and numeracy under NCEA and that this Government is in the process of raising it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, and this is the issue that New Zealanders had for some time in our education system—that, when people like the National Party get hold of the levers of power, they put in place their ideological experiment like national standards, which has been a massive failure. And the member might like to think about some of the people he’s worried about in terms of literacy and numeracy standards—exactly when they entered the education system. The member shouldn’t be making that sign about going around in a circle on policy on a day like today.

Christopher Luxon: Is he concerned that the finance Minister is so distracted from his day job that in a recent keynote speech he only mentioned the cost of living crisis once and, while I appreciate he’s a fan, mentioned me nine times?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The very real and present danger that the Leader of the Opposition represents to New Zealanders definitely needed highlighting. I think the member might want to have a think about today, in his career as the Leader of the Opposition, because what he managed to do was a U-turn on a U-turn on a U-turn—the first politician in history to complete a policy doughnut.

Christopher Luxon: What is he more concerned about: the cost of living crisis or me?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I am concerned about is that member making the cost of living crisis worse.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest economic overview from Westpac bank, released yesterday, reported that the economy is performing strongly, with household spending remaining firm and businesses continuing to take on staff. Economic activity has also been reinforced by the return of overseas tourists. Looking ahead, Westpac’s economists are forecasting economic growth to moderate to levels lower than we’ve seen over the past few years, as forecasts of lower global growth affect our prospects and domestic demand eases. New Zealand is in a strong position in what is a challenging international environment. Unemployment is at near record lows, and wages are rising faster than inflation to help deal with cost of living pressures. Our exports, goods, and services are what the world wants, and the Government’s solid financial position—with debt levels among the lowest in the world—will help us through this time. It is a challenging time for New Zealand, but we are well positioned to deal with it.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the return of overseas tourists and their impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday, Stats New Zealand reported that the number of overseas visitors rose to more than 151,000 in September—an increase of 17 percent on the previous month. While Stats New Zealand said that this was below the numbers seen in September months prior to COVID, the sharp increase in overseas visitors in recent months has provided a welcome boost to our hospitality and accommodation sectors after a tough couple of years, and there is still the promise of a bumper summer to come.

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector rose in October, with the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index at 57.4—up 1.5 points from September and above the long-term average of 53.6. Sales and new orders remained at healthy levels, while employment in the sector experienced its highest level of activity since April 2021.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF has told G20 leaders at their current meeting that the global economic outlook is gloomier than it was a month ago when it had, in turn, revised its forecast down for growth in 2023. It said that nations faced a number of downside risks and that weakening economic indicators pointed to challenging times ahead. New Zealand is not immune to what happens globally, but we are well positioned to respond. We will continue to support New Zealanders while investing in what matters to them—their health, their education, and housing—and addressing long-term issues like climate change, while keeping a lid on debt. This takes a balanced and sustainable approach to spending, and to target it where it is supported the most. It does mean tough choices are required as we face a volatile and uncertain future.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the statement from Westpac that “the picture for borrowers is set to become a lot tougher over the coming year”, and what advice has he received, if any, on the impact this will have on New Zealand households?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): To answer the first part of the question, that would depend on the situation facing each borrower. And, indeed, Westpac themselves said that in the same report that the member is quoting from: “The impact of those rate rises will feel very different for households across the country.” I do acknowledge the global inflation spike, which we are not immune from in New Zealand, is causing interest rates to rise around the world, including in New Zealand, and that is putting pressure on households. To answer the second part of the member’s question, there are a wide range of views, including those held by Westpac, regarding the economic situation we’re facing. How such sentiment is set to influence economic outcomes, including for houses, is debatable. Given the deteriorating sentiment, including that which the member has asked about, I have been seeking advice on how to help particularly low to middle income households to get through this period. That is, of course, why we have invested in lifting benefits, increasing childcare support, lifting the minimum wage, increasing the family tax credit, cutting fuel excise, and more.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that a family with a mortgage of $500,000 refixing from an interest rate of 3 percent on to 6 percent—as many, many families will have to do in the coming months—will be paying $15,000 more each year in interest costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is absolutely true that those people who were able to fix mortgages when interest rates were very low will be facing a significant increase when they come to refix their mortgages. That is a product of the Reserve Bank doing its job to bring inflation back down. I repeat something I’ve said for the member numerous times in this House: this is a global phenomenon. New Zealand finds itself in a position where we have the 10th lowest inflation rate in the OECD. Everyone is dealing with the same problem. We are continuing to support New Zealand households through this.

Nicola Willis: Does he recall, during the last election campaign, the Labour finance spokesperson talking at length about how the Government’s leadership had led to a strong economy, and why is it that some people are prepared to take the credit for what the economy is doing when it suits them and not when New Zealanders are facing tough times?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will take responsibility for the position that New Zealand finds itself in today with respect to the Government’s policy. That is a position where we have 3.3 percent unemployment, one of the lowest levels of unemployment we have ever seen; a position where we have one of the lowest levels of public debt in the world; a position where our economy is 4.8 percent bigger than it was before COVID; and a position where average hourly wages have gone ahead of inflation. It has been a tough period for many New Zealand households over the last couple of years, and I stand by the record of this Government.

Nicola Willis: How will the host of statistics the Minister just recited help the family trying to find $15,000 to service their mortgage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure, because the member’s colleagues were shouting, that she heard me say that average hourly earnings in New Zealand have been going ahead of inflation in recent times, the lifts to the minimum wage, the lifts to the family tax credit, the lifts to childcare assistance—all things that will help New Zealanders through this period of time and, for the most part, all things opposed by the National Party.

Nicola Willis: So do we take it from the Minister’s answer that his message to families struggling with the burden of extreme mortgage-servicing costs is “Don’t complain. Labour’s funding lots of subsidies. We’ve done some policies, so it’s not our fault.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My message is the same message I gave earlier in this question time: that we understand that there is an impact on many New Zealand households. It is tough for many New Zealand households; that’s why we’ve been helping them. I also say to those households that they cannot look to the Opposition benches for any comfort, given the priority over there is tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: What does he say to Stephen, who wrote to me asking, “Where does the extra money needed come from? Our mortgage would now make the Sherriff of Nottingham blush.”; and when, if ever, will that Minister take responsibility for his role in getting the cost of living, and interest rates, under control?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I say to that person is, just as we have done for the last 2½ years, we will continue to support New Zealanders through tough times. We won’t flip-flop on policy, we won’t change our mind about how we deal with important issues, and we won’t have two or three policy hui a week and then have no policy ideas to give to the New Zealand public.

David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware that ANZ bank have upgraded their two-year forecast for the official cash rate eight times since February 2021, from 0.25 percent then to 5 percent now—it’s all coming through in people’s mortgage payments—and if he is aware, does he intend to make any change in policy direction so that people can see the end of these increases?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member well knows, price stability or the control of inflation is at the core of the Reserve Bank’s mandate. They are doing what they do in order to deal with that. On this side of the House, we’re making sure that we support people through targeted support to make sure it goes to the people who desperately need it, unlike parties opposite who would propose across-the-board tax cuts focused on the most wealthy.

David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance seriously saying that tax cuts offered by a party like ACT that would give $2,300 extra in the pocket to a nurse in the middle of their career earning $70,000 is just “tax cuts focused on the most wealthy”, or is it that in Grant Robertson’s Labour, $70,000 is the most wealthy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s very, very interesting—Don Brash was both the leader of the National Party and the leader of the ACT Party, and he has most recently said that now is absolutely not the time for tax cuts. I appreciate that the member might want to out - Don Brash Don Brash; that isn’t what we’re going to do.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: How is the Government partnering with iwi to enable more affordable housing in Rotorua?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Last week, the first of many new affordable homes to be delivered in Rotorua were opened to local whānau. These are the result of our Government’s partnership with Ngāti Whakaue to grow the supply of public and affordable housing in Rotorua. These homes are part of a larger multi-stage development at Wharenui Rise, bringing much needed housing to the whānau and community of Ngāti Whakaue. That is what we can achieve through local solutions and partnership, with the Government investing $55 million to fund infrastructure for the new homes.

Tāmati Coffey: What can we expect to see from this partnership?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Wharenui Rise will provide for 1,100 homes over the next 20 years, providing a community focused, environmentally friendly living space with affordable homes and kaumatua housing. The initial three stages will deliver 212 of these homes. As part of stage one, 52 homes have been completed as of November. Stage two will deliver 84 homes, with earthworks already completed, and stage three will deliver a further 76 homes, with earthworks to be started in 2023-2024.

Tāmati Coffey: What infrastructure will this partnership deliver?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The investment of $55 million will enable the future stages of the development of Wharenui Rise, $35 million will deliver improvements to State Highway 30, and work is well under way and expected to be completed by mid-2023. The improvements through the Wharenui Rise will address key transport constraints to future stages of Ngāti Whakaue Tribal Lands Wharenui Rise development. The remaining $20 million is committed to Rotorua Lakes Council for the enabling infrastructure, including local roading improvements and $15 million for sewerage and stormwater infrastructure, and these projects are expected to be completed by quarter three in 2023.

Tāmati Coffey: How will this address the housing crisis in Rotorua?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: From 2013, Rotorua’s population increased by approximately 9,000 people. In that time, only 1,000 new residential dwellings were added. The lack of any new building of State houses, coupled with a sell-off of State houses, also saw a net loss of 42 public houses between 2008 and 2017. This shortfall in housing supply drove up rents and led to overcrowding, housing stress, and, ultimately, homelessness, but we are starting to see progress. From August to October 2022, we have exited six emergency housing motels in Rotorua. We know we can’t solve this crisis on our own, and this is why we are partnering with iwi Māori as well as the community organisations and council to find and deliver solutions for Rotorua.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Is she satisfied that the Government’s response to COVID-19 is delivering equitable outcomes, including by implementing the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal in Haumaru: The COVID-19 Priority Report?

SPEAKER: I’ll just let the House know that the Minister has advised me that this answer will take a little longer than usual.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We recognise the disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on Māori, which were highlighted by the tribunal’s Haumaru report. We have made significant steps forward in addressing the disparities highlighted by the report, and actions are in place to address each of the five recommendations the report has made. With respect to the first recommendation, specific funding has been given directly to Māori health providers to support the COVID-19 response, including $29.6 million for the response into Omicron. With respect to the second recommendation, the Ministry of Health is working with Statistics New Zealand to bring together ethnicity and disability data, and analysis of that data is under way.

With respect to the third recommendation, the Māori Monitoring Group has been set up, and that enables leadership from across different sectors and communities to provide independent accountability and monitoring of the Ministry of Health with respect to its COVID-19 activities. With respect to the fourth recommendation, there is significant work under way to maximise the paediatric and booster roll-out for Māori, including sprint events conducted at the local level in collaboration with Māori health providers. And finally, to the fifth recommendation, Te Arawhiti implemented a revised Crown approach to engaging with iwi Māori on the COVID-19 response to enable Māori views to have a stronger and earlier input into the response.

Teanau Tuiono: Why did the Government remove mask mandates on public transport, despite advice from the Director-General of Health that “Māori, Pasifika, people with disabilities, and people living in areas of high deprivation are likely to be disproportionately affected if mask mandates were removed and replaced with strong recommendations.”

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We continue to recommend the use of masks on public transport and in other crowded places. The mandate is not in place because of the feasibility and practicalities of enforcing a mandate in that setting. It is worth remembering that in public transport, we’re often asking the drivers or stewards to enforce compliance with the mandate.

Teanau Tuiono: How is the Government supporting Māori and Pasifika peoples experiencing long COVID?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Long COVID is an incredibly challenging condition. I know many people with long COVID and other post-viral syndromes suffer from lack of recognition of that condition. From very early on, since there has been awareness of long COVID, we have been very clear that it is real, and reflected it in our guidelines. It is really important that people are aware of where to go in the health system to have a diagnosis and explanation and advice about their recovery. In addition, we do keep searching for new ways that we might be able to do more. In our third tranche of investment in specific COVID-19 research, we included multiple projects addressed at new science of COVID-19, including one project that would develop a patient register and another that would monitor some of the immunological characteristics of the condition.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Will the Ministry of Health commit to conducting COVID-19 prevalence surveys to provide more reliable information on the level of risk, especially within Māori and Pasifika communities and for immunocompromised and disabled people?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Thank you. As we canvassed at select committee today, we are committed to conducting a prevalence survey. I think one of the complexities that the team is working through with that study is how to get a representative sample of Māori and Pasifika, as well as the whole population. So it cannot just be a random sample; it has to have an over-representation of some of the populations that the member has mentioned. I would just like to return to the overall point here, which is that we have a wealth of data for tracking our outbreak of the pandemic in New Zealand when you look across the case reporting numbers, the use of whole genome sequencing and of wastewater sampling—all of which is broken down, where possible, by ethnicity and made publicly available very quickly.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Which specific recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal report into COVID-19 has the Government implemented in full?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I refer the member to my primary answer.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Will she commit to rolling out more effective bivalent boosters once this receives Medsafe approval, and expressly prioritise Māori and Pasifika communities, and those providers, in that roll-out?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The decision to roll-out a vaccine is based on both Medsafe approval and expert advice from the COVID-19 technical advisory group and others in the Ministry of Health, and the arrangements for the procurement of those vaccines are under way. But I do want to challenge the premise of that member’s question, and just refer her to the Good practice statement on the use of variant-containing COVID-19 vaccines published by the World Health Organization on 17 October, that are quite clear that at this stage there is no evidence of superiority of bivalent vaccines for preventing COVID-19. It is incredibly important we continue to encourage people to get boosted with the highly effective vaccine that is available.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What updates has she seen on Flexi-wage?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The success of the Government’s Flexi-wage expansion continues, with over 8,000 employers supporting over 21,500 people into jobs; 37 percent of participants identified as Māori and 13 percent as Pacific. Through Flexi-wage, employers have been able to get a wage contribution for 24 weeks at $276 a week, totalling $6,624, or 36 weeks at $206 per week, totalling $9,936. In addition, the Ministry of Social Development can provide further training and ongoing support—particularly if a person has complex or specific needs—into work. It’s been one of the many ways we’ve supported people into jobs, as well as employers to scale up their businesses, giving them the confidence to get back on their feet.

Angie Warren-Clark: How has Flexi-wage supported people off benefit and into work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Of those on benefit for two-plus years at referral, 90 percent are current, have completed, or finished early and are not currently on benefit. On Monday, I visited a Flexi-wage employer and met one worker who had been on benefit for 25 years, but, through Flexi-wage, was supported into a job and is loving it. It’s stories like these which really reinforce how lives can be transformed through interventions and tools that our Government has put in place to support people, particularly as we come out the other end of COVID, and support families, at the same time, with the cost of living.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why does Flexi-wage continue to be an important part of New Zealand’s economic recovery?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If there’s one lesson we’ve been able to take from COVID-19, it’s been that our deliberate approach to targeted support and programmes is successful in getting people into jobs and keeping them off benefit, as well as securing our economic recovery. It’s a tool that is also helping to meet skills and workforce shortages and employ jobseekers in many different sectors, including construction, retail, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and food services. We need to continue building the skills of the people moving into the workforce, especially Māori and Pacific, parents and carers, disabled people, and people with health conditions. Flexi-wage sits alongside a suite of employment interventions and is part of an economic recovery and plan that leaves no one behind.

Angie Warren-Clark: What other evidence has she seen that shows Flexi-wage has supported our economic recovery?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Flexi-wage has been one of the many interventions that has contributed to a record-low, or near - record-low, unemployment rate of 3.3 percent, and a record-high participation rate of 71.7 percent. An extra 35,000 people were employed in the quarter, leading to a record-high number of 2.85 million people in work, and jobseeker work-ready numbers continue to fall, quarter on quarter. We know that many people are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures, but with the support of paid work, expanded childcare assistance, an extension to our fuel tax cut, and reduced road-user charges, we’re easing the pressure on families. As we’ve always said, our job is far from over, but we’re certainly making progress.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the justice system is delivering justice for the victims of crime?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): It’s fair to say we are always looking to ensure that we get the overall settings right for the justice system, including for victims. In terms of support for victims, the Government has doubled funding for the Victim Assistance Scheme since being in office; and in Budget 2022, we put aside significant resources for a whole-of-Government support programme for victims of crime. The Government has put record levels of police on the beat, passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, invested over $1 billion into family violence and sexual violence systems since 2018, is making legislative changes to target organised crime, and a team has recently been established within the Ministry of Justice to drive further policy change to improve the system for victims. As the member will be aware, though, the responsibility for convictions and sentencing sits with the courts.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she accept there is a perception out there, described most recently by Dr Greg Newbold, emeritus professor of criminology at the University of Canterbury, “This whole kindness thing means people can do what the hell they want, especially young offenders.”, and if so, does she acknowledge that the sense that there are no consequences is a big part of the problem and is creating more victims?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Whilst I’m not so familiar with the quote, to the sentiment: New Zealanders want to ensure that when we’re taking a victim-centric approach, that we’re not ultimately gearing more young people up to be lifelong seasoned criminals to go on and create more harm and, therefore, further victims.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What responsibility, if any, does she take for the perception there are no consequences for serious youth crime having developed after five years of her Government’s justice policy?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well, I could point to statistics, which will show that over past 10 years in New Zealand, in the United States, in Australia, and in the United Kingdom—that in every single one of those jurisdictions over the last 10 years, we have seen youth crime rates go down and down and down. Or I could point to statistics just here in New Zealand, which will show that when we do get spikes of crime—for example, in the areas of ram raids—with efficient and effective policing, we see prosecutions and we see those people that are responsible for those crimes being apprehended and dealt to by the justice system.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she accept that a culture of excuses has developed under her Government, where serious young offenders are given multiple chances, while the victims of the crime often have no choice but to give up running their shops or to live in fear, like the teenagers beaten up at Queensgate Mall bus shelter on Saturday have to do?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, I don’t accept that statement at all.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she agree then with the Prime Minister’s statement, a few weeks ago, that we need a “wider range of tools” to respond to serious youth crime, and, if so, how many more months will victims have to wait to see these new tools actually delivered?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Absolutely; I always agree with the Prime Minister and she’s absolutely right: we do need broader tools to deal with youth crime. We’ve started that; we’ve had the announcement by Minister Hipkins and Minister Sepuloni, where we have invested targeted resource into prevention and rehabilitation. Why do we do that? We do that because we ultimately want to curb criminal activities in a lifelong trajectory. On this side of the House, we think that’s the right investment to make.

Question No. 8—Health

8. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any advice saying “that many health professions are experiencing workforce shortages and should be included in the Green List now”; if so, when, if at all, will he advocate to get such health professions on the Green List?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): To the first part of the member’s question, this Government created the Green List, which has made it easier than ever to come to New Zealand to practise as a nurse and indeed many other health professions. From the beginning, we built into the policy a review for early next year, and I’ve been consistently clear that we are keeping a watching brief in the meantime. In light of information that some medical disciplines in short supply were not being granted accredited employer work visas on the Green List, I requested advice from the Ministry of Health on which disciplines they considered should be on the Green List. The advice I received stated as the member’s question states; however, the ministry has advised the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that many health professions are experiencing workforce shortages and should be included in the Green List now. To the second part of the member’s question, I continue to work with colleagues, officials, and stakeholders on addressing the current workforce shortages, considering all avenues, including immigration and also long-term workforce planning measures. The latter was the subject of a day-long discussion with around 220 health workforce representatives on Saturday, which the member was invited to but which she did not attend.

Brooke van Velden: Why is his Government yet to add the 30 health professions identified in this briefing by the Ministry of Health as experiencing staff shortages to the Green List?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If the member had read the document that she is in possession of, she would see that MBIE had advised the Ministry of Health of the additional professions that they were adding to the Green List. That arose out of confusion on the part of Immigration New Zealand, who, when they saw the term “specialist physician”, did not seem to know what that applied to and were in fact denying specialist physicians of a range of disciplines access to visas under the Green List. That is now in the process of being rectified.

Erica Stanford: Why, when I asked the Minister last week why gastroenterologists, paediatricians, and oncologists weren’t on the Green List, did he say, “It’s my understanding that they are.”, given that he was provided with a briefing containing 30 medical specialities not on the Green List, including these three specialists; was he wrong or did he not read the briefing correctly?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. The member doesn’t understand what a specialist physician is. Those roles are specialist physicians and the advice I received was late in the afternoon last Wednesday.

Brooke van Velden: Does he agree with Ministry of Health officials that there is a problem when they stated in their briefing to him on 9 November 2022: “There is a risk to the delivery of health services if these professions are not included on the Green List.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, and I think what the member is not saying, presumably for reasons of her own convenience, is that many of those disciplines were expected to be candidates for accredited employer work visas on the Green List because they were specialist physicians.

Brooke van Velden: If there are actions the Government could take tomorrow to get these 30 professions, including dentists, nurse practitioners, and paramedics, into the country, why wouldn’t the Government just do it?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government has established the Green List to allow ease of access not just to the country but to residency in this country as a way of ensuring that we can fill the gaps that we had. But if you have a look at the experience, for example, of the visas we’ve had in place for some time, particularly the critical work purpose visa, and knowing that we are still admitting to the country now people who were granted those visas at the beginning of the year, there is always a lag, and so we always have that. When we establish rules and put in place a category called “specialist physician”, health professionals understand what that means; immigration officials don’t always understand what that means. When we discover that there is a misunderstanding, we then seek to rectify it.

Erica Stanford: Can he confirm that “specialist physicians not elsewhere classified” refers specifically to Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations code 253399, 13 medical specialties, not including gastroenterologists, paediatricians, and oncologists, and why did he say that they were on the Green List last week?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Green List has a category called “specialist physician”. The recommendation of MBIE now is to have a category called “specialist physician with some particular disciplines excluded”. When the member asked me the question, the category that qualified for admission to the country, under the Green List, was “specialist physician”; that included gastroenterologists and paediatric specialists, which were the two particular disciplines referred to in her question.

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that most of the specialist medical roles under discussion will have a residency pathway in New Zealand through the skilled migrant category that the Government opened up last month?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I can, and what I can also confirm to the House is that the Minister of Immigration and I are in regular contact, reviewing the data, reviewing the numbers of people who are being granted visas, on the Green List and off it, and we continue to keep that under review.

Erica Stanford: Why, when I asked him last week why gastroenterologists, paediatricians, and oncologists weren’t on the Green List, not mentioning anything to do with specialist physicians, did he say that it was “my understanding that they are”, and, was it, in fact, him that was confused, rather than Immigration New Zealand?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, the member was confused; I was correct.

Question No. 9—Tourism

9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcement has the Government recently made on supporting the tourism sector?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Some great news. Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced that the Government’s tourism innovation fund is now open for applications. The $54 million fund will support projects that reduce emissions, enhance our natural environment, and use innovation to improve the resilience and productivity of the sector. Moving to this regenerative model will provide a huge boost to New Zealand’s tourism recovery. I also announced last week that Saturday’s arrival of the first direct Air Canada flight from Vancouver in almost two years means that Auckland Airport is now the most connected airport to North America across the whole of Australasia.

Jamie Strange: Why is it important to move to a regenerative tourism model?

Hon STUART NASH: We want to ensure that tourism has a positive impact on the environment and our communities, and this is what regenerative tourism is fundamentally about. Also, from a “Brand New Zealand” perspective, it’s very important that we continue to preserve our natural environment and build social licence across our communities. That’s what the tourism innovation partnership will help us achieve, but most importantly, it plays into my vision for tourism—that being that New Zealand is one of the top three aspirational destinations for the world’s most discerning travellers.

Jamie Strange: How is increased air connectivity helping to support New Zealand’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH: Extensive airline schedules now connect Aotearoa New Zealand directly to eight destinations in North America. Auckland Airport confirmed that October was the busiest school holidays since 2019, with 600,000 passengers flying both domestically and internationally via Auckland Airport. Our improved air connectivity is a huge advantage for our tourism recovery heading into summer.

Jamie Strange: Supplementary—[Interruption] There’s more! What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH: Good news again. Data released from Stats New Zealand yesterday highlighted the continued growth in international visitor numbers, with overseas visitors for the month of September continuing the upward growth trend. Along with international tourism, electronic card transaction spend was up 2 percent on pre-COVID levels. This summer is going to truly be a fantastic one for tourism across our wonderful country.

Question No. 10—Immigration

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): What is the total number of offshore nurses that submitted their application in April this year to come to New Zealand compared to October this year, and why has the number of offshore nurses applying to come to New Zealand declined every month since he introduced the new Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) on 4 July 2022?

SPEAKER: Yeah; it wasn’t read as written, but the Minister can answer as it’s written.

10. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: What is the total number of offshore nurses that submitted their application in April this year to come to New Zealand compared to October this year, and why does he think the number of offshore nurses applying to come to New Zealand has declined every month since he introduced the new Accredited Employer Work Visa on 4 July 2022?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I reject the premise of the member’s question, and I’m happy to explain that clearly and fully for the benefit of the House. I’m advised that there are 141 offshore critical purpose visa applications, made up of both Competency Assessment Programme—that is CAP—and non-CAP nurses accepted for processing by Immigration New Zealand in April 2022, and 39 applications received under the Accredited Employer Work Visa in October. However, as repeatedly advised to the member through written parliamentary questions, CAP nurses are not recorded under this visa and now arrive on visitor visas instead. As such, those figures do not give the full picture of the number of nurses who are successfully attracted to New Zealand. To get a fuller picture, I note that October Nursing Council data shows 243 nurses based offshore were approved for registration in New Zealand, subject to them successfully completing their CAP course.

I note that this figure has trended up significantly since May of this year, and is over double that month’s figure of 105 nurses. Immigration New Zealand have completed 5,452 job checks and approved 480 work visas for nurses since the introduction of the AEWV—a proportion of which will be for some of over 1,200 nurses based offshore approved for registration in New Zealand since May of this year, subject to them successfully completing the CAP course. In the end, it doesn’t actually matter which visa nurses from overseas have come to New Zealand in; it matters how many we’re getting here registered, and the trend there is positive.

Erica Stanford: Can he confirm, then, in light of that answer, that in October the number of nurses applying to come to New Zealand under a visitor visa to do their CAP course was zero?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I wouldn’t have confidence in the member’s figures; in fact, in the month of October, the number of CAP nurses receiving registration from outside of New Zealand was 243. In terms of the total number of CAP nurses from outside of New Zealand, in the May to July quarter there were 390 who were registered by the Nursing Council; that increased to 854 in the three months from August to October.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Do your maths.

Erica Stanford: Can I have another supplementary for that?

SPEAKER: Yeah. Interjections while member’s asking questions: out of order.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the very generous Speaker to give me another supplementary question for that interjection?

SPEAKER: I’ll see how this one goes first.

Erica Stanford: OK, thank you. Why is the Minister referring to Nursing Council data rather than his own data of nurses applying for visas that he provided to me in written parliamentary question 40233 that shows only five nurses in September applied for a visitor visa to come to New Zealand to undertake a CAP course?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because I’m giving an accurate number about the number of nurses from offshore who are registered to work in New Zealand. To give the full picture of that, I can perhaps quote from the number of internationally qualified nurses who have been registered in New Zealand over the course of this year, which include those coming in through the CAP programme, and include those who are offered direct registration from overseas. In the February to April quarter, that was 750; it grew to 1,125 in the May to July quarter, and then grew to 1,655 in the August to October quarter. We are making real progress, no matter how much the member tries to play with numbers to draw the opposite conclusions.

SPEAKER: Go on, then.

Erica Stanford: Why, when official advice from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in February stated that a fast track to residence could lead to “rapid growth of the migrant nursing workforce” did he not put nurses on this immediate pathway to encourage this rapid growth, given that we are 4,000 nurses short?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Over the course of question time today, at various times the Opposition has asked that the Government do exactly what officials advised and then at other times they have implied that we should ignore the advice of officials. The reality is that the Government receives advice from officials and receives advice from sectors and then makes balanced decisions. We have, in fact, created a fast-track residency programme for nurses, which enables them to receive residency after two years in New Zealand—that is a more generous pathway than ever existed under the previous National Government—for all 13 occupational categories of nurses and, as I have just demonstrated, in every quarter of this year the number of internationally qualified nurses being registered in New Zealand has increased.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does she stand by the statement the Minister of Agriculture made in relation to the Government’s agricultural emissions pricing proposals, “we’ve set a target of 10 percent reduction in methane by 2030. I think that is quite achievable with the existing technologies”; if so, how many of those existing technologies are currently commercially available within New Zealand?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Acting Minister of Agriculture): In response to the first part of the question, yes, in the full context the statement was given. I stand by a 10 percent reduction in methane by 2030 being achievable through existing technology with some incentives from pricing. In terms of the second part of the question, specific mitigation technologies commercially available now include low-methane sheep genetics, the effluent pond treatment technology EcoPond, and urease inhibitor - coated urea. We believe technology, along with incentives from pricing, will contribute significantly to meeting the legislated target of a 10 percent reduction in biogenic methane from 2017 levels by 2030. This work is not finalised, and we are currently in consultation with industry and are focused on working alongside farmers in this regard.

Mark Cameron: Can the Minister guarantee that these technologies will allow farmers to reduce emissions sufficient to avoid net revenue losses of 18 to 24 percent for sheep and beef and 6 to 7 percent for dairy, as outlined on page 60 of the Government’s pricing agricultural emissions consultation document?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The figures modelled in the discussion document are based on a wide range of assumptions, such as prices for emissions, the efficacy cost, and the availability of mitigation technologies and agriculture commodity prices. Production is not productivity. We have not made any decisions and Ministers will be reviewing submissions on the proposals and taking advice from officials.

Mark Cameron: Is it fair that the Government will generate an estimated $140 million annual surplus from farmers when the Government’s own consultation document shows that 65 percent of agricultural emission reductions will be leaked offshore to higher-emitting competitors who are not priced on their emissions?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: In the many recommendations that our partners presented this Government, the ring-fencing of the levies to put back into technology was one of the very things that this Government has agreed to.

Mark Cameron: How can the Minister guarantee farmer compliance with any agricultural emissions pricing set by this Government, considering that Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, Dairy New Zealand, and Groundswell do not accept the Government’s proposals?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: That’s not accurate. In the proposal presented, by majority the Government has accepted on behalf of the partners that have sat around the He Waka Eke Noa table. What we are getting out for consultation is seeking the views of farmers up and down the country on the two key issues around sequestration and pricing of emissions, and I welcome those that are joining in to put the submission in.

Question No. 12—Trade and Export Growth

12. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcement has he made regarding the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): On Sunday, the Prime Minister and I announced the conclusion of negotiations on an upgrade to the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement, known as ANZFTA. This free-trade agreement (FTA) has been instrumental in growing our trade with South-east Asia over the last decade. We now trade more with ASEAN in a week than we did in a year in the 1970s, and the upgrade will provide our businesses with even greater opportunity.

Helen White: What is the significance of the announcement?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, ASEAN, as a block, is New Zealand’s third-largest trading partner, and in 2021 alone, New Zealand exported more than $7 billion of goods and services to the 10 ASEAN countries—that’s almost 10 percent of our exports. The significance, though, of the upgrade goes beyond trade. It reflects the strength of our partnership with ASEAN, which is more important than ever at a time of global insecurity.

Helen White: What are the benefits for New Zealand?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the deal will reduce compliance costs and cut red tape, supporting our businesses to be more competitive in one of the world’s biggest markets. It provides more certainty and transparency for exporters, service providers, and investors; streamlined customs procedures; and stronger e-commerce rules. The upgrade also introduces a framework for cooperation on sustainable trade issues, including the environment, labour standards, and women’s economic empowerment—the first time in an ASEAN trade agreement.

Helen White: Why are free-trade agreements like the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement such a priority in the Government’s economic plan?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Since coming to office, our Government has signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and FTAs with the UK and the European Union, we’ve signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership covering one third of the global economy, and we’ve upgraded the China FTA and, now, our ASEAN FTA. As the world feels the impact of global economic pressures, securing these high-quality, modern free-trade agreements is essential to the economic recovery.

General Debate

General Debate

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I want New Zealanders to know our country can be better than this. These past five years, it’s lost its way, but National has a plan to get it back on track, and our plan is built on values. They are National Party values, and they are what we stand for.

One of those values is equal opportunity, and we know that education is the great equaliser. We owe it to every New Zealand child that they have a good education, but truancy is our national disease, and there is no equal opportunity, there can be no equal opportunity, while two out of five of our children are attending school regularly and three are not. No more excuses. The National Party will not bow down to the soft bigotry of low expectations. We will expect every child, every school, and every parent to work to get our kids back in the classroom, because we stand for equal opportunity.

We stand for personal responsibility. We will not stand by while another shop owner every day is ram raided by youths who don’t respect the law and do not respect the idea of personal responsibility and consequences. On our watch, they will be held accountable for their offending, with the sentencing needed to send them the message that they are responsible.

We stand for reward for effort and achievement. We know that, when New Zealanders get up in the morning and they toil and they sacrifice through their day, they don’t expect the Government to solve every problem for them, but they do expect the Government to be disciplined about its own spending, so that they can hold on to a little bit more of their own money. And, because we believe in reward for effort and we believe in reward for achievement, we will deliver that. We know that money does not grow on trees—that, no matter how beautifully our opponents divide the pie, their division will not make New Zealand grow stronger. Instead, we stand for competitive enterprise.

We stand for our farmers, our small-business owners. We stand up for the people who get up in the morning and work hard to create value, to create growth. We stand for them, and we stand for limited Government, because we know that red tape and rules and intervention and centralisation and bureaucracy will not solve our nation’s problems. These are not the answers. Even if they hire 14,000 more public servants, our problems will not be solved by that, because it’s not a Government department that gets it done; it’s strong families, it’s strong communities, and National stands for them.

We also stand for individual freedom and individual choice. We do not stand for a Government that is overbearing, that gets itself involved in matters that belong with families and belong with communities. We value the Treaty of Waitangi as this nation’s founding document, and we stand for the premise within it—the premise of equal citizenship. We know that, under equal citizenship, there is one vote for one person. We will be loyal to that democratic principle, because that is a founding value of this country and of our party.

There are two other things that National stands for that New Zealand needs right now, and they’re two things that you will never hear uttered by the members opposite, and they are ambition and success—ambition for this great country and the lives of every New Zealander who resides in it. And we will back them to be successful. We will not tolerate the pattern of failure, the inability to deliver, that has become customary and expected under these past five years of Labour leadership.

We know this country can be successful again, and we will do it by bringing National Party values to bear on our country: equal opportunity, personal responsibility, reward for effort and achievement, competitive enterprise, limited Government, strong families, caring communities, equal citizenship. New Zealand is in a bad way, but hope is on its way.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I know focus groups are expensive, but when you see the deputy leader of the Opposition just run out every line they’ve tested for the last three months you know that this is a National Party bereft of policy. All we are hearing is trotted out clichés in a speech from Nicola Willis that quite frankly could have been 25 years ago. Where are the 21st century ideas from the Opposition?

This week the world has gathered to further action on climate change at COP27. And what do we have happening here in New Zealand? Well, we have ambition and we have success from the Government: 97 percent renewable energy generation last week, and just today we announced a package of Government-funded, innovative projects to cut transport emissions and costs including, for the first time, in the marine sector. But what have we seen from the National Party? What we have seen is the National Party falling into the abyss of their carbon black hole. They are no longer content with wallowing in their fiscal Bermuda Triangle, they’ve now gone a’tunnelling, and they’re tunnelling down into a carbon black hole—to the tune of 23.92 million tonnes of carbon that the National Party now has to stand up and account to. They are the party of “No”, they are telling us what they won’t do to cut emissions, they’ve signed up to carbon budgets, they’ve said they’re all in—Christopher Luxon said it’s one if his key priorities. So tell us what you’re going to do. You’ve told us what you’re not going to do, you’re not going to cut transport emissions, you’re not going to help industry cut their emissions, so stump up and tell us where you’re going to find 23 million tonnes worth of carbon cuts. Let’s put that in context: that is more than two times Auckland’s total emissions; that is 1.2 million cars that will have to be taken off the roads by 2030 if they’re not going to come through with what they are actually going to do.

So what have we seen? We’ve seen Christopher Luxon is in a mess over their climate policy, despite saying it’s one of his key priorities and all afresh from greenwashing it in New Zealand, he comes in and says that he’s going to lead the National Party into a bright future, a carbon future. Well, all we’ve seen is U-turn on U-turn on U-turn from Mr Luxon. I suggest the leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon, is suffering from a sustained loss of traction. He better worry because “Crusher Collins” will be coming for him. We know what she likes to do. Don’t lose—

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I’m going to interrupt you. Members should not refer to other members by nicknames. Full names, thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Apologies, Mr Speaker. Mr Luxon should be careful because Judith Collins will be coming for him. But, I suggest that Mr Luxon also start putting together a new calendar, one that is round, one that has no dates, one that has no detail. And I think what we do is we update the Gregorian calendar with the Luxonian calendar—you just spin it round and round, you don’t give any details, you don’t give any dates, and you don’t say what you’re going to do.

Because that is what we are seeing from the National Party. All they can come up with—they’ve said, “Look, we’re going to leave it to the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The ETS can do this alone.” New Zealanders need to understand what that means, if we leave all this to the emissions trading scheme. This has been laid out really clearly. So their “We’re not going to do anything” hands off, go round and round in circles approach is going to mean that if we’re going to remove transport emissions with things other than innovative projects like our Government has put forward—and they’ve just said no for—we will need to see a carbon price of around $575 a tonne to achieve the kind of cuts we need. This will mean an extra $1.30 at the pump for every litre of petrol if we leave this to the ETS alone—

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): What New Zealanders need to be aware of is that under this Government we’re importing three times more dirty Indonesian coal into New Zealand. When Grant Robertson gets up and speaks in the House, we can smell the coal on his breath. It’s the same with Megan Woods. And by the way, when most countries are actually trying to transition into cleaner fuels using gas, what have we done? We’ve done it using Indonesian coal—we’ve done it using Indonesian coal. Well done, Government! And she’s got the gall to stand up in this House and start challenging us on what we want to do and the fact that we want to use the emissions trading scheme (ETS).

By the way, the ETS has been very effective. It’s already been adopted through many sectors and actually—surprise, surprise—a lot of businesses and industries in New Zealand take climate change seriously. They are making positive steps to try and reduce emissions, and maybe this Government should actually trust them a bit more and work with them a bit more closely; unlike what they’ve done with the primary industries, where they came up with He Waka Eke Noa, which was a very good proposal; they’re taking it seriously. What does the Government do? What does the Minister do? What does the Minister do on the Mike Hosking show? She turns around and when I said, “Why don’t you just adopt and work with what the primary industries are saying?”, she said to me, “That’s why you shouldn’t be in Government.” An arrogant Government that thinks that they are the only ones that have got the good ideas. They think that they’re the only ones that can make the decisions. An arrogant Government already, in its second term. Actually, it was arrogant in its first term.

I just want to get back to crime in this country, because I have never seen crime and lawlessness at the levels at which we are currently seeing in New Zealand. It is serious, and then there’s a big human toll attached to this. The one thing that I’m really disappointed about is that during question time, my friend Paul Goldsmith asked the Minister of Justice why we don’t hear about victims much any more—what are they actually doing to put victims at the heart of our criminal justice system, which is where they should be. In her reply, she said, “We don’t control the sentencing. We don’t control the consequences. That sits with the judges.” Yes, that does sit with the judges. I acknowledge that and I accept that. But the one piece of legislation that we actually had on our books was the three strikes legislation. That was the one bit of legislation that actually removed the bit of discretion from the judges. It was actually the voice of the people and the voice of the victims that said, “Actually, you’re going to apply some proper consequences.” And what did they do? They rushed into this House, before anything else—so the only bit of legislation that victims’ advocacy and support groups have come to the select committee and made submissions on, saying, “Please don’t get rid of it.”, where the victims’ voices to this Government were saying, “Please do not get rid of this legislation.”, what did they do? They rushed it through the House. It was their priority.

So don’t come into this House crying crocodile tears on the other side of the House and say that you take victims seriously. You don’t. You don’t listen to them. You rejected their submissions and you got rid of the one bit of legislation that actually meant that there was some proper tough sentencing, in this House. And you can give me all the puzzled looks you want—you can give me all the puzzled looks you want. You know exactly what I’m talking about.

And now we’re dealing with a tsunami of youth and juvenile offending. One ram raid every 15 hours—a 500 percent increase in ram raids since 2018. Get your head around that one. A 500 percent increase. There have been more ram raids in 2022 than there were in 2018, 2019, and 2020 combined. When I’m doing public safety meetings around the country, of which I’ve done 15—standing room only—if there’s South Africans in the room, they’ll come up to me and they’ll say, “We came to New Zealand 20 years ago because this was a safe country and we wanted to raise our families in a safe country.” And they said “The things that we see now in this country with ram raid after ram raid, with carjackings, with the rise in violent crime, if we don’t get on top of it, then we’re going to look like South Africa in another 10 or 15 years.”

That is a warning that we need to heed and we need to respond to. We need to get behind our police force. I’m sick of these guys saying they have to work faster and work harder. They’re dealing with a tsunami of crime that’s stretching them, that’s stretched our brave blue line, which means that they’re having to prioritise now. They can have up to 60 or 70 jobs waiting in a queue to be attended, and they can have two police units. So just think about that. The Police Commissioner said last week there’s been a 60 percent increase in family crime, family harm incidents, and mental health incidents, whilst there’s been a 20 increase in numbers. Just think about that.

So when these guys stand and say “You’re going to move faster”—

SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The doom and gloom and woe of those people on that side of the House just would make you think that the sun isn’t shining, but go the Black Ferns. They won the Rugby World Cup, and communities big and small, families of all types, women and girls saw, in the Black Ferns, the type of New Zealand that we want for the future. They reflect the true spirit of who New Zealand is becoming—a small and proud nation, bold, confident, ambitious, unafraid to pursue and reflect its true potential. But then there’s Ruby Tui, and didn’t she exemplify the New Zealand that we are becoming when she called everyone from across the stadium in a rousing, raucous roar to sing “Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi”.

Let’s all come together to make this New Zealand the country we all believe in, the country we are becoming, because so many good things are happening. Through our efforts combined, on the sports field, in our communities, through an active Government, we are a different New Zealand than the one that those members on that side of the bench would have us believe. Why? Because the Government are seeking solutions in the hardest of times—COVID, a global pandemic, but what did we do? We put people first, and then we knew that by putting people first, we would secure a resilient economy when it came time to focus on economic recovery.

Then there’s conflict and crisis in another part of the world having a significant impact on inflation in New Zealand, supply chains, the ability to make things happen. This Government didn’t sit back and say, “Oh no, it’s all too hard.” We leaned in and said, “We will not take an austerity approach. We will support businesses when they need it. We will support families when they need it. We will support those on low incomes when they need it.” Because if we do not, then we are being irresponsible, and that is not the pathway of this Government.

And then there’s climate change. At a time when many members on that side of the House would say, “Oh, no—oh, no, don’t do anything in the climate change space.”, we know that moving to a low-carbon economy is a must and a necessity at this time. We’re working with international partners on a global response to this most significant challenge, the existential challenge in the Pacific, because we know that it must happen so that our kids, their kids can secure a future that will secure them a longevity at a time when our environment is under threat.

This is not a Government that leans back at a time when we need leadership. We are lucky to have a leader in the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern who is engaging with the world as we speak, saying that New Zealand may be small, but just like the Black Ferns, we believe in ourselves. We will present ourselves to the world on the most difficult of issues at a time when we still need to secure support from many, many partners, opening up our trade avenues, ensuring that we are standing for those values that represent the very best of who New Zealand is—optimistic, forward looking, ensuring that we have an economic resilience that will build itself based on our investment in our people and what we take to market in our differentiation. We’re confident about that. But no, you get voices from that side of the House that are doom and gloom, no solutions, kicking the can down the road.

I’m so proud about many of the announcements that we’ve made just recently: unbundling the resource management system in a way that we can underpin growth throughout our region; making sure that we have cheaper, faster, better resource management law to ensure that we can build houses, homes for people, ensuring that the regions will continue to grow; ensuring that we can work with all stakeholders—business, industry, and our communities—to underpin what is essential to their growth. That’s what unbundling the resource management system will deliver.

This is a Government that leans forward in the hardest of times, not back, saying, “Oh, it’s everybody else’s problem.”, which is what members on that side of the House are saying. Because it’s too hard, they kick hard issues down the road, they kick the things that matter most to people. They’re going to give tax cuts to the rich rather than supporting those families who need it most at a time when we need responsible Government with ideas and solutions that are going to continue to lean forward and lead, just like the Black Ferns did.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Two years ago, an ex-teaching colleague sent me an abusive email and said, “It’s all about the money; you obviously don’t care about your kids.”, and why else would I join ACT. This was an experienced teacher who has been influencing young people for the last three or four decades, and the email ended with, “You really must hate this Government.” It got me thinking: I didn’t hate the Government, I really just wasn’t happy with the way things were heading with business, education, and police—and I’ve decided to do something about it. It also reminded me how divisive politics can be.

Being the most divisive Government in New Zealand history is how this Government will be remembered. You name it, farmers against townies; landlords against tenants; vilifying licensed firearm-owners; men versus women; New Zealand Rugby, the scheduling blunder with the All Blacks and the Black Ferns games couldn’t be just an innocent mistake—couldn’t just be an innocent mistake—it had to be avoidable and disgraceful. It’s just so divisive. Everything is divisive. Then, we have employers against employees. The attempt to demonise people who have put their future on the line starting or buying a business to build a better life for themselves and provide employment for hundreds and thousands of other New Zealanders is despicable, and the ignorance of this Government about what actually happens in New Zealand businesses is really quite astounding. The divisive fair pay agreements, or industrial awards, will hurt hard-working employees. While the gallery had many supporters during the third reading, it could have been filled to overflowing with those employees against it—except they were out working.

The saddest thing I’ve had to do in the last two years, since I came into this place was, one month after joining, I had to add a race relations folder to my laptop. I really didn’t expect that everything this Government would do would revolve around race. They don’t understand that most New Zealanders don’t look at each other through their lens. There are thousands of clubs and sports teams around the country—rugby, netball, you name it—that have played together for years, loving each other’s company while accepting we’re all different. But, now, they wonder what’s happened to the country they knew. The ignorant attacks on our fantastic police by irresponsible politicians and media have even convinced police hierarchy that there’s a race problem. The multi-million dollar enquiry will show that there isn’t.

But the most disgraceful example of what this Government is doing to this country is the division it is intentionally creating in our young people, openly promoting it through our education system. Two weeks ago, I spoke to an ex-student of mine who recently returned with her husband after seven years in Australia. She said she didn’t recognise her country anymore after their son came home from school and asked “Why does the teacher want to know if I’m Māori?” They’re heading back to Australia where they’re just treated like hard-working members of society. I know a highly skilled, wonderful relief teacher who recently walked into a classroom to be greeted by a year 9 boy with “Great, another old white woman who stole our land.” I happen to know the boy’s family and they are as privileged as Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis. This is the vision that this Government has created.

This morning, I heard a member of the House refer to anyone who doesn’t agree with them as having “white fragility”, and it made me feel sick. Universities are openly advertising for Māori and Pasifika quotas. Managers actually think it’s acceptable to cut staff based on ethnicity. And the scary thing is that they don’t even think that it’s wrong.

ACT will put a stop to this divisive nonsense and promote New Zealand as the modern, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy that it is. The Ministry of Education will be in for a big shake up: the woke agendas that are causing so much harm to our kids will end; students will be able to fulfil their potential and not be labelled victim or villain, depending on who their grandparents were; and we’ll have a history curriculum that doesn’t leave out major parts of this great country. Schools will be held accountable. Teachers will be appreciated. Front-line police will be supported and given the resources and assurance that the Government has their backs. Youth aid will be properly funded. Younger violent offenders will be held accountable. Businesses will be encouraged to make a profit, not have continual costs and legislation put on them—costs that discourage growth and make it impossible to look after those employees who work hard and appreciate their job.

We’ve get a big job ahead to undo the damage caused by the most divisive Government in the history of New Zealand, and New Zealanders can’t wait for us to start. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I want to start by paying acknowledgments through a Māori lens, and that is to the wonderful, great New Zealander Tā Harawira Gardiner. There was a wonderful rā whakamaumaharatanga, remembrance service, for that distinguished New Zealander rangatira, and that is the work and that is the legacy that he has laid down, and I’m really disappointed by the ACT member in terms of taking us back to way into the last century with his views in terms of race relations in Aotearoa. Tā Harawira Gardiner was an outstanding servant of the public service, he had a distinguished military career, and he laid a legacy.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And the National Party.

RINO TIRIKATENE: And even though he was partial to the blue side of the House—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Partial? He bled blue.

RINO TIRIKATENE: We note that, but we pay that respect, and that’s what we do in Māori.

Āpiti hono, tātai hono. Rātou te hunga wairua ki a rātou. Āpiti hono, tātai hono. Ko tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[The lines are unbroken. Let the dead rest with the dead. The lines are unbroken. Let us, the living, be with the living. Greetings one and all.]

Now, with that out of the way, to the business at hand. I’m delighted to be a member of this Government. What a wonderful, unified team that we have. We have an economic plan which is actually achieving results for New Zealand in spite of the global turmoil and difficult circumstances that the world is facing at the moment.

I want to acknowledge our Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern; our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson; and Stuart Nash, our Minister for Economic and Regional Development. We have an economic plan, and it is delivering for New Zealand because our economy is growing: tourism is back and it’s up; goods exports in our term of Government have been going up every year. We are delivering for New Zealand in two particular areas too: the lowest unemployment rate for Māori and Pasifika we have achieved as a Government, and also the highest employment rate for women, for wāhine, across Aotearoa. We have achieved that through our management of the economy in spite of the difficult and challenging global situation that we’re in.

And as part of our economic plan, we are strengthening those foundational elements to our economy, and I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker, Minister for the Environment, and his associate the Hon Kiritapu Allan for their work in introducing—we’re getting rid of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and we have two new pieces of legislation which will make it cheaper, faster, and better for resource management processes and resource management law—long overdue, long overdue. This is something the Opposition could never deliver. Even with their nine years of power, they could never deliver what we have achieved in these landmark pieces of legislation. So I commend them for their work, the work of this Government—including dealing with difficult issues around Māori issues, infrastructure, local government, all of those issues. To be able to bring forward that legislation is a really great achievement that we are doing.

So our economy is doing well. We are making foundational changes through the RMA. And I want to talk about the strengthening that we are doing in our international connections. As we’ve heard during question time today, we have achieved more in terms of free-trade relationships and free-trade agreements than the last Government when they were in power: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, upgrades to the China FTA. We’ve just heard about the recent Association of South-east Asian Nations FTA. We are doing so much work, and our Prime Minister is currently over at APEC meetings and the East Asia Summit, leading business delegations. We are doing the work in terms of reconnecting with the world to ensure that we can have those important agreements in place which can support our exporters and which can bring forward greater revenues and greater returns to all of New Zealand. That’s a hallmark of our trade-for-all agenda, and we are excelling in terms of the achievement that we are making on the international stage. So I’m really proud of the achievements that we are doing, but we know that there is a lot more work to do, and that’s why we’re working hard as a team to ensure that we can continue to build the foundations for a strong economy to ensure that it can deliver for all New Zealanders.

One final shout-out, again, to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development for his economic plan that he has put out and he is championing for New Zealand and that is delivering for us all. Kia ora tātou.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): When the regions are strong, New Zealand is strong, and no stronger than in Hawke’s Bay, where we have had the strongest regional growth of any region in the country, on pre-pandemic levels, of 8.7 percent. We are growing good jobs, and we are growing the regions, where Hastings, in the heart of the Tukituki electorate, is absolutely booming. Strong regional growth, with a Government economic and regional economic plan developed through the pandemic, has focused on supporting local businesses to grow jobs and wages.

In Tukituki, we are an outstanding example of this Government’s working together with local government, with local business, and with iwi, and that’s what is happening right on the home front in Hastings. By collaboration and working together, we are enabling more and more opportunities to keep the region growing now and into the future, and that’s how we keep this region, and the regions of New Zealand, going. Our Government is delivering on our housing build programme in Hastings, growing more jobs and more jobs. This is getting people into warm and affordable, dry homes, all the while backing building, civil, trades, and service businesses and training up a future workforce.

We are seeing record investment, record Government investment, into Hawke’s Bay: $300 million worth of Government investment into projects; $34 million of civil works for housing development right in Hastings; $15 million worth for jobs and roading projects right in Hastings; $30 million worth of drinking water and water storage to grow our region; $37 million into sporting facilities, where we have seen one of the best, game-changing Olympic swimming aquatic centres for the world delivered right in Hastings. Mr Speaker, you had the opportunity to see that—

SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into the debate.

ANNA LORCK: —building right from the ground up. That is what we do in Hastings and for Hawke’s Bay.

Another exciting investment: $12 million for Foodeast in Hastings, an innovation park to grow added value to the primary sector. The primary sector can have absolute confidence because their seasonable labour—19,000 more Recognised Seasonal Employer workers coming in to help harvest the crops. And land security, to protect our region’s vital soil for growing great food for Kiwis and for the world. Investing in critical infrastructure is how we grow the foundation for growth. It’s infrastructure. Another $18.5 million of infrastructure funding for Hastings to get pipes in the ground and new roads built, to build thousands more houses right across the region. That’s how we grow our region, and that’s how we grow jobs. Yes, we are leading on the home front in Hastings, building houses and building infrastructure.

Now, National neglected the regions. That’s a reminder of what they do: they neglect the regions. And, if you want an example of how National neglected Hastings, sold out Hastings, how many houses did they build in their nine years in Government for Hastings? Six—six. That’s all they built, and they sold down 190. Not this Government—317 homes built: social, transitional, and papakāinga houses, and another 287 on the way. Multimillion-dollar investment compared to the National Party of neglect, who sold down Hastings for only six houses over nine years. But we are building back stronger. We are the Government that takes the regions with us—stronger regions, stronger for New Zealand. We are going to keep backing Hastings, keep backing the regions. Go, the regions. And go, go, Hawke’s Bay.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was so exciting I nearly forgot to stand up. It almost makes me want to live in Tukituki, but, of course, Ilam is the best electorate.

In preparing for this speech, I googled “inflation Australia”, and I learnt that the Australian inflation has reached 7.3 percent. The second hit when I googled “inflation Australia” was the question “Why Is Australia’s Inflation Rate So High?” And I’ll bite, Forbes; I’ll bite. Australia, apparently, according to Forbes, “is experiencing record levels of inflation as a result of”—in bold type—“knock on effects from the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and strong consumer demand.” Curious, I carried on searching. The UK is, according to the BBC, experiencing a rate of inflation of 10.096 percent. The cited main cause quoted by the BBC: cost of energy related to the war in Ukraine, amongst other causes. Pasta is up in the UK by 60 percent and tea, appallingly for any English person, is up by 46 percent. And yet average wages in the UK—there is a point to this—are not keeping up. The cost of living is up 10.1 percent, but wages have only risen by 5.7 percent. Times are tough in the UK. Times are tough in Australia. Times are tough here. Times are tough across the world.

But what was the UK’s response to those inflation rises? It was tax cuts for the wealthy—sound familiar? Shall I tell you what happened when a Tory Government cut taxes for the rich? Chaos. Chaos is what happened. Thirty billion pounds—that’s $60 billion—were added to the already colossal fiscal hole that was caused by unexpectedly bad economic conditions of £30 billion already there; £60 billion. Now, these are eye-watering sums of money, and I can’t get my head around billions. It’s just too much. So I did some sums and I worked it out. That’s $3,669 on the hour, every hour since Jesus was a lad—on the hour, every hour. One policy decision nearly collapsed the British economy. It caused the abrupt resignation of the Prime Minister and an even more abrupt reversal of that policy, which now has to be paid for by increasing taxes by stealth on an already overwhelmed population by a Tory Government.

But Labour won’t be doing that. Labour will not be responding to a global economic volatility and cost of living crisis by giving money to our richest people. Labour will continue to put people first. We are investing in our people. Unemployment is at a near-historic low of 3.3 percent. Annual earnings are up by 7.9 percent, which is, unlike the UK, keeping above the rate of inflation, lower than Australia’s at 7.2 percent—Australia at 7.3. We know that people are doing it tough. Times are very hard and comparing our economy to others isn’t always what people are doing when they are struggling. Of course they aren’t.

Labour knows this and that’s why we are putting money in the pockets of those who need it the most; why we have increased the minimum wage again and again and again, opposed by our National colleagues; why we introduced the winter energy payment, which they promise they will remove should they go into Government with ACT next year; why we have supported countless businesses with COVID wage subsidy; why we are supporting those who supported us through the COVID crisis, our cleaners, our bus drivers, with fair pay agreements; and why we have increased Working for Families tax credits; on childcare eligibility, we’ve reversed a freeze that National put in place in 2010; why we are removing barriers to women who want to work; why we have reinstated the training incentive allowance—and I could go on and on and on, but my time is limited.

Yes, people are doing it tough. Labour has their backs, putting people first. It is not time to give tax cuts for the rich; it’s time to continue to invest in our people.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe. It is a great pleasure to use my first time in a general debate to acknowledge that we are in Transgender Awareness Week. Ngā mihi atu ki ngā takatāpui, irawhiti, whakawāhine, tangata ira tāne, [I acknowledge our whole homosexual, transgender, and non-binary community] all our trans and non-binary whānau from Māori and Pasifika communities, but also for our migrant, refugee, and asylum-seeking people.

I want to acknowledge those we have lost. There are many issues facing our trans and non-binary whānau. In particular, I want to mihi to the memories of Carmen, Chrissy Witoko, Jennifer “Miss Lee” Edwards, and, even though she’s not Māori, I want to acknowledge Dana de Milo, because she was a long-time member of the Māori Women’s Welfare League and we absolutely welcomed her into our communities.

Now, if anybody wants to know more about trans and non-binary people, I refer them to this amazing, amazing report. This is Counting Ourselves: The health and wellbeing of trans and non-binary people in Aotearoa New Zealand. Ngā mihi to the research team that did this work, an incredible amount of work with almost 12,000 people who answered the first survey about this. Now, this includes issues around gender-affirming care, provider knowledge and competency, healthcare access barriers, mental health and wellbeing, substance use, school, sport, discrimination, safety and violence, identity documents, material hardship, family-whānau, community connectedness, and demographic group differences. The great news is this is available to anybody; you can get this online.

Right now, the Counting Ourselves team—they launched their survey in Parliament; they hosted that event earlier this year—have opened up a second survey, and so I want to take this opportunity to encourage anybody who is trans - non-binary to take part in that because the nature of this kind of research is something that directly informs our work in the community and in this House. This is part of the work that when we had the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, we referred to this kind of research. It’s a comprehensive anonymous survey on the health and wellbeing of trans and non-binary people living in Aotearoa. You can fill this out online or in hard copy if you are 18 years or older.

I just want to acknowledge that many people don’t naturally associate with the terms “trans” and “non-binary”; they’re not always sure if it covers them, so I just want to acknowledge the range of terms that our people use in all of the different languages and nations of people who are in our country. So, for example: trans, transgender, transsexual, takatāpui, irawhiti, trans woman, transfeminine, whakawahine, fa’afafine, fakaleiti or leiti, fakafifine, akava’ine, vakasalewalewa, trans man, transmasculine, tangata ira tāne, fa’atama, akatāne, non-binary, tāhine, genderqueer, irakē, gender fluid, irahuri, gender diverse, irahuhua, cross-dresser, bi-gender, pangender, demi-gender, agender, and also trans people who just identify as a woman or as a man. The deadline for this is 30 November, if you know somebody that would fit into this.

Know that those stories are so important to tell for the rest of us. The goal of this is to help improve the health of trans and non-binary people in Aotearoa. As a cisgender ally, I am really, really proud to do that shout-out for them today.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the legendary Georgina Beyer. She was the first transgender woman in a Parliament anywhere in the world. That was from 1999 to 2007—15 years ago. I challenge my party and all of the parties in this House to see who is going to elect the next trans - non-binary person into this House. Kia ora.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s investing in our people that is a key part of our COVID economic recovery plan. It’s great to see more people supported into work, young people set up for bright futures, and more people move into jobs through successful initiatives, like the Flexi-wage, Mana in Mahi, and Apprenticeship Boost programmes. Apprenticeship Boost supports businesses with access to the skilled workers they need. The programme was launched just over two years ago, and, in that time, they have supported businesses to train their workers—18,000 Kiwi businesses have taken on more than 50,000 apprentices.

Now, recently, I had the real pleasure of having the Minister the Hon Jan Tinetti coming up for a visit to Kaipara ki Mahurangi, and she was very pleased to see local businesses in Rodney supporting young women into apprenticeships, like builders, electricians, painters, and spray-painters. We also visited eight schools in the Rodney area, in her role as Associate Minister of Education. In light of some of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition this morning, picking principals as the next group to put the boot into, I want to take this opportunity to put on the record a massive thanks for the amazing mahi done by schools, principals, and senior leadership teams in the role they have played in keeping our kids connected to schools and keeping them safe all through the lockdowns and through the tough times that have been following.

The issues that we are facing are complex. There’s a lot of work to do and there’s just no easy fix. Being relentlessly negative, and tax cuts for the wealthy, aren’t going to solve any of those.

We have a lot to be optimistic about. The last figures show that unemployment has remained at the near-record low of 3.3 percent. I remember when COVID first hit and the Treasury forecast was that unemployment could rise as high as 10 percent, and our finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, said that he would not let that happen. Our following Budgets were put together in very difficult circumstances but they helped New Zealanders get through COVID.

I’m proud of our record, as a country, with one of the lowest death rates in the world, but also the country with one of the strongest economies in the world. New Zealand’s economy is set to recover faster from the pandemic than it did from the global financial crisis. As well as that near-record low unemployment, incomes are growing at the highest rate since records began, and my colleague Sarah Pallett was talking about that previously. Our agriculture exports have reached a massive $53 billion, and tourists are returning. More homes have been built last year than since records began, as our economy grows stronger. We’re getting a cheaper, faster, and better resource management law. It’s also important to note that our debt remains low and it’s among the lowest in the OECD.

It’s not to say that times aren’t tough for many Kiwis—and, no doubt, global increases in inflation are hurting New Zealanders. But while there’s no easy fix for the cost of living, we’ve taken a range of actions to ease the pressure. That is, from rolling out our cost of living package and winter energy payments, to the boost to superannuation, making sure we keep public transport cheaper, and the action we’re taking so that New Zealanders are paying fair prices at the checkout. All of those things are designed to help make a difference as we come through a really tough global environment.

Since the day that we came into Government, we’ve worked hard to lift wages and reduce cost pressures on Kiwis, through methods like cheaper doctor visits, free lunches in schools, and the family tax credit. Recently, of course, the next step we announced, at that fantastic Labour conference, was easing the cost of living pressures for the majority of New Zealand families by improving access to childcare assistance. So, from 1 April next year, 54 percent of all families with children will be eligible for subsidised childcare assistance.

We are continuing the work to ensure that Kiwis get a fair go. We want to ensure that hard-working Kiwis get paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. That’s why, as has been mentioned previously, since 2017, we have boosted the minimum wage, bringing it to $21.20 per hour now. The minimum wage boost since 2017 has meant that full-time minimum wage workers are now earning an extra $218 a week. We are also implementing fair pay agreements to improve the wages and the conditions of our workers and to support our economic recovery. We are supporting families and businesses and it results in more people in work with higher wages, making both families and our economy stronger.

Our Government inherited a lot of issues to deal with. But we’ve tackled big issues like COVID-19 well, and made progress on things like child poverty, social housing, and climate change. Now it is time to accelerate progress on the things that matter most. It’s not time for relentless negativity. It’s not time for the silly ideas of the Opposition, like tax cuts for the wealthiest. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Te Pūkenga, the mega-polytechnic and industry training organisation (ITO) brainchild of Chris Hipkins and Labour’s centralisation ideology has so many problems. Where to start? The mess Chris Hipkins has made of our vocational education sector used to make me angry, but now I am just heartbroken at the waste: waste of good staff, waste of community and industry engagement, waste of credibility with international students, waste of money, and, most importantly, waste of what used to be a world-class vocational education and training for our students.

The Minister has stated that the financial situation of the polytech sector was why he embarked on this failed reform. He harks back to financial projections that were manufactured to support his ideological pathway. They were never peer reviewed or supported by those experienced and knowledgeable in the sector. They were a work of fiction to suit his narrative.

He points to the bailouts of a handful of polytechnics that were in financial trouble. Well, I would say to him: why did he just throw money at them to bail them out? That was irresponsible with public money. He should have undertaken specific remedial action to get them to known ratios, like staff to students, staff to teaching hours, teaching hours to programme, and then he should have peer reviewed their support services costs against like institutions, and then he should have looked at alternative operating models for them. All the information is there to do it, but of course he couldn’t do it because he knew nothing about how to run a successful polytechnic or ITO, and he refused to listen to those who did, or offered to work with them. In his naivety, he simply thought he knew best.

We know he received a business case from Te Pūkenga in October and it told him that Te Pūkenga needed an additional almost $1 billion to operate—that’s right, almost $1 billion—because he brought everything together with these entities, but they can’t combine or operate centrally because they all have different IT systems, different student management, different finance, different HR, different online delivery. Anyone with an ounce of experience and common sense would have seen that problem before they started.

We’ve already seen the fiasco of a chief executive leaving or being pushed out because he wasn’t achieving the unachievable set by the Minister, and a chief financial officer leaving after less than three months because he realised the Minister was asking for the impossible. Then we had the acting chief executive and chair going out on a consultation roadshow in August-September of this year, saying to staff, “Nothing to be concerned about with your job, only the chief executives will be impacted. You’ll be lifted and shifted to Te Pūkenga at 1 January next year.” Bad luck with that. The next layer of staff—the HR managers and chief information officers—are getting their marching orders as we speak, but, hey, they are being consulted on it.

Every polytechnic has been told to wind back expenditure by 3 percent, regardless of whether they are operating efficiently or are in financial trouble. Fair or sensible? No, of course not, and how about recruiting international students into Te Pūkenga? The Associate Minister of Education talked about co-governance also, and said that that hadn’t been discussed—whoops! That has been advertised in the last couple of weeks. And the international student numbers? Australia is doing well, but not us. Closed borders, visa fiascos, immigration policies not supportive of students, and, of course, Te Pūkenga, are all causing us problems.

International agents and partner institutions don’t even know what Te Pūkenga is. Other countries market universities, institutes of technology, colleges, and polytechnics. They’re all internationally known entities, and we market Te Pūkenga. What is it? What does it do?

This Labour Government have made a colossal mess of our vocational education sector. National will disestablish Te Pūkenga. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I’d love to ask that previous speaker Penny Simmonds how much money they’re going to spend to dismantle Te Pūkenga.

This afternoon, I want to say how hopeful I am, how invigorated I am, and how excited I am about what is going on in this nation, and I take Te Pūkenga for an example. Just recently in Taranaki, who was the first cab off the rank to support the future of Te Pūkenga? We celebrated 50 years of our polytechnic here in Taranaki, in our region. We not only celebrated 50 years of what has been, 50 years of what has happened, 50 years of the successes, and 50 years of the challenges, but we looked hopefully into the future, and we were hopeful as hundreds of people gathered to celebrate Te Pūkenga and its future at our polytechnic in Taranaki to say that we are moving forward, we are going places, and it is exciting. Our future is exciting.

Then again, I’ll come back to two weeks ago. I was on a panel with energy futures Aotearoa talking about our oil and gas industry, and the future and the skills challenges that we face not only in our energy sector but in many of our sectors around Aotearoa New Zealand. I was super impressed as I participated, as I listened, and as I learnt. One of the representatives from Te Pūkenga was there and talked about the ability that we have now, as a nationwide organisation, to move and change with the times, to bring people from Christchurch and Otago and to bring people down from Waikato in terms of filling our skills gaps and making sure that the courses and the programmes are in place to be fit and ready for our clean energy future—not only in Taranaki, but in New Zealand and around the world.

I’m hopeful and I’m excited about what’s going on, and—as was said earlier by our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and as was said by our Minister of Energy and Resources—last week, 97 percent of renewable energy was used. I looked it up. I checked online to make sure they got their numbers right, and I knew that they would have, but then I noticed that on Friday morning it was 99 percent. That’s right: 99 percent of our energy was renewable energy that was powering the nation. We can do better. We’ve got more work to do and, on this side of the House, we are hopeful and we’re committed to making that happen.

Now, again, a couple of weeks ago, I was in Taranaki and I was able to attend the launch of a new offshore wind farm for South Taranaki. Now this is exciting: South Taranaki—as you know, Mr Speaker—many years ago had challenges in terms of freezing works closing down and in terms of challenges for jobs and unemployment. But as we move in this just transition space, we see the potential of jobs, jobs, jobs in a town in Taranaki that, like Pātea, had had the guts ripped out of it many, many years ago. It has the potential of becoming the new lead in terms of the clean-energy sector in our region. The fact is that they’re going to be using spaces out of there to build offshore wind, and when we talk about that, we’re talking about this decade.

I’m glad that, as a Government, in this year’s Budget we committed $18 million for the development of a comprehensive strategy not only in energy, a hydrogen road map, but for making sure that we have the regulatory framework in place to ensure that we have the offshore wind capacity to ensure that we not only hit 97 percent and 99 percent but that we become the clean-energy capital of the world when it comes to our energy creation as we move forward.

Finally, as I say, I’m hopeful and I’m happy and I’m optimistic about what’s moving forward. Last night, I was back home at the Taranaki Regional Council Environmental Awards. We as a Government are committed to our environment and we as a Government are committed to our climate, and so I was so excited to be there to see the winners not only of business and not only of educators, but of our tamariki. I noticed that Matapu preschool was one of the winners. These are preschoolers who are learning and being empowered to take action to protect the resource of our environment, taking action to protect our climate, taking action, as three-, four- and five-year-olds, to make sure that they live in a hopeful place that is prosperous—not only for us and when it comes to our bank balances but also when it comes to our people and also when it comes to our planet.

Our planet is the only one we have. I am committed as a member of the Labour Party to ensure that we protect our people, to ensure that we protect our planet, and to ensure that we protect the hope of our future, which is our tamariki.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

This bill promotes Māori participation and engagement with the electoral process and it has been a long time coming. This change is about fairness and supports our 2020 manifesto commitment to continue to protect the integrity of New Zealand elections and voters’ access to the polls, including a review of financing rules. The timing and frequency of the Māori electoral option has been raised as an issue for a number of years, including in the Electoral Commission’s reports after each general election, and in the subsequent select committee inquiries. Māori have been calling for the removal of a major barrier to electoral participation for years.

Although, generally speaking, we have a robust electoral system that gives priority to making it easy for voters to take part, the timing and the frequency of the Māori electoral option is confusing and frustrating for Māori voters, and their ability to take part meaningfully in elections. The Māori electoral option is a four-month period that occurs every four to six years where Māori voters can choose to move between the general and Māori electoral rolls. The option period is the only time when Māori voters can change their roll choice.

I just first, briefly, want to acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Kris Faafoi, who stewarded this bill into the House for its first readings. I also, too, want to acknowledge my colleagues, particularly Parliamentary Under-Secretary Rino Tirikatene for his constant and consistent pleading to this House that we make these amendments. Both those members, they picked up—or, rather, submitters picked up—on the themes. Both the Ministry of Justice and the Justice Committee were in no doubt that the change is well and truly overdue. The last Māori electoral option was in 2018 and the next one is due to be in 2024. This timing means that, without changes being made, Māori will be locked into their roll choice for two general elections—the first in 2020 and then the second in 2023.

Submissions were clear that the four-month period every five to six years for Māori voters to change rolls is unjustified, unfair, and often difficult to understand. Māori voters can feel trapped on an electoral roll that doesn’t represent who they are. This undermines the trust and confidence in the electoral system, and we know Māori are already less likely to be engaged in the system than other voting groups. Many submissions noted more flexibility to changing rolls would allow the Crown to better meet its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I want to acknowledge the chairperson Ginny Andersen and her colleagues on the Justice Committee for their work in stewarding through this bill. This bill amends the Electoral Act to introduce the continuous model, and the Local Electoral Act is also amended to reflect that change. It also makes consequential changes to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act, and the bill has received strong support at the local government level. It is important that the rules for local elections and general elections are aligned as much as possible.

The continuous model introduced in the bill allows Māori voters to change rolls at any time, except during certain pre-election periods. Māori voters will not be able to switch rolls in the lead-up to a parliamentary by-election. The by-election exception recognises that Māori voters can switch rolls in order to vote in a by-election that they may not have otherwise voted in. It follows the principle that the voters for a by-election are expected to be largely the same population who voted in the electorate at the previous general election. It also recognises that by-elections involve a small poll of voters focused on a single electoral outcome.

Following amendments made during the committee of the whole House stage last night, Māori voters will also not be able to switch rolls in the three months before polling day for general elections and local triennial elections. These new exception periods align with the period leading up to a general election when, traditionally, parties and candidates begin stepping up their electoral campaigns and voters start turning their attention more towards their upcoming electoral choice. We know that more voters attempt to change rolls in the period immediately before a general election. Over 22,000 people tried to change rolls in the lead-up to the 2020 general election.

As a result of the changes in the bill, the Electoral Commission must provide Māori voters with information about the type of roll they are enrolled on and the differences between the Māori and the general election rolls before general and local triennial elections. This will provide Māori with the opportunity to change rolls, should they wish to, before the exception period begins.

The bill has also needed to accommodate for the rare situations where the three-month period leading up to a general election is not possible, or where the Prime Minister announces changes to a polling day. The bill also adds back in some technical provisions that are in the current Act but weren’t required in the bill as introduced.

This bill will go through this House in unanimous fashion. I want to particularly acknowledge my colleagues across the House—Paul Goldsmith and his contemporaries—for the way that they have engaged with the Government with respect to the amendments that came through in the Supplementary Order Paper last night. I want to acknowledge Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who have been passionate advocates for these amendments as well. I want to acknowledge Golriz Ghahraman and the Green Party for their consistent advocacy for these amendments in this bill. I want to acknowledge Nicole McKee, who spoke with her colleagues, and through some discussions, the ACT Party, I understand, will be supporting these amendments. This is an impressive state for this House, recognising the constitutional significance of our House getting to a point of collegiality and recognising the significance of the amendments proposed. I thank every single member that has participated in terms of getting our House to where it is today.

Others will speak to, no doubt, their various personal experiences of what it is to change rolls or what it might mean for their young up-and-coming siblings or children as they start to talk with them more about the significance of voting, what it means to participate in either roll, and how it makes New Zealand a little bit unique in the global sphere. I am glad that these discussions, hopefully, will be happening in the home and at schools to increase participation of all New Zealanders in our democratic processes.

I’m incredibly pleased to be stewarding through this bill this afternoon. I look forward to Māori having greater flexibility to be able to change to a roll that best reflects who they are for the 2023 upcoming general election. I commend this bill to the House—oh, sorry, sir. Finally, I just want to acknowledge the—sorry, sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is still on her feet.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’m still on my feet. I really must acknowledge a couple of officials—Georgie Handley and Hayley Denoual for their work in terms of all of the various ups and downs and changes. I just want to acknowledge them. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you sure? The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on this bill, which gives the ability for people on the Māori roll and on the general roll to switch between those two rolls at any time, with exceptions that I’ll come to in a moment. We’re moving away from the current situation where it’s generally an opportunity once in five years, following the census. We look at this in a pragmatic way in the sense that, in an ideal world, one should be able to choose which roll one is on a little bit more frequently than that and not be locked in, waiting for the next census.

The idea of it being based around the census was, of course, related to the very important need to ensure that the number of Māori seats is proportional to the number of people on the Māori roll so that we preserve the principle of equality of voting rights in this country, which is that all New Zealanders have an equal say in who governs them and who makes significant decisions about their lives. That’s why it has been based on the census, so as to get those numbers right. That process will continue, but not quite as rigidly as in the past. There will be a particular period once every five years where that number is arrived upon for the purposes of proportionality, and that’s as it should be.

Now, the question here was: how do we make it easier? That’s a simple thing that we’re doing here in this bill. I don’t buy some of the arguments that were put forward around saying that all this will increase turnout in voting and things like that. I think, fundamentally, the primary responsibility for getting people to vote is for the politicians who are seeking their votes. It’s the job of the politicians to persuade people to vote for them, and if people don’t vote in large numbers, well, that’s primarily the fault of the politicians and not somebody else’s problem to resolve. That’s a challenge for all of us: to persuade people to vote for us.

The National Party voted against this bill at the first reading, primarily because there weren’t any exceptions for the period around general elections and local body elections. When introduced by this Government, the bill said that you could change at any time—including on election day itself—between rolls. They had one exception for by-election periods, noting—as the previous Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi said—that the risk of tactical roll-switching would occur so that people living in one electorate facing a by-election in either the general or the Māori electorate that they also lived in could switch between the two and engage in the by-election. We thought that that logic applied equally to the period of a general election and local elections, and we were concerned that the same sort of tactical roll-switching could occur.

The Government, at length, listened to our argument and brought in the Supplementary Order Paper last night which achieves that. The legislation now means that there is a restriction around the general election period and local election periods, so we’ve indicated that we are prepared to support it. Now, this is a slightly unusual set of circumstances because, to be honest and frank—let’s not beat around the bush—the Government doesn’t usually agree to our proposals on these matters and on electoral reform matters. What’s different in this case, primarily, is that our votes are actually needed because this bill required 75 percent of the support of Parliament. Therefore, it would not have passed without our support.

Now, we could have, I suppose, driven a harder bargain for that vote. For example, we could have said, “Well, Minister, why don’t you apply the same level of bipartisanship to electoral finance rules?”, which are being rammed through against our wishes at the moment, or we could have driven bargains in all sorts of other areas. We didn’t do that because we didn’t think that was appropriate, because this is a matter regarding the ability of people to switch between rolls and to have their opportunity to vote. So once the Government did agree with our primary concerns, we were prepared to vote for it.

The only point that I would make is that it’s done in goodwill and we do strongly believe that electoral laws should be approached with a genuine attempt to get agreement across the aisle. There are bills currently before the House where the Government hasn’t followed that approach and doesn’t follow that approach. My suggestion is that they should, particularly in the area not just around electoral finance but also around that principle of equal voting rights, and what we’re seeing is that this bill doesn’t disturb that basic, fundamental principle that all New Zealanders should have an equal say in who governs them, who forms the Government, and who makes important decisions about their lives. But that principle, of course, is under attack right now at the local body elections, following the passage of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill against our implacable hostility.

This is a moment of bipartisanship across the House and I don’t want to spoil it entirely, but we do need to be honest that that bipartisanship doesn’t extend to some pretty fundamental issues around how our democracy works in this country. Moving away from the principle of all New Zealanders have equal voting rights is a very significant and, we think, a very poor and negative move which will make our country poorer and weaker and less cohesive. So we will continue to resist that, and I do implore the Government to take a more bipartisanship approach to that fundamental issue than they have so far.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have some of that partisanship focused on the bill, please, in the three minutes you have left, because we haven’t heard much about the bill to date.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I hesitate to argue with the Speaker, but I don’t agree at all with his assessment. We’ve been talking, fundamentally, about the voting rights—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Everything but the bill—but if we could have the bill, please.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much, Mr Speaker. Anyway, you’ve disturbed my train of thought, but I’ll conclude it there, other than to say that we think this is something that we can celebrate as a House. This will be, in a small way, something that will certainly make it easier for people to switch between the Māori roll and the general roll, and that may certainly give greater flexibility to those people in those circumstances.

It’s all part of ensuring that our electoral system, which is one of the most precious things that we have as a country—it is one of the most precious bastions of our freedoms and our democracies, and we need to look after that and cherish it and make sure that it works effectively. In so far as this legislation helps, with our support, then we are happy to support it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I’m proud to be part of a Parliament that is removing a longstanding barrier to Māori participating, by making it easier for Māori to change rolls, between the Māori roll and the general roll.

Māori seats were created way back in 1867, and it’s a fascinating history to see how that changed over time. Way back then, it was done as a way of enabling landholders to vote, because, back in those days, Māori couldn’t vote. That was a long-fought fight. When I look back in the past, one thing struck me; it was back in 1986, when the royal commission into electoral law reform took a look at those seats. It was back then that they first stated that those Māori seats had begun to be seen as an expression of Māori status as tangata whenua in New Zealand. With that status, and that right also, should be the right to change freely between the two rolls, and so it’s good to see this bill being supported right across the House today.

I’d like to really acknowledge the other parties in the House for the constructive discussions. I know that we had a good debate around how to make this work in a way that we could all achieve agreement, and it’s good to see that the Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled last night and agreed upon will enable that three-month buffer area to go in place before a general election, as well as a by-election, which is what the bill already provided for. That was for the reason that there was a view that it might be a way of either gaming or strategically voting. It’s great to see that we can achieve agreement by having this voted on by all parties in the House, and I’d like to acknowledge ACT, the Māori Party, National, and the Greens for being able to do that.

Look, every year, I have people come to my office or I encounter those people on the Māori or the general roll who, in the months coming up to the general election, for one reason or another, wish to change rolls, and they’re always incredibly dismayed to learn that they cannot. It doesn’t seem right that, under the current rules, Māori don’t have the opportunity to change rolls until a really small window of time. The last Māori electoral option was in 2018, and, under the current rules, they wouldn’t be able to change until 2024 if it wasn’t for this bill being passed today. That means, unless the law is changed, Māori voters are locked into their choice of roll for two consecutive general elections, and that doesn’t seem right. So it’s good to enable people, I guess, to remove barriers as much as possible, to facilitate people voting. We know, when we look at our turn-out rates, some of the lower turn-out rates are in Māori seats, are in rural areas, and if we can encourage this information to flow right through New Zealand so that people know that they can change and, if they wish to, they have the right to feel connected to whichever seat, in whichever way they choose to do so—because that’s part of democracy in New Zealand.

I’d like to also note that this bill does fit with a wider plan that we have in place. It’s part of our 2020 manifesto commitment to continue to protect the integrity of New Zealanders’ voting rights, access to the polls—including reviewing, as has already been mentioned today, those financing rules, which we are also doing. It’s part of the two-track process that we’re doing. There are some changes coming into force before this election, but also a wider review of how our electoral system is working, whether our voting age is right, how those people overseas are being included, how we fund political parties, the length of our parliamentary term, the changes to the party vote threshold, and also the ratio of electorate seats to list seats. These are all critical issues to New Zealand’s democracy that are in a longer trajectory that we need to look at closely as we change and continue to evolve.

I’d like to conclude by saying that I’m really proud to have chaired the Justice Committee, to have heard all these submissions, to have worked alongside the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, some excellent officials, colleagues from across the House, to make New Zealand’s democracy stronger, and to enable people to vote as much as they possibly can. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, and the chair of the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen, who has just sat down: the Minister for bringing the legislation to the committee, and the chair for doing a very good job of chairing the committee. I think that there was bipartisan effort on both sides. We wanted to make sure that we could pass this legislation, but we wanted to make sure that it was fair. So can I acknowledge the other members of the committee as well who are obviously in the House tonight.

I did take issue with one of the comments of the chairperson of the committee around participation. I don’t think that it was affecting the participation of someone to engage in our democracy, but I do accept the fact that it was affecting participation in terms of whether or not they’d chose to be on the general or on the Māori roll, and I think with this change, it has definitely helped with that without a doubt, and I assume that was the issue she was making in relation to that.

The bill replaces the current Māori electoral option with a continuous option. At present, electors of Māori descent can only change between the Māori and general electoral rolls in a four-month period that occurs every five to six years. So that did limit participation and choice, and the committee did recognise that. Of course, the continuous roll now means that, within that four-month period, they can choose to change between both the Māori and the general roll.

One of the issues that we talked about—and it’s something that all of us turn our minds to as representatives in our central government level but also as representatives at the local government level—is: how do we increase participation? How do we actually get people to want to use their right to vote? And it does puzzle me. I suppose, I’m probably being a bit naive, but when you look at our history as a country and the sacrifices that were made during the First World War and the Second World War to make sure that we actually retained those fundamental rights that we were able to protect and defend in what I think is one of the best democracies in the world, of course—and I see that my friend and colleague Harete Hipango is in the House today—a huge contribution was the 28th Māori Battalion; that was certainly involved in action during the Second World War and has become a very famous battalion not just here in New Zealand but globally in terms of the contribution that they made.

So it’s a message for all of us, I think, as a country that, when it comes to actually exercising and using that right to vote, we should always go back in time, and I know it’s hard to do sometimes and to think about the massive sacrifices that were made as a country—the massive individual sacrifices that were made and the massive sacrifices that were made by families—to actually allow us, and give us the right, to actually make that vote and cast that vote.

But, anyway, I’m getting a bit philosophical here. I just want to say that we support the bill. Again, I want to thank and acknowledge the Minister for being prepared to make the changes to the bill that would then allow us to be able to support it and make sure that it could come into the House today and that we could pass it. So thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m delighted to rise as a member of the Justice Committee and take a short call in support of this bill. I want to thank the Minister of Justice, as she has thanked her predecessor Mr Faafoi, for finally bringing to fruition something which has been long sought in successive electoral inquiries: the ability for people to switch between the Māori and general rolls according to their consciences and not to have to tolerate a wait of four to six years and a very short window of opportunity when it was open.

It seems to me that, in the protection of our democracy, the encouragement and the inclusivity of the voting process is absolutely crucial and, thus, this is important. It is important to assure tangata whenua that they have that ability to vote as they see their identity. So I am very proud to support it. I’m also very proud that, in an electoral change, we are doing this by consensus—that is extremely important when it comes to electoral law reform.

Finally, I want to give a shout-out to my colleague Minister Allan, because I think that’s the first time I have ever heard anyone thank the officials by name, who have worked on a difficult and important piece of legislation. Long may that sort of inclusivity, collegiality, and democratic approach to discussion continue. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I would like to open by congratulating the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, for bringing this bill to the House—a very long-overdue change to our electoral system that makes it far more accessible and fair and actually just recognises the significance of the Māori roll. We know that arbitrary technical barriers to electoral access mean that fewer people vote. Fewer people voting means our democracy is weakened, and Māori are one of the groups for which we hold the most concern when it comes to access to our democracy.

We know that there are demographics that suffer worse, and Māori are one of those. And I know that my friend from the ACT Party will follow me, as her leader did, when I spoke on my own strengthening democracy member’s bill, and that party took great issue to this, but Māori do still suffer the consequences of colonisation and so does our democracy. So that is why this bill is important. The idea that Māori have to wait years to switch rolls never served a real purpose that was about tangata whenua voting and participating in our democracy; it always undermined Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Democracy is particularly important to me, and that is why my member’s bill—the first that I ever got to put into the ballot as a parliamentarian—was aiming to strengthen that democracy. And I just want to speak to the significance of us as a House of Representatives making these changes according to the recommendations of independent bodies like the Electoral Commission, like the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and our Justice Committee after inquiries that often involve thousands of New Zealanders, including experts feeding in. I want to note that changes like this were deliberately buried by successive Governments. Politicking over our electoral laws does weaken democracy.

So what I wanted to do is to bring light to some of those changes that have been recommended by independent bodies after consultation or after expert inquiry and say, actually, we do need to get things like money out of our democracy, discrimination out of our democracy; that we need to encourage and recognise Māori participation through upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

But I do want to say, on this particular bill, that we are also disappointed. Māori voters should be able to change rolls at any time: during a general election and during a by-election. There’s no reason that they shouldn’t, and we know that that change was introduced to what the Electoral Commission recommended because of politicking; because of negotiations with the Opposition that won the day and weakened what would have been the perfect outcome.

Now, the other night it was a bit sad that the National Party had the Hon Paul Goldsmith get up and read from their canned notes about what a devastating thing it would be if voters in an electorate voted strategically, and that we must prevent Māori from doing so—Paul Goldsmith, of Epsom, for National. Bit sad? Bit tough—bit tough that he had to get up and say that. So apparently it’s only bad when Māori do it.

This is a one vote per person democracy. It’s never going to be perverted by one person voting in an electorate while not voting in another electorate and then switching their rolls for a different election. We need to uphold the mana of our people and say that that isn’t cheating. Fearmongering about Māori switching rolls is unhelpful, it’s prejudiced, and I think the member—not quite for Epsom—should know that better than anyone.

But we come back to the bill, and the prioritisation of electoral reform. So I do want to congratulate the Minister and the Government for actually prioritising some of these reforms that we know have been a long time coming, including the Māori roll change that we’re seeing come through tonight—including some of the limits that the Government and this Minister put in place in terms of transparency in our electoral donation laws. We know that, last term, the electoral reforms that we got through also included some restoration to the right of prisoners to vote. So these are a suite of changes, and they come together to acknowledge that different demographics have different challenges and that the one vote per person democracy can’t exist—that our democracy can’t thrive—unless we are constantly reviewing and reforming it to be fit for purpose for a modern Aotearoa, and that politics should be taken out of democracy reform. We should listen to the Electoral Commission and the Justice Committee and the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and Waitangi Tribunal when they tell us something needs to be done, rather than placing party interests first.

This is a good start. I look forward to the change that will come—either under this or the next Government—that will allow Māori to change rolls whenever they please, because it is their right to do so. So I commend the bill to the House.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand here today and speak on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill. First of all, I’d like to thank the Minister, Kiri Allan, for just allowing us to be part of the discussion. Even though we know you already had the amount of support you needed for the Supplementary Order Papers to go through, you still allowed us to be part of that discussion so that we, as a party, could make a decision and come on board with where you’re at. So we really appreciate that, and that’s how we get good law and that’s how we get a whole House that is on board with laws like this—by having those discussions and working together, and we’re very grateful for that. So I just thought I’d like to start off with that.

The ACT Party were supportive of the intent of this bill from the beginning. We did vote against it in the first place because we just couldn’t vote for it in the way it was first presented. But with the alternative options that have come since then, we will be supporting this bill.

I have personal experience with not being able to switch rolls, and so that’s why I’m kind of proud to be standing here today speaking on this, and making a change to something that has affected me personally. And I liked the fact that the Minister was talking about education, about what each roll would mean for a person, if they were to switch from one to the other.

When I originally enrolled to vote, as a young one, I had no understanding of what each roll meant. So I thought, because I’m a Māori, I need to tick “Māori”. I didn’t understand that that meant I was going on a completely different roll to the general roll—had absolutely no idea; nobody had told me that. I mean, I may have still made that decision with a bit of education, but I made that decision completely on the basis that I thought “Māori ticks Māori”. And so I wanted to come off the Māori roll because I had been moved from up north and I was living in Auckland, and that was the place I was connected to at the time, and I wanted to vote for my local person and was unable to, because I was on the Māori roll. And then years passed, and I thought to myself at the time “I’ll have to get off that roll”. Years passed—I rang them up and said, “Can I please get off of this roll and on to the general roll?” And they said, “You’re outside of the time frame to be able to do that.” I said, “Well, when is the time frame?” And they said “Sorry, you’ve passed it”. So I spent two elections voting on a roll that I didn’t want to be on. So I appreciate the changes that have been made here.

In the end, the only way I did get off the roll and change rolls was by setting myself a Google reminder, because I wasn’t getting the reminders from the Electoral Commission, and the time frame was so short that if you missed it, you missed it, and too bad. So thank you very much for bringing this bill to the House and allowing this to happen. The education, I think, is really important so that we understand what each roll means and what it would mean if you do change. So we are really happy about the greater flexibility and the freedom of choice—which is what ACT is all about, freedom of choice; so we’re very grateful.

So I will leave it at that, because I think we need to just get on with it and make sure that people have the freedom to be able to choose what’s right for them. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. Te pānuitanga tuatoru o te Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Amendment Bill. Tuatahi māku e mihi kau ana ki a koe e te Minita, nāu i ārahi tēnei pire i roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, nō reira, mihi kau ana ki a koe, otirā ki ngā mema o taku komiti, o te Komiti Justice, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, one and all—the third reading of the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister, you who has guided this bill in the House this afternoon, thank you, and also to the members of my committee, the Justice Committee, thank you one and all.]

I just want to take a brief opportunity to talk to a couple of points in this third reading speech, particularly in light of some of the speeches that have been made this afternoon. First and foremost, I just want to say that the Māori seats, to me, are a taonga to our Parliament here in Aotearoa, that they have long existed, and that people with great mana have held those seats and represented us. While I stand here as the MP for Northland, I am actually on the Māori electoral roll, and my MP is Kelvin Davis. I fundamentally believe in our Māori seats, and that is why I am on the Māori roll, even though I stand and represent in the general. Such is the great thing about my whakapapa, being bicultural and being bilingual. I am very proud of that fact.

I do, though, agree with what everybody has said in the Whare tonight. The fact that Māori have not been able to switch rolls for some five to six years, based on a census cycle. Then the census gets delayed, and points have been made around, for example, Māori getting a four-month window to do that, and being lucky if they got the letter with the little orange guy on it and actually did something about it in that short time frame—maybe even having to set their Google alerts, and then missing that opportunity for another four, five, or six years—was just so unfair. So I’m really proud that, across the House, we have been able address that fundamental issue. While there are a few bits in there that some, you know, strongly agree with and disagree with in terms of the compromised position that we’ve reached, I do want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, for leading that, and everybody for finding something that this Parliament can support and reach that threshold.

The one that I did want to talk to—based on my own personal experience—if I may, is the provision around changing or not being able to change around by-elections. So in 2015, I found myself in the situation of being in a by-election. I had just voted in the general election, my MP that I voted for was successful, Kelvin Davis was in Parliament, and I then became the candidate again for the Northland seat—and this was the Northland by-election. Should I be able to change rolls and then vote for myself and then everybody in my whānau do the same? And I would argue that there would have been thousands of Ngāpuhi that would have done that if they were given that opportunity. So I understand that there is a bit of a problem there. I do think that it is fair that if you have just participated in a general election and you have selected your person with your one vote, that it would be, I think, a perverse outcome to then get a second opportunity in a by-election. That is quite opportunistic. And, I mean, I’m a strategist. I come from Ngāpuhi. I can see why something like that would be promoted.

So I do want to say that I do actually genuinely support that amendment that has been made there, because I do think it does undermine our one person, one vote democracy that we have in Aotearoa. So that, therefore, would destroy any arguments that this is an unfair system. Māori should be able to switch rolls, they shouldn’t have to wait five to six years to do it, but I do agree with that one particular limitation that we’ve put on it. Based on my own personal experience, I’ve seen what could very well have happened in our by-election, should that have been allowed to occur. I commend the bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party in regards to the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill. This bill is going to be supported by the National Party.

Following the select committee process, the Government has agreed in principle to include an amendment requested by the National Party to preclude the Māori option exercise in the three-month period prior to the general election or a local body election, in the event that a vacancy triggering a by-election is gazetted—so those three options. Just hearing from my colleague from Northland, it’s a very good example of why that’s a good thing and I acknowledge the point about strategy and the importance of strategy. To be fair, a point had been raised earlier that, in the initial version put forward, if a vacancy was triggered by a by-election, that it could not be exercised in the, I think it was, three months prior to that. The reason for that was to preclude the risk of tactical vote switching. In fact, it’s good that this is now brought into line to have that same time period prior to a general election or a local body election to ensure that risk of tactical vote switching is precluded.

So, with that, the National Party is pleased to support this bill, which aims to support Māori participation in parliamentary and local authority elections by reducing those restrictions. It is a fair point that it’s too long for electors of Māori descent to only be able to change between the Māori and general electoral rolls in a four-month period which occurs every five to six years following a census, which is certainly a long period of time.

I should just touch briefly, in the brief time available I have in this House to speak on this bill, to just go through a little bit of the background to this. The electoral franchise was established under the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which theoretically gave everyone the right to vote, but only if someone had individual title issued by the Crown—i.e., freehold title. That means if someone didn’t own land freehold in an individual title, they could not vote in elections. It became clear over time during the 19th century that that meant it precluded a lot of Māori, who owned land communally.

In 1867, the Māori Representation Act was passed by Parliament which set up four electorates for Māori; three in the North Island and one covering the entirety of the South Island. That meant that all Māori men over 21 years of age were eligible to vote and to stand for Parliament who did not own individual title issued by the Crown, which actually meant that they had a right that wasn’t available to other ethnicities at that time in New Zealand, who could only stand or vote if they had individual title issued by the Crown. So it was quite a progressive step by this Parliament to ensure that there was representation for Māori in Parliament who did not fit the rules, which weren’t appropriate at that time. I would say it was quite progressive of the parliamentarians of that time to recognise that issue and provide space for it.

Fast forward to 1893: the Electoral Act then gave all New Zealand women the vote, including all Māori, meaning all adults in New Zealand were then able to vote from that point forward. So, as a result, New Zealand has one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world now, and I think we can be very proud of that. We do need to be very careful when changing any electoral system to uphold the integrity of that history that we have developed over a long period of time, and to ensure that we do have appropriate representation in this House, but also that we do ensure that we uphold that principle of one person, one vote, which has stood this country in very good stead.

So this is a good little bill. I do remember seeing, actually, in the Māori Affairs Committee, possibly about a year ago, some data which actually indicated that quite a few had shifted from the Māori option on to the general roll over a period of time. The good thing about this is that it gives people the opportunity to switch from either the Māori roll or to the electoral roll in a principled fashion, and, by that, I mean that it’s done with that time period to protect the integrity of the system—prior to a general election, a local body election, or a by-election—but that it enables them to vote in the election in the way that they feel most appropriate. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—a five-minute call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to take a call on behalf of Te Paati Māori and my tūngane Rawiri Waititi during this, the third reading of the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill.

This is momentous for us as Māori, which is why it was the first thing that Rawiri did when he got in, and something that Labour has been working on for some years. From day one, we promised to address racism. We’re not precious about who led this bill, because anything that not only identifies racism but addresses it is a win for us all as Māori. So we commend our Minister Allan for using her role, progressing and finalising this mahi tahi.

For far too long, tangata whenua have been locked out of participating freely and equitably in our political system. We know all too well, which has been said before me, the reality of Māori voter suppression. This goes right back to 1867 when the four Māori electorates were set up to limit the representation we had in this place. At the time, we would have held a majority of the seats, which is why tangata whenua have pushed for decades for change, and I agree with my esteemed colleague Willow-Jean Prime that Māori seats are taonga, as are our people’s rights.

Thousands of Māori have requested change to electoral rolls over the years. Until now, they’ve been locked out from changing, for up to eight years at times. This has, no doubt, led to thousands of Māori disengaging from the electoral process altogether. Since 2011, the commission has proposed legislative changes. The 2017 report on the general election recommended that voters of Māori descent be able to change roll types at any time, as this would better meet the needs of Māori voters. So this bill was an opportunity to undo that which negatively targeted tangata whenua.

I want to be clear to our whānau, though, that it is typical of big parties’ politics that there were opportunities this bill missed doing. And we should always be concerned, as tangata whenua, when we hear Labour worked with National to arrive at this third and final reading. It’s important we understand what trade-offs were done at our cost. Had Labour worked with Te Paati Māori instead of National and focused on who we’re serving, rather than who owns the bill, this would have included two critical aspects of Rawiri’s member’s bill. One: the more on a Māori roll, the more seats or candidates we get into Parliament. Rawiri’s bill proposed to get an increase for proportional seats without waiting. Labour’s bill makes us wait up to eight years at some stage so census and administrators can be prepared. Rawiri’s bill acted on the will of people; Labour’s has primarily acted on the will of administrators. Labour has us as secondary concerns. Rawiri’s bill proposed Māori could change rolls—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Ngarewa-Packer, could we speak about this bill, not another bill, please.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Yeah, no—I am, thank you. Labour’s bill—they’re very much the same—puts limitations on us as demanded by National that we can only change at specific times. This is why we must always have an unapologetic voice like ourselves in Parliament. Our people, te iwi Māori, expect that their representatives in this House work together. So while we’re disappointed that Labour demonstrated the opposite in voting down Rawiri’s bill, which would have advanced us further while weakening their own bill, we support that change was important, even if only in part.

So let’s get this racism and voter suppression off the law books once and for all. But let’s be very clear, whānau mā: our rights should never have been traded off. We are tangata whenua. Our electoral participation is a basic right for Māori to exercise in Aotearoa, granted in article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We should be treated equally. We should never have limitations put on us. So we will keep pushing to keep advancing the cause of constitutional transformation and the restoration of our mana motuhake. But, let’s be very clear: this is one small step on the path to restoring the rights and power of tangata whenua in Aotearoa. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa—finished!

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I love the Māori electoral option, and this bill makes it better for people who choose to be on the Māori electoral roll. That’s why I support it, and that’s why it’s a simple speech and a short call from me.

The “What could this bill have been?” debate isn’t what we’re having tonight; it’s about whether this bill is good for Māori voters, and it is. It’s good because it changes two very long-held complaints about the Māori roll that people have told the Electoral Commission multiple times, and that my colleague Rino Tirikatene has advanced through the parliamentary process and has not been able to do without a Labour majority Government behind him. It is a change which Minister Allan has very carefully negotiated and has landed on a position that everyone around this House can be happy with, and I am really proud that, tonight, we around this House agreed on something which has been so long negotiated.

This sends a message—a really important message—to anyone watching but also to people who follow our electoral law reform process, and to Māori voters, that we in this House support the Māori seats. We in this House believe in their constitutional importance, and we are going to make it easier and more accessible for people who choose to be on the Māori electoral option to choose to be voting for those seats. That’s so important—what we’re doing today—and I’m really proud to be giving this kōrero.

So there’s two issues: when you can change rolls, and the frequency of being able to change rolls. Those are the two things that this bill deals with. It doesn’t change who’s on the roll and it doesn’t change how you get on the roll, but those are two things that have come through time and time again as being confusing and frustrating for Māori voters. It’s a change that’s really about fairness and increasing access. It’s about reducing the electoral barriers that Māori voters face and that they tell us at the Justice Committee and the Electoral Commission are barriers to their more meaningful participation in our electoral system.

It’s something everyone around this House supports—increasing access to participation in our democracy—and it’s something that I reflected on while listening to the speeches around the House. It’s a really important and unique feature of our electoral system which actually protects us from some of the more vitriolic politics that we see overseas—you know, that divisiveness, the culture war that is characteristic of some of the democracies that we compare ourselves to in modern, social media - driven electoral campaigns where race-based politics and where huge class divisions play out on a national scale and are bruising for our communities.

The fact that we have a Māori electoral option, where people feel heard, where people feel themselves reflected in the people who represent them, and where people get to choose what kind of say they have in their election—for a group that has felt the effects of colonisation and has been the most marginalised in our history, that is really, really important to the way that we have that conversation about our culture and about the way that we get along with one another under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the way that we progress. I’m really proud that we have this option. I’m really proud that we have agreed tonight on something that will be enduring to make it more fair and accessible for Māori to participate. That’s why I commend this bill.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to others who have contributed in this debate—not only this afternoon but in prior stages. Others have spoken about the mechanics of how this all fits together—the compromise that was reached and so forth—and, if I get time within my contribution, I’ll touch on that as well. But I thought at this, the late stage of the third reading of the bill, it might be helpful—certainly more interesting than another route that I could have taken—just to sort of reflect on some of the themes that have characterised the way that the bill is being passed, and what it will mean for the way that our democracy works.

So, the electoral law in general—I think a key principle is that we should maximise opportunities for participation without compromising the integrity of the system. And that might sound like a really obvious statement—to want to maximise participation—and it might also sound obvious to say, “Well, of course we don’t want the integrity of the system to be compromised.”, but we do have choices to make, as policy makers, about the way that we design a system that gets as much engagement activity as possible, of course without undermining the feeling of confidence that people have that everyone’s had a fair go—an equitable go. But I don’t say an equal go, because, actually, in a funny way—I mean we’re talking about separate systems, in terms of the Māori roll and the general roll, and so if we sort of start with that baseline principle that I think every member of this House would agree at that high level—that we all agree that there should be maximum participation without compromising the integrity of that system—then that gives us a framework to analyse whether this bill is, you know, going to be really useful in that space.

Ultimately, as you’ve heard, on the National Party side, we’ve concluded that it will, and that is thanks to the discussion, the dialogue, and ultimately the decision of the Minister of Justice to accommodate the points that were being made by the National Party and by the ACT Party—albeit that ACT had a different mechanism in mind for how to, you know, go some way to achieve the same end. So that was my first point.

My second is that legislative process does actually matter. We’ve got a different bill in front of us now, that we’re all going to vote upon very shortly, than was introduced at its first reading some time ago. It is an iterative process; there are a lot of steps along the way. The most efficient style of lawmaking, of course, would be in the style of urgency to rush everything through in one go, but we would have missed the opportunity for those conversations to be had; those genuine concerns to be voiced, acknowledged, and, ultimately, addressed.

So, we’ve reached this point now because we’ve got a legislative process that says, yes, there’s a first reading, then the select committee has a crack; second reading reflects what had happened at the select committee. A committee of the whole House stage introduced the amendment that was, effectively, the turning point in terms of how the House as a whole could view the bill. So sometimes, just sometimes, we see that our democracy works really well in this way—that we have these different stages and readings as they are, of course, known.

The third point I wanted to make is that I think this process has been a triumph for civility. I think the level of dialogue has actually been really high; I think, actually, throughout the whole process, perhaps with a couple of exceptions, but certainly in terms of the Government engaging with, you know, this side of the House, the Opposition. I can speak at least on behalf of National and, I think, ACT—from the gracious contribution of Karen Chhour—would say the same, that we’ve had really good engagement. It’s been dialogue that’s been civil and that’s been helpful, and I acknowledge and we all were amused by the contribution of Willow-Jean Prime, who reflected on her own situation up north when engaged in a by-election in which it would have been possible, but for the mechanism that is in this bill, ultimately, for, you know, her friends, family, whānau to have switched a roll before being able to vote in that Northland by-election.

Of course, the ultimate irony is, from a National Party point of view, we probably would have rather that she’d won rather than the gentleman—and I use the term loosely—who did ultimately win that by-election, in any case. But you can’t win ‘em all, and he’s nowhere to be seen now—and long may that last. Anyway, I don’t mention by name—it’s sort of almost like Voldemort. But, anyway, I shouldn’t say that in his absence. He’ll have plenty to say, no doubt, if he gets the chance.

So my fourth point was about the value of compromise. And I know that there are others in this House, and we’ve heard a contribution from a member in this debate, who think that the fact of compromise in this bill is negative. I actually have a different view. I think the fact that there has been a compromise reached after discussion across the aisle—literally across the aisle, in the sense of how we’re physically set up here—that’s a good thing, and it reflects a willingness to listen and engage. Politics, famously described as the art of the possible, is sometimes regarded as somehow dirty or compromising—there’s that word again—in that kind of way. But, actually, I think, for people who have a different view to be able to find enough common ground to have the same view—such that they can vote for the same piece of legislation, ultimately, at its third reading, as compared with the first reading and the earliest stages of its introduction—as I say, I’m unashamedly prepared to say that I think that’s a good thing.

There’s also a democratic principle at play here in terms of the House or Parliament. I’ll just say—actually, I should just broaden it out—this place is the master of its own destiny. I refer, in the first place, to the entrenchment provisions in the Electoral Act. So that’s the basic mechanism that says one side or the other can’t change electoral law without, roughly speaking, what we might refer to in another context as near unanimity, so 75 percent—otherwise known as a “supermajority” by some—that that’s needed in order to be able to make such big changes that would affect the system as a whole, fundamentally.

So, for that reason, it was inevitable, I suppose, that the justice Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, would approach us and seek our agreement, and to understand what would be needed in order to get that. But, actually, as our ACT colleague has said earlier, she engaged with other parties too. So I think that it’s at least possible to conclude that she did it for all the right reasons, and we give her credit for that.

In terms of this place being its own master, which is appropriate, representing the whole people, I was amused by a very arcane exchange on Twitter last night—of course, on Twitter; I think it still exists despite everything—between Messrs Edgeler and Hehir, regarding what would happen if the House were to purport to pass a law, or Parliament were to purport to pass a law, despite Standing Orders, and how we would deal with the relativity of those different bodies. Of course, normally a simple majority is required to pass a law but, of course, we also have these rules around a 75 percent majority being needed. I wasn’t intelligent enough to follow all the way along—certainly not at 9 o’clock last night. I should probably have a look at it again today; I probably wouldn’t understand it either in that occasion, so I’ll move on.

But finally, in terms of those overarching themes, my sixth and final point is that it’s important for lawmakers, politicians, if they’re to be taken seriously as negotiators on behalf of a particular position, for their word to be their bond. When the second reading was about to take place, that’s when the discussion took place between the Minister and our spokesperson, the Honourable Paul Goldsmith. Those two understood each other well enough to say that there would be a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) coming. The National Party took the Minister at her word that that would be the case and that we would vote for it at second reading—notwithstanding that we still hadn’t seen that SOP to effect that change. Indeed, it did come. And so we in turn keep our word and say that we will vote to support this bill and allow its passage.

I’ll just touch very briefly on a couple of the slightly more negative aspects of the discussion. I think it was unfortunate that, from a couple of the smaller parties—and I don’t mean ACT; the other ones—have stated, with a degree of hyperbole, I think, about people being prevented from participating in a process equally and fairly, as though a choice hadn’t been made. Now, we accept that it’s unfairly constraining a person to only have a four-month window every five years, and that’s the basis on which we’ve agreed. But I think it’s, as I say, hyperbole to say that a person voting in such a situation has to cast a vote that doesn’t reflect who they are—that’s part of who they are; if they’re in a position of having dual ethnicity, then they can choose to be on the Māori roll or indeed the general roll. And, of course, the party vote system is such that the electorate vote and the significance of being on one roll or the other only applies, you know, to the extent of 50 percent.

Nevertheless, a worthwhile change; a good change. We’ve been happy to support it because, as we said, just circling back to my original point, by doing so we’ll maximise participation in the electoral process, we won’t unduly compromise the integrity of the system, and we’ve been able to do that by coming together as a House, and I think that’s a good thing.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s a real pleasure to take this call on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill. I just want to recognise how important it is and what the Māori electoral option does. I know that my friend and colleague Willow-Jean Prime talked about people switching rolls to the Māori roll, and vice versa, particularly. But what it is about is electors being able to choose how they participate in democracy, whether that be switching to the Māori roll or from the Māori roll. That’s, at heart, what this is—it’s about choice when people want to make it; not in some discrete window every five years.

I want to bring it home, and pretty much literally, because there’s a constituent who lives in Rutland Street, around the corner from me. In July, they sent me a letter via text message. The letter reads something like this: “Dear elector, thank you for your recent enrolment application form. When you last had the option of registering as an elector in a Māori or general electorate, you chose a Māori electorate. For the time being, you must stay enrolled in that electorate, as the Electoral Act only allows changes to be made during a Māori electoral option. The next Māori electoral option is scheduled to be held in 2024.” So that’s the letter you get.

So Shar Sullivan-Todd of Rutland Street sent me that, and she said, “This is bullshit!!! Spence”—her son—“is stuck on the Māori electorate, yet again, until 2024. What the”—I mean—“WTF?” That is, basically, what people think of the law as it stands. So I’m very happy, and my response was: “Hello, how are you going? We have legislation coming to change that.”, attaching the press release. She said, “Jeez Louise!”—she’s of that age—“Spencer will be relieved.” Do you know what? Spencer, come 2023, 31 March, get out there and reenrol in the electorate that you want to be enrolled in, because that’s when this bill comes into force. This is an ordinary person around the corner from me who can now change rolls from—I think he wants to change from the Māori roll to the Christchurch Central electoral roll—and I’m very happy about that. So, Spencer, get out there, do it.

Every elector in the country who’s on the Māori roll, or Māori on a general roll, now has the choice to choose how to participate. That’s a great thing. It is strengthening our democracy. It’s great to see cross-party consensus on this. I absolutely commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I go on, may I just remind our members to—I know that the member was quoting from a response from one of his constituents, but can we just use respectful language in the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Water Services Entities Bill

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Entities Bill.

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

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Water Services Entities Bill be now read a second time.

Ko te koru ko te wai, ko te wai ko te puāwai, te mātāpuna o te ora. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[From the spring comes water, from water the blossom, the source of all physical and spiritual sustenance. Greetings one and all.]

In June 2000, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in a report titled Ageing pipes and murky waters, predicted the crisis we are now facing, when they said, “While our water systems have been evolving over the years, I believe industry and community evidence indicates that the ‘model’ has now reach the end of its design life. Further incremental tinkering with the current systems … will simply mean the necessary changes will be harder to achieve and more costly at some time in the future. It is also likely that they will be crisis driven”. That future has arrived, and we must not let this issue be kicked down the road when we can act and fix a broken water network system. There is a well-known expression that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, and the next-best time is today. For too long, New Zealand has not addressed serious under-investment in infrastructure such as our water network.

We need to take this crisis seriously. We need to act with urgency. I do not use the word “crisis” lightly, but when an estimated 34,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking water each year, that is a crisis. Too many communities experience boiled water notices, and too many of all our kids are growing up with no-swim notices at their local beaches. It’s unacceptable. When over half of suppliers included in the Ministry of Health’s 2020-21 annual report on drinking water quality failed to meet the drinking-water standards, that is a crisis. When 25 percent of waste-water plants across the country are running on expired consents and the country experienced 2,754 dry weather waste-water overflows in 2020-21, that is a crisis. When 5,000 people in the town of Havelock North became sick from drinking their tap water, that is a crisis. When New Zealanders face thousands of dollars’ worth of rates increases to solve this problem, that is a crisis.

Given the scale of the problem and the irrefutable case for change, it would be irresponsible for us as a Government to sit on our hands and do nothing. We will not take an irresponsible path. We are committed to act and fix the problem. We’re committed to ensuring that everyone’s drinking water is clean, boiled water notices are minimised, sewerage leaks get fixed, and pipes are put in the ground to build new homes, and in the most cost-effective and affordable way possible for our ratepayers. This reform is complex, and it is therefore unsurprising that it has generated significant debate, both in the local government sector and in the community, but let’s face it: it’s time for the “do-ey”.

I would like to take a moment to thank all of those who submitted on the bill: councils, mana whenua, interest groups, water suppliers, and individuals all took the time to express their views on this piece of legislation. I’d also like to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their dedicated work over the past six months. In addition to considering the 88,000 written submissions, the committee heard 227 oral submissions, travelling to Auckland, Hamilton, Hawke’s Bay, Nelson, Christchurch, and Dunedin, as well as holding hearings in Wellington and via Zoom, to ensure as many people as possible who wanted to present had the opportunity to do so. The committee also invited experts to present their views on the bill. As the result of this work, more than 130 amendments have been recommended. The changes ensure that the new water entities are more accountable to communities and help keep a lid on rising rates. At a time when the cost of living challenges confronting households are real, these reforms help lessen the burden of vital water infrastructure investment on ratepayers.

We all agree: we need to fix water networks and keep costs down. We also want safe drinking water and better environmental outcomes. The amendments will improve local voice, strengthen representation, increase transparency, and ensure that we can continue to find a solution—again, more “do-ey”. They will also improve certainty for councils and those working in the water sector. Some submitters questioned the Government’s fundamentals, in particular the need for balance-sheet separation. Getting water services off council balance sheets enables us to create a sustainable and affordable water system while keeping a lid on rates increases, to help address cost of living pressures for all New Zealanders.

Let’s take a look at some of the proposed changes. One of the key areas of concerns we heard was that local voice would be lost. Rural councils in particular were concerned that their voices would be drowned out by larger metropolitan centres. At the request of councils, the bill now includes a provision which requires a mix of rural, provincial, and metropolitan councils to be present on the regional representative group. This will make each of the water services entities accountable to those interests, as it is represented on that group. Further to this, we’re requiring the entities to establish an annual shareholders’ meeting. This was a direct request from multiple submitters and will improve territorial oversight over the entities. We also heard concerns from submitters that the entities would not be as accountable as the current system. This included a submission from the Auditor-General outlining concerns about the accountability measures in the bill. Officials have worked with the Office of the Auditor-General to improve those measures. Proposed amendments include strengthened reporting lines and obligations and increased audit scrutiny, along with a raft of other changes resulting from the submission.

We’ve also increased transparency—for example, both the entity boards and any annual shareholders’ meetings will be subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. This means all meetings will be required to be held in public. This is not currently a requirement for the boards of council-controlled organisations, although Watercare made the decision to hold all its board meetings in public. We are, therefore, confident that legislating this as a requirement is a positive thing for public accountability.

Another key concern for local government was what role the entities would play in the local planning system. They had a clear message: the entities should be plan-takers, not plan-makers. We’re therefore including a requirement for the entities to support and enable planning processes and growth. This gives councils and communities certainty that they will still be in the driving seat when it comes to planning and development.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge staff working in the water sector. I understand that this is a time of uncertainty. To limit this uncertainty, we’ve made several key changes to the staff transfer provisions. This includes giving staff the option of transferring to water services entities on their existing contracts, ensuring any benefits they currently have will go with them. We’ve also provided further detail to ensure that staff know they will not be required to move to a new location as a result of this reform. Staff and services will stay where they are. Officials have developed staff transition guidelines to give further certainty for staff, including those who are not covered by the legislation. For those water staff, I encourage you to engage with these guidelines. This reform is an opportunity for your sector, and I hope you see it as such.

At the time the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released his 2000 report, it was estimated around $5 billion worth of investment was required over 20 years to upgrade drinking-water, waste-water, and stormwater infrastructure—around $8.5 billion in today’s currency. Compare that to $125 billion to $180 billion required over the next 30 years to upgrade those same services. We cannot afford to stop the reform. If we do, our children, our mokopuna, will be lumped with the cost, and we are burdening them for the future, because people on that side of the House want to do nothing.

It is for that reason I am proud to stand here today and read the Water Services Entities Bill for a second time. I am proud that this Government is taking on an issue that has been languishing in the too-hard basket because people on that side of the House want to kick it down the road—20 years of under-investment, if not longer. I am proud that, in 20 years’ time, when we look back on these significant changes, our children and mokopuna will be able to swim at their local beaches, have the assurance of safe drinking water, and be assured that we have a resilient waters infrastructure that underpins a quality of life second to none.

Today, we’re taking a significant step forward in improving service delivery to Aotearoa. Can I once again acknowledge the select committee, departmental officials, and select committee staff for their hard work. I commend the bill to this House. E tau ana.

[I end here.]

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

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Despite overwhelming opposition to its three waters reforms, this Government has failed to use the opportunity to listen and make real changes. We’ve been through a select committee process, with over 88,000 submissions, and the select committee only heard just over 200 in person—five days to listen to those submissions! This is from a Government that, right from the start, said, “We will listen to Kiwis about this reform.” Well, I can be clear: Labour is still not listening on three waters.

I want to take time to thank all of those individuals, councils, and organisations that took the time to submit on this bill. I wish I could say that your views and your feedback were truly considered but, sadly, this Government has made it very clear, right from the start: they are not listening. Many submitters put a huge amount of time and effort into their submissions, which were collected by an organisation, and had their submissions treated as form submissions. This denied them the opportunity for them to give oral presentations to the select committee. I placed a motion on the table to extend the process, to give them more time—more time for scrutiny, to listen to those submissions—but it is clear from those members on that side of the House that they have no interest in listening to Kiwis across this country who are strongly opposed to these reforms.

This Government has not made any significant improvement to its broken three waters model, and the only changes that they have made have made this bill worse. That is an indictment on a Government that is failing to listen and failing to deliver on reform that is so critically important for this country and this country’s future.

The changes that were included as part of this legislation—the PM said, and I quote, “When the alternative models were put on the table by three mayors from Auckland, Christchurch, and Waimakariri”. The Minister said “I’m really pleased that they have signalled an opportunity to commence a dialogue, and we’ll consider, certainly, matters that they have raised.” The Prime Minister said, “We’re at a juncture now [that] we’ve been receiving public feedback, and of course … we are open to making refinements and changes.” Another quote—“I don’t want to shut down what I think, in good faith, is an offer here for us to keep working together.”—Jacinda Ardern quote.

Seventy-two hours after those quotes were made by both the Minister and the Prime Minister in response to an alternative model that was placed on the table, I placed a motion in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee seeking an extension, to request six more weeks to further consider the report-back date to allow us to consider the alternative model put on the table from those mayors. And what did they do? The Labour members and the Green members voted it down. That proves that all those words do not correlate to action. They are all talk; and you know what? Kiwis get that as well. They do not trust this Government, they do not trust the agenda—and they proved, through their actions of failing to listen, that they have absolutely no regard for hard-working Kiwis across this country to listen to their feedback, to make a piece of law that will outlast every single person on that side of the House better. They failed to take the opportunity; they failed to listen.

Hon Member: No plan.

SIMON WATTS: You can hear them baulking on the other side, can’t you? You can hear them going on, because today is the only time that they’ve ever listened in the last five months. It is the only time they’ve listened; and that is a great, great shame.

I want to talk about two other changes in the bill. They are put in there explicitly—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! We will allow the member to give his speech.

Hon Member: Five extra minutes.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much. Five extra minutes would be appreciated—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): No, I did not say five extra minutes—just to give your speech.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you, Madam Speaker; appreciate the offer. Explicitly, two changes in the bill. One is about including green infrastructure like parks and reserves. They are lining up local parks and reserves to be transferred to these mega entities, and the Minister pretty much categorically agreed with that yesterday in the House. They are also expanding the Te Mana o te Wai statement to include coastal and geothermal waters—under the radar, three waters has become five waters. This Government are intent on a control agenda which will be detrimental to this country’s future.

They have not made any changes to the four entity model, which was categorically opposed by all—if not most—of the submissions coming in. They have not made any changes in regards to the co-governance model that the majority of Kiwis in this country have absolutely rejected because it will bring more complexity, more bureaucracy, and more costs to a system, and it is undemocratic for this country. Those are the concerns raised by submitters as part of the select committee process. Those are the concerns that that side of the House has failed to listen to.

Now, let’s talk about the alternatives, because you heard it from the Minister on the other side that there are no other alternatives. What a load of rubbish! That is absolutely and categorically wrong. I want to acknowledge the mayors in the gallery today. Too often you have been blamed for the issues of water infrastructure that have been laid at your feet, and that is not fair. You’re the ones that have been leading the efforts for change across this country, presenting models and solutions and alternatives that would get us moving in the right direction. I’m sorry the Government is not willing to listen.

I predict that members opposite will get up next and will stand up and bark the same old lies. And I’ll put money on it, Madam Speaker. They’ll say “There’s no alternatives”. This is a deliberate piece of political theatre, a mirage to hide the failure of their reforms. We saw a fully costed model by Communities 4 Local Democracy: 30 councils that could match the capital expenditure of Labour’s plans without raising water prices and keeping assets in community hands. We saw the model from the Auckland, Christchurch, and Waimakariri mayors—that I said before that we moved a motion at the select committee. Labour aren’t only not listening to the alternatives; they are actively blocking consideration of them. Any talk of no alternatives should be taken as the lie that it is—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Everyone here is up for robust debate. But the member knows, particularly when he is referencing a comment made by the Minister which is inaccurate, he cannot use that word under any circumstances.

SIMON WATTS: Speaking to the point of order. As I quoted, I said “any talk of no alternatives”. That is a very broad reference statement, so my context of the word was in that context, and that doesn’t go to the point that was raised around a personal inference to the member.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, there’s no context available to any members in this. It is very clear in Speakers’ Rulings that you cannot accuse any members of that word. I’m not going to repeat it. Because in doing so I would be breaching the very clear rules of this House. He must be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I would like to make a ruling, if you don’t mind, Hon Gerry Brownlee, because there are two things—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: But hang on a minute, I’ve asked for a point of order. I was speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): OK, you’ll speak to the point of order and then I’ll make a ruling.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do so because your ruling may not consider the points that I’m about to make, and that’s why I’ve made that point. So the first thing is, debate is allowed in the House—it’s the whole point of having the House and the House process. So to say that something “gives a lie to” or that “it would be a lie to say” or “it could be considered a lie” or to infer anything like that is within reasonable debate. To call someone “a liar” is unacceptable. That’s a direct accusation against someone. But if you’re talking about a policy position and you’re saying—oh, OK, I’ll wait.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I would like to make my ruling now if you don’t mind, unless you were going to go further.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I haven’t finished, and it’s not very pleasing to be interrupted, as I can’t be by other members of the House, for the House staff to do that. I don’t think that’s right. So my point is that Mr Watts has not made that inference, about anything other than what is claimed about a policy—that’s perfectly reasonable. If it’s not, then we have extremely constrained rules around debate in this House—rules that would suit the Government of the day, whoever it might be, because it would mean that they can’t be criticised if there is a question about the validity of the policy that’s being put in place. That’s why we have a democracy that has a House that allows debate.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order. We get very good advice in this Parliament from the staff, and I ask that Mr Brownlee be asked to apologise and withdraw his remark, which reflected on the Clerk and its office.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I actually tend to agree with that, Hon Gerry Brownlee, because I do actually ask for advice from the staff all the time. The staff was actually giving me the ruling on which my ruling was going to be based on. I can actually still hear you as you are making a point of order, but as you know, I was about to make my ruling anyway, so can I please ask Hon Gerry Brownlee to withdraw and apologise in terms of the comments made as the staff was giving me some guidance in order to make my ruling.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can ask, by all means.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Seriously, Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker, you called me. You gave me the floor and then turned away while I was speaking. That’s not acceptable. I’ve never seen that before in this House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I was turning because the Clerk was coming to give me the Speakers’ Rulings.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Exactly the point I’m making.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Which is really disrespectful—not only to the staff member but also to me. I will now move to make my ruling in terms of the original speaker. So Speaker’s ruling 44/4: “A member may say he or she believes a statement is incorrect, but must not accuse another member of making a statement that member knew to be incorrect.” This debate was really robust and you were making an inference that the statement that you were referring to was actually incorrect, and in so doing you were making an inference that the Minister was actually incorrect in her policies. But the ruling I’m making though, Simon, I was going to make right at the end of your speech, before—maybe about two minutes prior—you in your statement were saying something about other members of the House on the opposite side “barking”, which to me is really disrespectful to all members, including members of your side of the House. So I would like you to withdraw and apologise for those comments please, before we move on and you’ve got a minute and two seconds left.

SIMON WATTS: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Point of order, Madam Chair. In light of your ruling on the original point, I seek leave to ask the member a question.

Hon Member: Oh, come on.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: It’s a point of order. I’m seeking leave. I seek leave to ask the member a question to verify his statement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Are there any objections? There is an objection to it.

SIMON WATTS: Let’s stop this farce, and I challenge—

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Thank you, I’m just seeking your guidance. You’d made a determination in relation to a comment that the Hon Gerry Brownlee had made. I interpret, I think, that you had asked the member to withdraw and apologise for an earlier comment that he had made in relation to conduct that was going on between yourself and the Clerk. The member, as I understand it, has not done that. Is it still an ask or is it a requirement on the part of the Speaker for the member to withdraw and apologise?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I did actually ask the member to withdraw and apologise. He did not. Would he like to reconsider and withdraw and apologise, otherwise I—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Are you calling me, Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I am.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, firstly, this is not a matter that can be dealt with by way of point of order. If you look at the Standing Orders, and have a look at Speakers’ Rulings, this is a procedural thing that cannot be dealt with by way of point of order. So the member is out of order asking for that apology.

Tangi Utikere: Speaking to that point of order, I may not have been as long in this House as Mr Brownlee, but my understanding is that points of order are frequently taken in this House in order to achieve clarity from a decision that the presiding officer has made. And that was the exact purpose of me raising that point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’ll ask one last time for the Hon Gerry Brownlee to consider withdrawing and apologising, otherwise I don’t have another option other than to ask the member, for the first time ever as an Assistant Speaker, to leave the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, Madam Speaker, I am terribly worried about a lot of people in this House losing sleep over something like this. So I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you, Hon Gerry Brownlee. You have 57 seconds, Simon Watts.

SIMON WATTS: What a way to stop the music, with only one minute to go. What an absolute show. But let’s stop this farce. I challenge every member to stop talking about no alternatives—because there are alternatives—and actually defend their model against the alternatives that have been put up today. National will repeal and replace this legislation if elected in 2023. National oppose this bill, and despite overwhelming opposition from thousands and thousands of people that made submissions as part of this select committee process, from councils across this country to authorities everywhere and in every corner, Labour is still not listening.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to report back to the House on the Water Services Entities Bill.

Before I go into the main part of the summary of changes, I just want to reflect on the debate that we’ve just had. Two things are very clear: (1) National has no plan, and (2) when they are up against the ropes, what do they do? Get louder, bark, and go personal.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): If I could just—

BARBARA EDMONDS: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes, thank you, because that was a term that I asked the other member, previous speaker, to withdraw and apologise for.

BARBARA EDMONDS: Again, going back to volume—going back to volume and no plan.

So, first of all, some acknowledgments, because we obviously need some parliamentary 101 process for the House—or, at least, for the other side of the House. The committee received and considered 88,383 written submissions. We thank all the submitters for their time in putting together their submissions. Although we received over 88,000 written submissions on this bill, approximately 82,000 used four different templates or were considered form submissions by the Taxpayers’ Union or the National Party themselves. Now, these 82,000 submissions are identical or substantially identical—

Hon Member: There’s still 6,000 others.

BARBARA EDMONDS: —with some minor personalisation, so the committee aggregated them together and only published one example of each. Now, this was a mammoth task by the Office of the Clerk to facilitate these form submissions, and I thank them for their support throughout this whole select committee stage.

Again, as members on this side of the House will know, written evidence is not discounted or treated with any less esteem than oral evidence. Written submissions are analysed in depth and form an integral part of the committee’s considerations.

Hon Member: How many of them did she read?

BARBARA EDMONDS: So the question across the other side is “How many did we hear from?” Again, we opened it up. We agreed on some criteria for the submitters if they wish to be invited to the public hearings that were held in Auckland, Hamilton, Havelock North, Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch, and Dunedin.

The criteria of who were heard from were broad and contained a catch-all. Submitters within these criteria presented a range of opinions and viewpoints on the bill. They were territorial authorities, they were mana whenua, they were rural water entities, water sector stakeholders, employment representative groups, environmental representative groups, financial representative groups, a representative sample of those form submissions, and, finally, submitters who have made specific recommendations for improving the bill.

Now, as much as the other side of the House wants to say, “Well what about the other 6,000?”, you must understand that the Office of the Clerk made every attempt at contacting those that wanted to be heard. It is up to the individual or the organisation as to whether they want to come to the hearing or not. We had over a third of an attrition for whoever the Office of the Clerk had approached. Those are really, really key procedural issues that committee considered; we wanted to hear from a broad range, and we did. We particularly acknowledge the expertise of local authorities and their commitment to delivering water services in New Zealand.

The main themes of the submissions were about strengthening local voice, transparency, governance, and accountability in water services arrangements. We also invited the world leaders in water reform, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS), who said that New Zealanders pay too much for the services we receive. We also heard from Farrierswier who peer reviewed the modelling that WICS used, and they agreed with the modelling, which was because of requests of information from councils. Then we also heard from Beca Group—so this is the second peer review of that first modelling—who peer reviewed it again and said the numbers were too conservative, as it did not take into account climate change.

So, therefore, many of our proposed amendments relate to all these matters—through submissions, through the experts—that we called. In fact, there are over 130 changes that our select committee made to this bill, which I wholeheartedly believe have strengthened this bill. In brief, those changes are—and for those members on the other side of the House who like to be able to provide an interjection on what it is, I suggest you look through the tens of thousands of documents, the regulatory impact statement, the disclosure statement, or the Cabinet papers that are there for everybody to see on the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) website, plus this bill.

So the key changes: the cap on the number of regional representatives on the regional representative group has been removed. This was to mitigate the risks of having a larger governing body. The committee included a requirement for the constitution to include procedures to enable and support effective governance. It has also limited the number of representatives in the first constitution to 14. Another key change: the committee increased audit scrutiny over key strategic documents in direct response to the Office of the Auditor-General, and that’s around the statement of intent, infrastructure strategy, and consumer stocktake. We then invited the Auditor-General to provide us on a view around the changes that were being proposed. They could not provide a policy view. However, they confirmed that they were comfortable with the changes that the select committee has proposed.

The regional report groups are now required to have rural, provincial, and metropolitan council representatives, which was a request from the councils. The constitutions must also provide for territorial authorities to hold an annual shareholders’ meeting. Both these steps will give more certainty to councils that their interests will be represented. The committee also amended the operating principles to include a requirement for the entities to have regard to the areas where services are delivered in their procurement processes. So that means if the process is going to be in a particular area, then whoever the water services entities procures to must have good local knowledge of that area.

The definition of water supply has been expanded to include water supply for agricultural or horticultural purposes to address concerns from the rural community that drinking water would be given priority over water supply for other purposes, such as stock water.

The committee has added to the collected competencies of the board to include public health, the environment, perspectives of consumers and communities, and the perspectives of local government. Contracts and joint arrangements relating to water services have been limited to 15 years rather than the current 35 years. It used to be 15 years, but the National Party changed it to 35. So we are tightening that back up.

One comment I want to make is around co-governance. The misinformation that has been whipped up around co-governance has caused a barrage of insults to members of the committee and to our Minister. And I want to put it on record: every local authority that I heard throughout this process said it is a distraction, because co-governance is already happening. One key take-up from that that I had from one council was their concern that co-governance might water down the strong relationship they already had with iwi. So to be able to whip up co-governance is a distraction, and I agree with those local authorities.

Therefore, in conclusion, this bill is not just rushed through in five months; this is five years of hard work. It would be easy to let it go and to kick it down the can. So I acknowledge the Minister, her DIA advisers who were our advisers, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who drafted a very clear bill, which is no mean feat for a new regime. The bill was actually the easiest document to read out of the tens of thousands of documents that are available for this bill. We’ve also listened, we recommended the changes, and, again, in the absence of a real viable alternative, this side of the House is making the hard decisions to ensure that we have water services that will account for growth and for climate change, and to ensure we have safe, sound, fit for purpose water infrastructure for our future generations.

Again, I call those members on the other side of the House: do your homework, read the policies, read the documents, and come back to me—after you’ve done a lot of work on it—with your plan, because in the meantime, there is no plan. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose wholeheartedly this bill, and also as the member of Parliament for Waimakariri on behalf of my constituents, who also oppose this bill as well.

I want to pick up on a couple of comments from that last speaker, Barbara Edmonds, who I think elucidated a lot of where the position of the Labour Party is today. In her comments, she said that it’s been five long years, and, well, isn’t that true? It’s exactly what New Zealanders are feeling now—five long years. The only one addition I’d make to that is that it feels, actually, like eight long years, not necessarily five. But it actually elucidates the policy position they find themselves in today of five long years. They feel as though they have no alternative but to pursue this policy direction, even though they’ve been told by stakeholder after stakeholder, Kiwi after Kiwi, that they do not want this reform.

What we also heard—which I thought was fascinating, because I once read that there was a Conservative Prime Minister in Britain by the name of Maggie Thatcher, and I’m sure many people will know that. They asked her once, and they said to her, “What’s your biggest legacy?”, and she said it was the Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Well, I think Maggie Thatcher’s got another legacy today, because that’s exactly what Maggie Thatcher used to say: “tina”—there is no alternative. As we said with Maggie Thatcher, this lady isn’t for turning, and—exactly—this Labour Government is not for turning. Come hell or high water, they are going to rush this bill through Parliament under urgency. Mark my words, next week we will be under urgency and they’re going to ram it through, because they know this has gone down like a cup of cold sick in their electorates.

I tell you what, for those watching this debate this afternoon, a picture is worth a thousand words. This Chamber is a lot smaller than it looks on TV and here, on the Opposition benches, we can look across and see the whites of their eyes, and, boy, their faces—wow! They paint a thousand words: stony, with their heads down, because many of these MPs—and Kieran McAnulty is laughing because he knows. In fairness, Kieran went out and he spoke to all the local governments and to all the councils, and he got feedback after feedback. “Hell of a nice guy, but in the wrong party.”—that’s exactly what they said to you. Every meeting you went down and spoke about three waters—and he’s nodding his head, as well.

But you just can just tell by the looks on their faces that they are defeated by this. They must be looking to their party leadership and saying, “How have we ended up in this position?” They are going to ram through a bill that is so unpopular, it’s going to tank them, more than they’re already tanking in the polls. You can tell why they’re driven by the polls, because all of a sudden—it used to be about green sludge coming out of the pipes, but it’s not about that any more. Cost of living—oh, they’ve finally woken up. We’re in a cost of living crisis, and in Labour’s world—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! If the member would like to speak about this bill.

MATT DOOCEY: Sure, Madam Speaker. Just to finish that off, in today’s world, in Labour world, the answer to the cost of living crisis is this bill.

So, as you say, Madam Speaker, we’re here in a second reading. The second reading is to talk about the select committee process, and, boy, wasn’t it fascinating what that last speaker said about the select committee process? I’d like to apologise to the 88,000 New Zealanders who made a submission, because if you listened to that last speaker, the Labour MPs decided upon themselves to go through every submission and decide the validity of it, because they are now the king judge, the dictators of the one-party State we live in—oh, not all submissions are equal, apparently, according to that last speaker. The Labour MPs went through and they decided, “Ooh, I’m not sure about the text. I’m not sure about the font. Oh, it probably came from Canterbury, and we don’t want to listen to them.”

We look up and see all the Canterbury mayors here today, and I tell you what, why are the Canterbury mayors up here? Because they are fighting for their constituents. That’s why they’re up here today, because they know that Cantabrians do not want this. Where have the Canterbury Labour MPs been? Where has Tracey McLellan been? Where has Duncan Webb been? Where has Sarah Pallett been? Where have they been?

Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Madam Speaker. A long-time convention in the House—the member is asking where those members are. They’re not in the House, which is clear, and he’s asking where they are.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I would just like to ask the member to come back to the bill, and you do know that there is a convention that we do not refer to members who are not currently in the House. Please just talk about the bill. Thank you.

MATT DOOCEY: Can I speak to that point, Madam—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): No, no. Please just continue with your speech, but bring it back to the bill.

MATT DOOCEY: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): No, I’d rather you just continue with your speech, and let’s continue with the convention that we do not refer to members when they’re not in the House.

MATT DOOCEY: Well, that’s what I’m trying to talk about, Madam Speaker, but you won’t let me explain.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is actually our convention in this House. You’ve already called them out, and many of them are not actually here.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Madam Speaker. You might like to take some advice on this. The convention is that you do not refer to someone being absent from the House, but to ask in a debate about a topic where they have been on the topic is quite a different matter. Now, I appreciate the sensitivity that is being felt on the other side of the House, but this is a debate and it’s quite reasonable to ask where someone has been on a topic, and that was the tenor and, in fact, the direct interpretation of what Mr Doocey was saying.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): And he has called out many of those members by name. Please do now make your point, and then move on in your speech.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The point I was making was where were those members of Parliament during the course of these reforms.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): So now continue on with your speech, because we only have a few minutes before we break.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much. I hope we did stop the clock during that. All good—OK. So let’s get back to the debate we’ve got today, and in my view, I don’t want to offend anyone, because today we’re sort of stepping on some toes. They’re all a bit sensitive. It says a lot when you’re hitting nerves, doesn’t it? It says a lot. The heads are down—hitting nerves.

But in my view, Labour has misled New Zealand on this bill, and you can see it because it comes back into the House with minor changes—seven minor changes. Why I think they have misled New Zealanders is because they promised New Zealanders that they could opt out of this reform. They said they could opt out. The Mayor of Waimakariri, Dan Gordon, and Neville Atkinson, the deputy mayor, are here today. They went to their ratepayers and asked them, and 95 percent of Waimakariri ratepayers said no—opt out—and what do we find from Labour? It’s a legislative all-in. There was no choice.

So this bill that apparently Labour says is brought into the House on good faith—there’s no good faith. It’s bad blood because you misled the public right from the start, and the truth is that when you look at the changes proposed during the select committee process that we are debating today in the House, in fact, during that process of the select committee, the major Fairfax newspapers were advertising for chief executives of the mega-entities that this bill is establishing. How arrogant is that? They were already advertising for the chief executives and this bill hasn’t passed yet.

That’s why Kiwis have been misled. They were told that they could opt out of this bill.

Here we have a Government that encouraged submissions—88,000 Kiwis made a submission, but in Labour minds, they weren’t all as equal as others, were they? They talk a lot about equity, this Government. Not equity in the submissions—it depends who puts it in. Then they had the audacity to tell Kiwis—88,000 of them—that “We’re only going to listen to 227 of you.”, and they took the select committee round the country for five days—

Hon Member: Oh, big deal!

MATT DOOCEY: —five days, big deal; exactly—because they knew that they had to close the debate down. They knew they were doing this irrespective of what Kiwis thought.

I think, actually, when you look at this, I firmly believe this bill has no mandate. This bill has no mandate in New Zealand, and I want to say well done to Simon Watts for clearly articulating National’s position in this debate and making it very clear for those chief executives of those mega-entities who think they’ve got a cushy job to make the most of it, because you’ll be out of a job in a year’s time. National will repeal this bill because, in fact, it has no mandate from New Zealanders.

I would challenge any Labour caller to get up when they’re ready to take their call and explain why they think they have a mandate to push this through. What is the mandate when Kiwis don’t want this bill?

You know there are alternatives, but now we’re told it’s a response to a cost of living crisis. That’s only because they got told they couldn’t run their misleading sludge ads anymore. Remember when they claimed to be the most open and transparent Government? Now they are the Government of spin. They’re the Government of fake news. They’re the Government of misinformation. This will be their tombstone, for ever known as the Government of three waters. That’s why I stand up on behalf of Kiwis, and especially Cantabrians, who oppose your bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member’s time is up. This debate is interrupted. I will resume the seat at 7 p.m. after dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7 p.m.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Fixing our water infrastructure is the right thing to do. It’s not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing and it is the necessary thing. Even Simon Watts, the chap who was strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage before the dinner break—even he conceded this week that there is a need for change and a need for Government involvement in that.

What you have heard tonight—all the shouting, all the smoke and fury—is an Opposition that is overcompensating because they have no plan. Simon Watts admitted on TVNZ’s Q+A this week that they would make a plan when and if they got into Government. That is not a plan; it is literally tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. It is a way to dusty death. Meanwhile, pipes in the ground remain broken, water services remain patchy, and drinking water, for thousands of New Zealanders, is unsafe.

As a country, we are good at making do. Well, we have sweated and sweated and sweated our assets, and now we have a tale of burst pipes, sinkholes, geysers going off in the middle of the street. This is what Radio New Zealand described in one of its stories as “daily disasters in Wellington”. Without significant investment, it will get worse. The investment needed is at, at least, $120 billion, and that’s without factoring climate change.

Of course, any plan will be controversial, because it is infrastructure, it is complex, it has not been regionally coordinated, and regions feel threatened by how they will fare compared to other regions. That is understandable—this is new territory. That anxiety is understandable. But the fear has been fuelled, in many cases, by those who have not done a good job at managing water services. It has been exacerbated by a local body election system that rewards those who keep rates down rather than invest.

What is not forgivable is those who have fuelled the debate with race-baiting and misinformation. They are the ones who are dividing our country and pitting New Zealander against New Zealander. Let’s remember that this is about pipes in the ground. It’s not about water itself, despite what the haters have been saying.

So let’s separate fact from fiction, and there’s been a lot of fiction. There’s been a deliberate campaign of misinformation and scaremongering. David Seymour’s propaganda that water reform is akin to South African apartheid is wrong, it’s mischievous, it’s divisive, and it completely mischaracterises mana whenua involvement and kaitiakitanga of water infrastructure.

As Jonathan Milne, who is the managing editor of Newsroom, said in a piece this week, “There is widespread misunderstanding of a perception that the new structures discriminate on racial grounds.” He goes on to say—and I quote—“Te Mana o Te Wai is a Government framework to manage New Zealand’s fresh water, ensuring the health and wellbeing of the water is protected and human health needs are put ahead of the other uses like irrigation.” So what he is talking about is whānau communities, whose rights are already protected under Te Tiriti, getting to put their position on how that water should be protected. That is what kaitiakitanga is.

What he says is—again, I quote—“To portray it as anything more sinister is to stir up a storm in a teacup.” That stirring up, in my view, accounts for some of the very racist submissions from people who clearly didn’t understand the reforms. I would implore them to become better informed, to go to correct sources of information and not to the incorrect and racist propaganda.

Maureen Pugh: The single source of truth, right there!

INGRID LEARY: Those are tales told by idiots full of sound and fury—we’re hearing some of it now—signifying nothing, especially when there is no plan.

Aotearoa, as a select committee, we have listened to you. There were 88,000 submissions—the vast majority of them were form submissions.

I took the select committee process very seriously. I made it my business to read every submission, including one representative submission from each of the form submissions. I did that for two reasons: one is that I wanted to understand people’s concerns and ideas, and, secondly, I promised my 85-year-old father that I would do so, because he was worried about privatisation. I had many, many late nights reading submissions and I asked many, many questions at the oral submissions as we toured the country.

We heard that the vast majority of submitters agreed that reform is needed because of safety and to keep costs manageable. We heard and we saw that people cared deeply about water infrastructure, that there’s an emotional connection as well as an intellectual concern for what happens to their assets. We heard that nobody, including my father, wants privatisation. We heard many passionate, articulate New Zealanders, and we thank them for taking the time and energy to submit—we truly appreciate it.

There were submissions from councils like Dunedin City Council and the Clutha District Council, where there were detailed legal submissions on how the bill could be improved. There was a lot of work put into those, and that is appreciated.

We also did hear alternatives and we considered them, but they did not stack up. They may stack up today, but not for tomorrow.

The mayors’ plan that was referred to earlier simply doesn’t achieve balance-sheet separation. It does not stack up for tomorrow. Government committee members pored over the documents and it was clear to us that the reform as proposed would only achieve their aim if the four fundamentals remain, and those are: public ownership, Treaty partnership, balanced separation, and good governance. What we did also hear concern about was local voice, transparency, and accountability, and that’s the good governance part. We heard that loud and clear. We heard that too from the Auditor-General, and I want to thank him for his proactive involvement, because that is an institution of democracy that has shown how effective it can be in a process like this.

We have recommended significant changes to address those concerns—there are 130 of them. We’ve heard both from the Minister and from my colleague the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Barbara Edmonds, what they, essentially, capture, which is improved local voice, strengthened representation, and increased transparency. They will also provide certainty to councils regarding planning and transition. Moreover, they will meet councils’ unanimous—and I stress unanimous—desire to continue to work, or strengthen involvement, with mana whenua.

Rural councils have been listened to. The bill now includes a provision which requires a mix of rural, provincial, and metropolitan councils to be present on the regional representative group. So rural voices will be heard.

There will be publicly held meetings, strengthened reporting lines, and increased audit scrutiny. They are significant changes and they address the vast majority of the concerns that we heard.

I want to thank the Minister for listening to us and wanting to get this right. The four entities will be plan takers, not plan makers. This works from the bottom up, not from the top down, despite what you might hear. These are needed to fix the water infrastructure now and into the future.

The reforms that we need would not be possible if it was not without fundamental change. There would otherwise be massive rate hikes. Now, we’re not saying that there won’t be rate rises, but the rate hikes that would be needed would be exorbitant to meet the billions of dollars that are needed for these reforms.

This has been an issue that has crept in a petty pace from day to day, from year to year, and from decade to decade. It won’t wait. I say to New Zealand: do not listen to the poor players who strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then are heard no more. Do not listen to the loudest people in the room who have no plan. Think about the solutions that are not about local empires and empire building and power plays, but think about what will take us from today into a tomorrow where every New Zealander has safe, clean, affordable drinking water. I say listen to the facts. That is what we as a select committee have done, and that is why I can proudly, confidently, and honestly say that I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m pleased to take a call on the Water Services Entities Bill. I won’t be Shakespearian in my quotes, and nor will I, I hope, be full of sound and fury like some other speakers.

The establishment of these four water services entities and the way they will deliver three waters services is a major change, so the high level of public interest in that is to be expected. And, yes, as others have acknowledged, we had more than 88,000 submissions. But the Taxpayers’ Union and the National Party—as they’re perfectly entitled to do—had organised a lot of those submissions as form submissions. It was interesting, through the select committee process, to hear individuals who were representative of those form submissions and hear their concerns.

Like others, I would like to comment on the misrepresentation and the fear and hysteria that has been whipped up, particularly around co-governance. Co-governance is an opportunity to broaden the information, to broaden the perspectives that contribute to decisions. Water is a taonga, and iwi and hapū have long sought greater involvement in decisions about how water is managed. So we in the Greens support an approach that embraces Te Ao Māori, that leads to the entities ensuring that iwi and hapū are represented at the table to contribute their perspectives, which, in our view, will lead to much better submissions.

But there’s been a lot of talk about infrastructure. The key infrastructure is that which nature provides: the lakes, the rivers, the aquifers, which are the sources of our drinking water. The Greens have long advocated for changes in the way we manage land to ensure that we protect those drinking-water sources. We are really pleased that one of the changes in the bill, which National has criticised, is to ensure that the concept of Te Mana o te Wai also applies to geothermal water and to estuaries, because of course rivers move into estuaries and out to sea. So if we’re going to do integrated management, Te Mana o te Wai, which is a key part of the new Resource Management Act reform, must be in this bill as well in an integrated way.

But the Greens do have significant concerns. The fact is that balance sheet separation and the need to take these assets—the water treatment plants, the sewage discharge plants, the pipe network—off council books and enable the entities to borrow against those, separate from council and separate from Government, has been a key driver of the changes. It has led to a much more corporatised approach and our preference would be to see much more of a structure that resembled council-controlled organisations because of the really direct stake that that gives councils in the ownership and management.

Labour has a majority. This bill will pass. Government has made it very clear. So what the Greens have sought to do throughout the select committee process is to make constructive recommendations, to seek change, and to respond to the concerns that have been raised by submitters. National’s approach of simply saying it is going to chuck out the five years or more of work that the Department of Internal Affairs, Treasury, councils, and others have put into this bill and this reform is not going to get us anywhere.

I would really like to acknowledge Minister Mahuta for the good faith and integrity with which she has led these changes, has engaged with local government and councils, has ensured that the recommendations from the local government working party have been included in the bill, and has now taken on board the changes that have been recommended by the select committee. I also acknowledge all of the work that has been done by councils across the motu in mobilising, collecting the concerns of their communities, representing those in an eloquent and constructive way to the select committee, and seeking some changes, some of which have been made to the bill.

So the concerns that remain for us, the significant ones—the number of entities, it’s still going to be four. We don’t think that adequately connects to local communities and to the regional boundaries that exist for resource management. Those entity boundaries are not the same as apply for any other administration unit in Government. We think the entities are too big, so we would prefer that the four entities became seven, with three to four in the North Island and at least three in the South Island. That would be a better connection to communities and it would allow councils to opt in more if they wanted to amalgamate, and it would achieve that scale issue that’s so sought.

We also seek that Watercare be able to continue because there’s no evidence that shows that Watercare is not performing. In fact, there’s evidence that shows that it is delivering. That shows what a council-controlled entity, which deals with two waters, can deliver. Because the proposal to include stormwater from the get-go, from 1 July 2024, when the entities will start, we think is not appropriate, largely because stormwater is so connected to the urban planning and land management responsibilities of territorial authorities. It’s a key part of creating place, and councils like Christchurch—which have worked to ensure that stormwater management is integrated with recreation management, with the new restoration of wetlands, creation of new recreational facilities—are much more going to prioritise stormwater management which meets other needs and creates nature spaces.

And we think it is overambitious. The work that is required to separate out stormwater assets, in terms of overland flow paths, areas where stormwater drains, is complex. The entities will have a lot to do with drinking water and waste water. Why not focus just on that, review how that has gone in a couple of years’ time, and then decide whether to include stormwater? So it’s not something we support, and the Greens’ support for this bill in the committee stage and third reading will be dependent on getting some of the changes that we’ve set out in our alternative view.

I guess the other final point on stormwater is that the technical reference group noted the complexity of stormwater systems and the fact that there wasn’t a dedicated pipes network and the difficulties of untangling that. We haven’t seen the evidence that would justify stormwater going through.

One of the other key changes that was included as a result of the select committee deliberations is the response to the concern about privatisation. So there is a new provision in new clause 164A around “Major transactions” and a 50 percent threshold. If the entities are going to acquire assets that are more than 50 percent of the value of their current assets, that is a major transaction. That triggers a requirement for a 75 percent majority of the regional representative group. Similarly, if obligations are going to be incurred that affect more than 50 percent of the assets, or more than 50 percent of the assets will be disposed of.

We think, in the Greens, that it would be a strong protection against privatisation if that threshold was reduced quite significantly to at least 10 to 25 percent. So that’s something we’d really encourage the Government to consider further because of that concern about privatisation, because of the advice that the committee received that the entrenchment proposals, which the Greens still support, that we have at least a 60 percent majority requirement for any change to provisions which required the entities to continue to deliver the water services. If that entrenchment provision can’t go through because it is not constitutional, which is what officials advise and what the Attorney-General advises, then at the very least there needs to be a much lower threshold to trigger that 75 percent majority of the regional representative group.

Many of the other changes that happened in select committee again go, as others—particularly the chair, Barbara Edmonds—have noted, go to increasing transparency and increasing accountability. The changes in response to the submission of the Office of the Auditor-General requiring a review of the asset management plans and the like are steps forward; so is the requirement that not only will the regional representative group and the regional advisory panels be subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) and the official information requirements, but so too will the boards of these entities. The governance provisions are complex but at least having LGOIMA apply to the board deliberations will ensure a much greater level of transparency in addition to requirements such as the annual shareholders meetings.

So the Greens still have concerns, but we need change and National proposing, along with Act, that we just ditch this bill is not taking us anywhere. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT is the party that exists to promote better public policy. That is why we engaged constructively with the Government and their officials when they first proposed this reform in 2020, because there are real problems with three waters infrastructure. They need to be solved. This bill doesn’t solve them.

If we think about—how do we level up ageing and failing infrastructure between towns, cities, and regions across New Zealand? How do we incentivise councils to deliver three waters infrastructure to surface sections so that people who want to build a new house on a surface section can get a section at a reasonable price? How do we keep sewage off beaches and out of our rivers? And how do we pay for these necessary investments? Those are the problems to solve, but this bill doesn’t solve them. That’s because this bill is a Treaty settlement dressed up as an infrastructure reform. [Interruption] That’s right—a Treaty settlement dressed up as an infrastructure reform.

Now, this reform loads up the four new water entities with $2.5 billion worth of debt before they even open their doors on their glossy new offices—$2.5 billion worth of debt, that’s what this Government’s going to rack up and dump on these water service entities before they even lift a manhole lid. The Labour Government’s pushing this bill through the House even though New Zealanders have rejected it—88,000 submissions against the bill. They’ve united townies like me and my country cousins in opposition against this bill. At the Fielding A and P show, Anna Lorck. At Hawke’s Bay, Anna Lorck. At the Christchurch show, for those of you in the South Island. Even in Auckland, Helen White, people are asking me, “Why does the Government need to take Watercare off us, and these other assets?” Why do they need a flash new office for 250 people in Auckland when it turns out that Watercare already has an office just down the road and run our assets just fine, thank you very much.” With a bit more money, they could be excellent.

That’s why ACT will repeal this legislation when we’re part of a future Government. We actually have an alternative three waters infrastructure plan that we’ve put to councils, to professionals, to farmers, and to irrigators, and they’ve said, “Actually, the ACT plan’s pretty good, we could support most of that.” That’s a huge difference, what ACT proposed to what this Government’s proposed.

So let’s just cover off some of the main issues with the bill. Firstly, I want to talk about centralisation. Centralisation was cited by the Minister for Local Government as a requirement to level up water quality between regions and towns and cities, but ACT believes that shifting local assets from one Government entity to another is a recipe simply for more red tape and inefficiency. It’s not an enduring solution to upgrade our infrastructure around the country. But ACT does agree with submitters who proposed a practical approach based around regional models, based around catchments and geographies, based around water networks that are actually connected to each other, and communities of interest. Groups like Communities 4 Local Democracy, the Auckland mayor Phil Goff and the new mayor Wayne Brown, and, of course, Phil Mauger, Mayor of Christchurch, and Waimakariri mayor—retaining local democratic control over how assets are used, funded, and financed is another important feature that ACT would insist on.

Then we think about funding and finance. Well, the Minister’s proposed a deficit of $180 billion. There’s many ways to fund infrastructure, the committee’s heard from submitters, which are already allowed under legislation, like the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act and under the Local Government Funding Authority. And, in fact, Labour’s housing Minister, Megan Woods, recently announced, on 13 October, a $192 million grant—quoting from Minister Woods—to help “councils, iwi and developers make sure critical infrastructure like pipes, roads and wastewater connections, is in place, so thousands more homes can be built and communities can thrive.” That’s without three waters reform. Another Minister, who sits two along from where Minister Mahuta’s sitting tonight—she announced that. That’s how you can fund and deliver three waters infrastructure: with grants and other means like raising revenue bonds. Now, most places that have a revenue stream like a water metre or a water charge could raise a bond, and that money could then be applied to fund and finance new water infrastructure like waste-water treatment plants, water treatment plants, and network upgrades that allow for housing intensification. Any funding and financing system needs to have the maximum amount of flexibility, but that’s not what this bill allows for.

Then I want to come to balance sheet separation, which the Minister has said is a critical aspect of reform. That means the debt raised by these water entities proposed in the bill won’t be held against council balance sheets or Government balance sheets. However, the Government’s own official advice provided by Standard & Poor’s blew this concept out of the water. The committee heard that these proposed water entities won’t be able to achieve balance sheet separation, but if they are, they’ll be highly leveraged and they’ll have a very high risk rating—just like Kāinga Ora, who recently had to come cap in hand to the Government begging for $2.75 billion in assistance. These water entities will not be separate. They can’t be. But if they are, they won’t have the A+ rating that the Local Government Funding Agency currently does. They’ll have a B rating, according to Standard & Poor’s, which is on the way to junk bond rating, Minister. This destroys the balance sheet separation argument. Minister, either you’ve not read the reports or you haven’t understood them.

Now, the worst aspect of this reform, Minister—the worst aspect of this reform is the Minister’s divisive co-governance agenda and the Te Mana o te Wai patch-over of local communities and councils. It’s completely unnecessary, and this agenda makes it harder, not easier, to achieve your reform objectives, which you say are about infrastructure, Minister. So there’s no rationale for having these co-governance concepts at the centre of water reforms.

Minister Nanaia Mahuta herself replied to a written question I put to her: what rights and interests do iwi Māori have in three waters assets? And the Minister responded—a written question: “… Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets”—Minister—over those of taxpayers in any community, in reply to a written question. Then there is the Te Mana o te Wai statements, which only iwi and hapū can provide—and at any time—and must be given effect to. Now, this could cover any aspect of water, water use, allocation, discharges, overland flows, storage, recreation on lakes and rivers. The list of things that a Te Mana o te Wai statement exclusively provided by iwi and hapū that the water entities will have to give effect to—it’s an unlimited capacity to direct how water is used.

Now, ACT has an alternative three waters plan. We can improve the current system, but we don’t need to do so through State-mandated centralisation and allowing some people to have more influence over how water is used and allocated based on who their grandparents were, Minister. Communities 4 Local Democracy and, more recently, Auckland and Christchurch councils have expressed widespread support from their communities for ACT’s proposed alternative three waters infrastructure plan. We would provide for councils to enter into shared services agreements, like Auckland’s Watercare does with Waikato councils. You get the benefits of scale, you retain local ownership and control. We’d incentivise councils to upgrade and build new three waters infrastructure by sharing 50 percent of the GST, Minister, that Government takes from people who build homes—takes and pockets for itself. ACT would return 50 percent of the GST on all new builds to councils to fund three waters infrastructure. We’d establish long-term 30-year agreements between central and local Government to make sure that the infrastructure that was needed that councils signed up to was actually delivered by local government.

And, of course, we would allow private sector investment. We would allow the Super Fund, the Accident Compensation Corporation, your Kiwibank that you love so much to invest in three waters assets and infrastructure through public-private partnerships—in fact, any possible way to get money to build stuff, ACT would say, “Bring your money and build stuff so we can solve the three waters riddle.” ACT’s plan will better balance community needs, deliver infrastructure. When ACT is a part of a future Government we’ll repeal this bill, Minister, we’ll chuck it on the trash heap, and we will put our three waters plan in place. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for that member to have another five minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There is none. I call the honourable Simon Court.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for offering me an honorific so early in my parliamentary career where, although I’m not a Minister, I feel confident that I’ve brought more practical experience from nearly 25 years as a civil engineer to this House to talk about how we could reform three waters infrastructure, funding and finance, the delivery mechanisms, the procurement mechanisms, and how we could incentivise local government to actually deliver more infrastructure.

Now, ACT’s been thinking about this for a long time. ACT’s housing spokesperson, Brooke van Velden, advocates for a GST rebate, sharing 50 percent of the GST that this Government takes from new house building construction—we don’t know what they do with it, takes for itself—and to give half the money the central government collects in GST from house building, give it back to local councils so that they can actually cash flow more three waters infrastructure, more roading infrastructure, and get more homes built.

When we think about what the principles are of localism, of devolving decision making down to communities—why is it that this Government is so obsessed with centralisation? Whether it’s the three waters reform or whether it’s the health reforms just about everything this Government wants to do involves centralising control in a Minister’s office. The Resource Management Act reform and the Natural and Built Environments Act will centralise final decision-making on plans and places in the Minister’s office. Centralisation is the opposite of what our communities are asking for. What they’re asking for is the ability to tell central government what their communities need to grow, to get support from central government for the funding and financing, the delivery architecture. The structures would allow new homes and new subdivisions to be developed, new mixed-use developments with higher intensity.

It costs a lot of money to renovate old pipe networks and waste-water treatment plants in central cities. Infrastructure is expensive, Minister. That’s why what ACT would do is open up the market to fund finance and procure more infrastructure to organisations like the Super Fund—to organisations like Crown Infrastructure Partners, like ACC, iwi investors. There are all kinds of organisations that would like to invest in infrastructure because it’s a long-term investment. What this Government—[Interruption]—that’s right. What this Government has committed to is to take taxpayer funds, $2.5 billion of debt into these new water entities without delivering a single new pipe or a single upgrade to a waste-water treatment plant.

Now, the other thing that this legislation complicates—and I have to give credit to the Green MP, Eugenie Sage; she pointed this out—is that the provisions around stormwater, around bringing in parks and reserves, around geothermal waters, and around coastal waters make this not just a three waters bill, but maybe even a five waters bill, Minister—a five waters bill. So how on earth is it going to be possible for people who want to develop geothermal resources, who want to deliver renewable energy for communities, help us transition—who are they going to have to negotiate with, Minister, to get their developments up and running? Or will this just be an opportunity through these Te Mana o te Wai statements for continuing rent seeking from some of the most privileged and wealthy organisations in New Zealand—these post - Treaty settlement organisations which are more than capable of looking after their own interests, Minister. But the Minister’s empowered them through this legislation—empowered them through this legislation—to have an undue influence, an influence which is totally unbalanced compared to the farmers, the foresters, the manufacturers, all of those people involved in primary production, and places like Anna Lorck’s electorate where they can tomatoes, they can fruits and vegetables. Can you imagine how they’re going to struggle to get water in the future when they have to go up against some of the most powerful tribal corporations in New Zealand? That’s why we oppose this bill. Thank you, Minister, I’ll take another five—

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

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very robust debate in the Chamber tonight: a debate from those who are taking us forward, and a debate about those who are taking us backwards; those that have a plan, and those that don’t have plan; those that want to protect our public assets, and those that want to privatise our public assets.

Every organisation, every person, every iwi and hapū in their submission acknowledged the need for water reform. Government and councils agreed alike that something needs to be done to keep our water costs low. And, to me, New Zealand is a place where our infrastructure stacks up, where partnership with Māori is valued; where our beaches on the North Shore have remained free from contamination; where families from Kaikohe in the North to the East Coast have clean drinking water; where Governments of this House are planning and delivering better environmental outcomes. At a time when cost of living pressures are real, these changes are in front of us, and will provide affordable solutions to ratepayers to fund infrastructure now and into our future.

Auckland households cannot sustain increasing costs on top of the 7 percent increase that Auckland ratepayers experienced this year, and that is why this bill is so important. It will ensure ratepayers aren’t out of pocket. It will upgrade failing pipes and water infrastructure, and it will ensure safe drinking water for everyone. This bill establishes four publicly owned water entities to deliver more cost-effective, safe, reliable, and efficient water services from 1 July 2024, through improved investment and management.

Our Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I’m proud to be a part of, went across the country, despite National doing their best to not go out to the regions to hear the voices of our communities. They held off five days—five days before the Opposition agreed to go and see the communities out in the regions. Eighty-eight thousand submissions; that’s a lot of submissions. If I just speak to a point that came up before, that this side of the House didn’t want to hear those submissions. It is common and I refer back, as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that it was Simeon Brown, last week, that asked not to hear submissions. It is a common practice that sometimes the committee can agree on.

Our people and communities have clearly demanded a local voice, transparency, accountability, and good localised services, and we must deliver that. But they do not accept—they do not accept—status quo and poor water infrastructure in this country. The select committee has done the hard yards. The select committee has gone through hearing as many submissions as possible. The voice of New Zealand Aotearoa has been heard, and this has equated to 130 changes in this bill—130 changes. That is significant—130 changes as a result of community voice to this bill—and we’re only halfway through processing this piece of legislation in the House.

I want to go through it. We heard this public feedback. We heard it on public ownership. We’ve heard it on the balance sheet. We’ve heard it on good governance. We’ve heard it on Treaty partnership. It is now time to get on with the job and deliver for New Zealanders. Some of these changes I’ll go through. The cap on the number of regional representatives on the regional representative group has been removed. The committee increased audit scrutiny over key strategic documents like reports from the Office of the Auditor-General. The regional representative groups are now required to have rural, provincial, and metropolitan council representatives, which was a request from councils.

The committee updated the definition of “Te Mana o te Wai” to include coastal and geothermal water, as was originally recommended by the Working Group on Representation, Governance and Accountability of new Water Services Entities. The committee also clarified mana whenua whose interest within the entity boundary is recognised in settlement legislation, and can issue a Te Mana o te Wai statement, in addition to mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā is in an entity’s service area. That was a significant change that we heard directly from mana whenua at the table, and mana whenua that presented alongside their councils.

The entity objectives have been updated to clarify the role of the entities in the planning process, and their relationship to council planning functions by noting their role is to support and enable planning and growth. The committee amended the operating principles to include a requirement for the entities to have regard to the areas where services are delivered in their procurement processes, and ensure there is an understanding of the local, cultural, and environmental factors where the services themselves are delivered. The committee has added to the collective competencies of the board. This includes public health, the environment, perspectives of consumers and communities, and the perspectives of our local government councils. Contracts and joint arrangements relating to water services have been limited to a 15-year term rather than a 35-year term, which is the maximum term specified in the Local Government Act.

So, just to close off there, change isn’t easy. Sometimes change is necessary. This bill is about delivering for our future generations, delivering for our families, to ensure that they have the best quality drinking water available to them. But what we need to do, as a responsible Government, as a responsible Parliament, is to ensure that we enable investment in the best infrastructure to make that happen. That is about all of us; that is about this House; that is about our councils; that is about our communities; and that is about mana whenua. So, without further ado, I want to speak to the opposite side of the House. I’ve got two minutes 30 seconds to go and you will hear it.

Simon Watts: Give him another five!

SHANAN HALBERT: It’s important. Those of you—I can ask for another five. The important thing here is we all agree on the problem. Our water infrastructure isn’t up to scratch. So, for you here, for you at home, if you don’t like what’s on the table, come up with an alternative. You didn’t. You don’t have a plan.

Hon Member: Let me go! Let me go!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! That’s just about enough of the shouting going on in here, so I think we might just calm things a tad and I’ll ask the member not to bring the Speaker into the debate.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to close off, investment in our water infrastructure is important for our future generations. Collectively, investment in water infrastructure is important for our future generations. This robust debate in the House isn’t about ownership. It isn’t about assets. It’s about water and ensuring that we make the best decisions for future generations. I’m proud of the plan that this Government has come up with, in the absence of a plan across the room. I challenge everyone to scrutinise the Opposition and their lack of a plan. Come up with something better, but you can’t sit there and moan and groan and not deliver for New Zealanders. This side of the House is, and we’re getting on with doing that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Nicola Grigg—five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): When I had the pleasure of speaking on the Water Services Entities Bill in the first reading, I made a prediction that this piece of legislation will be the beginning of the end of the Ardern Government, and I stand by that prediction. In fact, I’m going to start taking wagers on it, because this Government has dug itself so deep and it is too arrogant to start accepting that it has got it so wrong, and we are seeing it reflected in the polls every single day.

The only number that that side of the House needs to listen to is 88,383—88,383 New Zealanders. Five days—227 submissions. These numbers are stupefying. They are stupefying in the sense that they illustrate just how determined the Labour Government is to blatantly ignore the will of New Zealanders, how determined this Labour Government is to blatantly ignore the democratic decision-making process that every New Zealander has a right to expect: 88,383 New Zealanders took the time, made the effort, sat down, thought about and wrote about their views on the impacts that this Water Services Entities Bill will have on them and their communities. And despite the heroic attempts of my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, they were overridden by the Labour majority, as happens time and time and time again. Hence just five days—a pitiful five days was allocated to hear a very, very small, insignificant portion of those 88,383 submissions. And, in fact, it gets worse; they were so dictatorial about who could be heard, what could be read—this Government has anointed itself as the judge, jury, and executioner of the provision of water services in New Zealand.

This Government and the Minister should hang their heads in shame. This is not how we do things in New Zealand. This is arrogance. This is a refusal to engage with communities across the country. It is deliberately ignoring a very wide variety of views—

Anna Lorck: Have you read the bill?

NICOLA GRIGG: —many, many regions have to offer. Anna Lorck, I have read the bill. Have you read the submissions—88,383 of them? I am certain you have not. This Government has been expressing vociferously that there is no alternate plan. Well, I give you exhibit A: there is a mayor sitting in the gallery tonight who has been a part of an amalgamation—

Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yep, thank you. I believe I know what the member is going to say. The member will not refer to people in the gallery. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

NICOLA GRIGG: I withdraw and apologise.

Three mayors offered an alternate proposal to this Government, and it was roundly ignored. An alternate plan when the Government says there isn’t one—the audacity of a Minister to say that there is not an alternative is an outrage. And this is the difference between the National Party and the Labour Government: we listen to the grassroots. Everything that is in this reported bill that has come back from select committee has remained unchanged. They have not listened to those 88,383 New Zealanders. They have not listened to the fact that New Zealand does not want a co-governance of our public water assets—of our public water services. This is a bottom line for the National Party: we will not support the co-governance of public assets. They have been paid for and they are owned by the communities that built them, just like the community of Selwyn that spent $750 million over multiple decades to build up a world-class water services infrastructure.

A lot has been talked about the apparent $185 billion deficit in infrastructure. Well, to coin a phrase from John Key: show me the money. Where has that number come from, because the Government has not substantiated that number? They are throwing around money; $3 billion in so-called “no worse off” funding—it is bribe money. Can that Government honestly, in a cost of living crisis—can they honestly sit there with a straight face and say that is not going to increase the rates that ratepayers around communities in New Zealand are going to have to contend with? It is patently clear this bill is an abomination. It is ideological, it is anti-democratic, it is recklessly expensive, and New Zealanders do not want it. The National Party will not support it.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Madam Speaker, the Māori Party isn’t taking a call, so I am going to. I stand today as both a member of Parliament for Tukituki, the electorate of the Havelock North water crisis, and as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who is speaking on this bill.

The ratepayers and residents of Hastings have paid severely from a lack of ongoing investment into our water infrastructure. The council of the time ignored warning after warning to invest in infrastructure, and instead chose to keep rates low—as low as possible—and we paid dearly. The real numbers of those that were sick from the Havelock North water crisis were between 6,000 and 8,000 people, including over 2,000 not directly within the reticulated area, nearly 1,000 cases reported to their doctor, and another 42 people hospitalised. And the campylobacter infection contributed to the death of at least four people.

Along with the health impact, the economic impact of this crisis on the Havelock North and Hastings community was $21 million—$21 million. This included $4.1 million from the Hastings District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. It also included $2.5 million for the cost to our district health board and another $1.3 million to the local businesses of Havelock North. But, now, through the Havelock North water crisis, Hastings is six years on, and we have been rebuilding our drinking-water infrastructure to world-class standards, but both ratepayers and the Government have had to invest millions to get there.

Hastings and Havelock North have been the catalyst for this bill, but we are also an example of the future, because when we turn on our drinking-water system next year—seven years on—it will be world class. But it also highlights the major work ahead for so many councils across New Zealand. It is appropriate for me to acknowledge the work, experience, and lessons learnt, and the contribution that Hastings has made through the submission process, which has led to many of the changes that we are hearing in the water services bill today.

The Hastings District Council agrees on many parts of the water services bill: reform is necessary, and co-governance is necessary, and they believe scale and regulatory requirements of the regulator are necessary. Hastings also led in bringing councils together, working on Hawke’s Bay’s submission too. And, again, I want to acknowledge Hawke’s Bay in the House. At least they put up a plan. At least they gave it a good shot. We listened to much of what the submission said. Our regional model was taken seriously, and as the local MP of this region, I supported Hawke’s Bay’s advocacy. And during the submission process, I asked other councils: would they join forces? But the response I heard back was mixed. For me, this highlighted the differences of opinion amongst councils across the country.

Our Government is charged with delivering a New Zealand - wide approach in the interests of all communities to deliver safe, effective water infrastructure that leaves nobody—nobody—behind. It is fair to say that the parochialism of Hawke’s Bay remains staunch, but I also know that, as a region, we will move forward, we will look outwardly, and we will continue to be leaders as we take forward this Water Services Entity Bill right across the country. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): First of all, I’d like to congratulate my friend Anna Lorck for that speech, and I think it was an extremely good speech because it was coming from a place of learning. Hawke’s Bay went through a terrible trauma as a result of terrible water quality, and people suffered and people died.

When we went to the Hawke’s Bay—and we went to a lot of places in New Zealand to listen to these submissions—I was particularly struck by one woman called Shelley. She had had a small child and they have been in hospital. She had gone home and when she turned on the tap, the water was brown. I would not like to have been in that position. She also worked in the council and she used to bring a little jar of water in and it was never dealt with.

We also heard from a mayor who had left the job—he was an ex-mayor—and he said that during that time as a mayor, he asked about water quality and he was reassured that everything was fine, that the infrastructure was fine. When he left, then the same person, the very same person who had been working for him, explained that, in fact, the water quality wasn’t fine. That, for me, is an interesting story because I have a lot of respect for local bodies doing things. I think it is where a lot of things need to happen, and you’ll see in the Resource Management Act reforms that a lot of that is reinforced.

This Government has great respect for the role of local government, but this—this—part of it was impossible. They were in an impossible position because what they had to deal with was trying to get their rates down, but they were dealing with a problem that was actually really expensive. So what we had was an artificial keeping the rates down while the maintenance didn’t happen, while the pipes didn’t get upgraded. And, obviously, in a place like Hawke’s Bay, we were able to see new infrastructure being put in because they’d had a hell of a shock. But I’d rather that the families in New Zealand never had to deal with that situation.

What we need is we absolutely need to be able to rely on our drinking water throughout this country, and to be able to rely on our waste water throughout this country, because it’s right—we can’t swim at some of the beaches in Auckland. I think that the members that have places in the North Shore will know this: we can’t swim at those beaches. We look online and we check out, in the summer, whether we’re allowed to swim at Devonport or Takapuna, and that’s ridiculous in a country this beautiful. So these things have to happen.

Now, I can tell you the next person I want to thank is the Minister, Hon Nanaia Mahuta, because, during this process, we were quite a tough committee. We were very much a committee that listened and learnt, and we have engaged as a committee, and that Minister has been brave and has listened. As a result, we have a lot of changes. One of the changes that I am proudest of is the one that is a movement from being able to contract out services for 35 years to only 15, and for things like local procurement to be part of the formula. Those are important changes. I come from this background of doing this work with workers, and one of my unions was the Amalgamated Workers Union. That union came along and made a submission in support of this because it knew this was the way to go. It’s worked with Watercare. It knows these kinds of scales are a good idea and that it’s a better future for a worker. If you are a worker in this industry and you are worried, don’t be. There are good provisions around workers, here.

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

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, Madam. If a worker is worried about this, I would like to reassure those workers in those areas. This is actually a really good system where we’ve thought through that we need a good workforce that’s skilled up. And they will skill up, and they will be able to apply that skill in their local area because those services will need to apply there. So this is really a real upgrade in the role, and that’s what the union told us.

So did the technical workers, and I’d like to just talk about the mayors and the workers in this situation because, yes, we had mayors who had misgivings, but, interestingly, what I noticed in the submissions was we had a lot of workers in the area saying this was a good idea. We had a lot of the people who actually do this work who were coming to us and making submissions saying that this was a good idea. For me, that’s a little bit of a litmus test—when you get the workers on the ground and you treat them well and they know they’re going to have a future, and they know that this is a good thing, because, actually, what’s happened out there is not good enough.

So I am absolutely pleased with where we’ve landed here. There has been a lot of engagement. There has been engagement over accountability, over making sure that contracting out was just a useful tool and not actually something that might get in the way. And there has been so much good listening go on—to local voices. There has been so much shoring up of that, and I am proud of the way that our Finance and Expenditure Committee was able to go through this and hear people and change so that we have got a better piece of legislation in an area that New Zealand really needs change in. Mostly, I’d like to thank our Minister for being extremely brave. She has actually made a change in our society that will benefit my children and my grandchildren, and no one will have to turn on the tap and have brown water come out when they’ve got a sick child.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, I have to say that this is the most despicable, the most dishonest, and the most dishonourable piece of legislation I have had the misfortune to speak to in this House. This is a deplorable way of stealing assets off communities—assets that have been bought and paid for over generations.

I’d like to start my contribution by saying that the National Party actually did support the first part of these reforms, which established the water regulator. So that was back in March 2021, and the reason we did that was because we recognised that there needed to be some authority to ensure that councils acted on their management plans.

So just for a bit of context around that: councils have their 10-year plans, their project plans, for the next 10 years. They report in those plans on the condition of their three-water assets. So they’re planning ahead 10 years at least for repairs, replacements, and renewals of those assets, and the Audit Office will come along and it will assess those reports, but it has no authority to make those councils commit to that work. In some cases, there were councils, over many years, who used the excuse of keeping rates down not to invest in that infrastructure. That’s why we supported the first part of these reforms, because it’s recognised that there did need to be some authority to ensure that communities were not short cut in terms of the investment that was happening.

But to say that the Government has been working on these reforms for five years is not what is understood by the sector. If the Government had been working on these reforms for five years, they had an obligation to go out to the communities in the 2020 election and get the mandate from the voters to proceed with their plan—this grand plan that we’ve been hearing about all day.

But they did not. They did not ask the voters then, so we’ve gone through this farce of a consultation process in the creation of this piece of legislation—as we’ve heard, 88,000 submissions. They may have disregarded some of those form submissions, but 227 oral submissions were heard when 1,600 of those submitters requested to be heard. Now, we’ve done that with other legislation—we have given the voice to those people who wanted to be heard. But for some reason, this Government uses its absolute majority to run roughshod over the democratic process and be selective about the people that it will hear, and I find that absolutely despicable.

But then we go on to the cost of this thing. If I talk to my colleague and friend Simon Watts, he can’t tell us what this is going to cost, because the Government hasn’t zoned in on the exact cost. But they can’t even tell us what the value of the assets across all of the local councils in New Zealand are actually worth. So they come along with $2.5 billion, which is a “no worse off fund”—which is code for “Here’s a bribe to come on board in exchange for mega-billions of dollars’ worth of assets that we haven’t got a figure for yet.”—and everybody is meant to be happy and go home and sing “la-di-da”.

Well, I’m telling you that actually the communities in this country aren’t stupid. They are taking that money and they’re doing things like paying down debt and building recreational facilities. It is not going into core infrastructure like three-water assets, so it’s an absolute waste of money—$2.5 billion. How far would that have gone to fixing the problem that the Government thinks it needs to set out to fix?

So we’ve got the “no worse off” funding, but the biggest waste of money—and if you think about the position this country is in today with the cost of living crisis, the health crisis, the education crisis, and then they go out and spend $3.5 million on a media campaign to convince the country that we need these reforms. If you remember the cartoons with the slime coming out of the tap? Crikey dick! Nobody could relate to that. It quickly disappeared, but not before $3.5 million had been wasted on an advertising campaign trying to convince people who didn’t need to be convinced that their water was in terrible shape.

So I think the Government has lost its way in all of this. We’ve heard some comments today that—in fact, Helen White brought it up in her contribution—we don’t want to have councils that have “no swimming” notices up at their beaches, as they do in Auckland. Well, I think the Government has missed a trick here, because Auckland Council actually recognised that themselves, and they set up Watercare. So Watercare has gone and spent ratepayers’ money to fix the problem the Government says it needs to fix, but it’s already under way. So what is the point?

I still don’t understand why this Government thinks it’s the only entity in this country that knows how to do things, because—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Socialism.

MAUREEN PUGH: It is socialism, Michael Woodhouse—absolutely. Absolutely. But the cost of this whole exercise to date has been about $34 million. This is a complete insult to the hard-working taxpayers of this country—an absolute sham.

But I want to turn the rest of my contribution to why I think this is dishonest, because this legislation contains two things that I want to raise tonight. One is about the exclusive ability for the iwi representatives to propose statements. Now, these statements are binding on those entities and we’ve heard about some of the caution that we have around that, because it is extending out into fresh water, it’s extending out into the ocean.

I just want to read a part out of the Cabinet paper that Nanaia Mahuta had in June 2021. This wasn’t made available to the public, by the way. “I see the [Te Mana o te Wai] statements as being holistic, enabling Māori to express a broad wellbeing approach consistent with a Te Ao Māori approach to such measures, including economic, cultural, social, and environmental expectations.” She goes on to say, “Such statements could contain economic aspirations with respect to Māori enterprise and job creation, particularly—but not exclusively—in areas related to mātauranga Māori expertise.” So, basically, what they are saying is that whatever the 1,200 iwi and hapū consider in their best interests and are deemed to be consistent with the view of mātauranga Māori, they will be locked into those entities and those statements are binding, and those four water services entities have to obey them.

But there’s another little hidden part of this piece of legislation that needs a bit of airtime, and that is that not only are they going to seize the councils’ bought and paid for infrastructure—three-waters infrastructure—but they’re now also going after parks and reserves.

Anna Lorck: No, we’re not—no we’re not. You’ve got that wrong.

MAUREEN PUGH: So the parks and reserves—if they’re in this, Anna Lorck, they will be seized.

So New Zealand has been duped into thinking that this has been all about clean water, when, in fact, we were between second and ninth in the world for top-quality water in this country, and, again, this is this typical Labour Government saying they’ve got a solution and they’re now looking for a problem. But this is dishonest, and they have not had the gumption to be open with the people of New Zealand.

All those backbenchers over there have been reading the bill notes. They haven’t been involved in these Cabinet papers and these discussions going on behind closed doors. If they had have been—if they had have been—they had an obligation to outline it to the communities when they went out to consult.

This is despicable, and I want to say that the people of this country deserve better. They will get better when National repeals this legislation next year, and then we will see some action in terms of investment in infrastructure.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Madam Speaker, thank you very much, indeed.

I think the National Party might be regretting giving Maureen Pugh a call on this—for her to claim that “this is a solution looking for a problem” sums the National Party’s position altogether. They have had their heads in the sand throughout this debate, refusing to accept that there is a problem and refusing to accept that there is something that needs to be done. Everyone except the National Party accepts that there is something that needs to be done. There’s a $185 billion problem facing this country, and then they laugh—without even realising it, proving my point.

Simon Watts: Independent experts say that is overstated.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: They say it is overstated. Well, I would point them to the Water Industry Commission for Scotland report, I would point them to the peer-reviewed Farrierswier report, and I would point them to the peer-reviewed Beca Group report that have indicated that New Zealand communities need to fund $180 billion worth of infrastructure over the next 30 years.

Every single council that I have visited have said that they cannot do it by themselves. So for Maureen Pugh to stand up tonight and for her mates to continue bickering while I make a factual statement shows that they are completely out of touch when it comes to this.

Now, I have sat here and listened to every single contribution to this debate. Throughout the National Party’s contributions, I listened very carefully and I listened in hope, and I listened waiting for a solution to this issue. Well, I stand here very disappointed. What this bill does is it presents a solution to this massive financial burden facing our communities.

I heard Simon Watts take umbrage with something that the Minister said. He misquoted her and tried to spin it around in—I must admit—a rather clever way. What the Minister said was, pointing to the National Party, that that side has no alternative; fact. What Simon Watts said is that there are alternatives; that’s also a fact. He went on to list said alternatives; not once did he say that the National Party had a policy and not once did he commit his party to those alternatives he listed. So here we are, back at the status quo.

As Associate Minister of Local Government, by visiting 54 rural and provincial councils, I asked them a very simple question. “Can you do this by yourselves?”, is what I asked. None of them said they could. Simon Watts projects himself as the saviour of local government; he clearly hasn’t engaged with them. I’ll give the House an example. He says that their policy is to “repeal and replace” three waters—with what? “Repeal and replace”, they say their policy is. Well, I would say to the National Party, they better ring their volunteers in Waikato and Coromandel and Wairarapa and much of the South Island, who are still showing billboards that say, “Repeal and reverse”—even their own members don’t know that their policy’s changed. But the fact that they have changed their position on this bill says quite a bit.

Originally, when this bill was first proposed, the National Party pulled out the old tripe that said, “This is stealing assets.” I see Maureen Pugh dived into that pool earlier. They said, “We will repeal and reverse.” Then they realised that, actually, everyone except them recognises there’s a problem, so they quietly changed their policy to “repeal and replace”. But what they are neglecting to tell the New Zealand public is what with. This bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member is an experienced member. I have asked him informally to return more closely to the bill, and I will now ask him to do that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this bill does is it actually provides a solution—a solution that is the only one, outside that of the ACT Party, of this Parliament.

Now, I don’t have much in common with the ACT Party—I’ve said this quite a bit—but I do respect them because they actually come with alternative solutions. The issue that I have with the solution that the ACT Party proposed in response to this bill was that they are proposing to share the GST on new developments with councils. Good on them for coming up with something alternative; a valid contribution to this debate. But through their own costings, that will provide $1 billion per year. They will solve a 30-year problem 150 years too late. That is unfortunate.

The reason that this bill proposes what it does is it recognises that councils cannot do this by themselves. It recognises that, even at a regional level, whilst that may work in some parts of the country, and I recognise those councils that have put effort into putting forward an alternative proposal, there are many councils that still miss out—the majority of whom are rural councils; the areas that this party purports to support, yet won’t come up with a solution to help them out. They are happy to leave them with $100 million which their small rate paying base cannot fund.

The key to this issue is that in order to find the economies of scale and an affordable way to do this, you need balance sheet separation. We could do what Matt Doocey proposed in an earlier debate, but I noticed stayed away from today—Matt Doocey proposed an alternative, and good on him. But I note that he didn’t say it today and probably because he was told he shouldn’t—it’s a broader proposal as well: that the Government should kick in with 50 percent; similar to the Waka Kotahi proposal similar to funding assistance rate. The problem with that is Matt Doocey was, at the time, committing the National Party to $92.5 billion bill when they are proposing $11 billion a year of tax cuts. It didn’t add up, and that’s why he didn’t mention it again tonight.

We were asked by Nicola Grigg to show us the figures that we were referring to—this cost. It has been provided by experts and peer-reviewed by two reports. I don’t think Nicola Grigg realised that by doing so she revealed to the House that she hasn’t actually read the proposals.

We also heard a few things that I thought were quite telling. We saw tonight that the National Party are opposing this on the basis of co-governance. I am proud to stand on in support of this bill on co-governance, and I’ll give one simple example. In my tour of 54 councils, one councillor stood up and opposed co-governance—one. That was council No. 41. When I said to that councillor, “I’ve visited 40 councils before this. This is the first time that someone has raised an opposition to co-governance. I want you to be aware of it.” He wasn’t aware, he sat down, and I haven’t heard about co-governance since.

This should have been a lesson for Simon Watts, who appeared to the Local Government New Zealand conference in Palmerston North and rallied against co-governance—didn’t get a clap because he didn’t read the room. The local government sector is in favour of proposals in this bill.

We are on the side of local government in the respect that we have come forward with a solution. The one thing that local government told me is that they can’t do it by themselves, which is exactly what the Opposition is proposing. The National Party are proposing the status quo, ignoring the problem, kicking the can down the road, proposing the exact thing that councils do not want.

I am proud of the way that this Government, my colleagues, especially the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who has listened to the concerns, set up a working group made up of local government representatives, took on those proposals, and took on the proposals and the recommendations made by select committee. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few amendments and adjustments that come through the committee of the whole House stage because this is a sincere attempt to improve this bill and make it work.

The alternative is clear, and the New Zealand people must realise. For all their articulate speeches and for all Simon Watts’ yelling, they have no policy in this area. Their policy is the status quo; the very thing that councils say that they simply cannot afford to do, and by cannot afford they mean rates will go up and ratepayers will suffer. I commend this bill to the House.

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

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

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Water Services Entities Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Forestry) on behalf of the Minister of Climate Change: I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon STUART NASH: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to begin by saying that it’s great to see this bill back before the House. I would like to thank the Environment Committee for accommodating the reduced time frame that the bill requires. Notwithstanding its long title, this bill serves an important function by ensuring that small forestry participants in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme—the New Zealand ETS—are safeguarded from possible disproportionate outcomes if they were to incur the three to one penalty. For context, the three to one penalty, set at three times the price of carbon—with no ability to reduce, despite the regulator—came into force for most New Zealand ETS participants at the beginning of 2021.

For forestry participants of the New Zealand ETS, this penalty usually arises when forests are harvested, deforested, or deregistered from the scheme, and the resulting unit liability is not paid back on time. Its application was deferred for small forestry participants—being those with liabilities of less than 25,000 units, on average, per year—until the end of this year, in recognition that it could cause serious financial harm to these participants. This is due to the size of the three to one penalty, compared to the cash flow, meaning that their personal assets—for example, the home or the farm—could be at risk if they were unable to pay their liability by the due date and, therefore, incur the penalty. Two years on, and the risk to small forestry participants remains and increases as the price of carbon rises.

I’m pleased to report that the work on a revised penalty that is more proportionate for small forestry participants is under way and will be progressed through separate legislation. This bill contemplates and supports that work by, number one, extending the period of the existing transitional provisions, which will give effect to the transitional arrangement for small forestry participants to align with the scheduled commencement date of a revised penalty, being 1 January 2025, and, number two, ensuring adequate time for participants to be educated on what the revised penalty for small forestry participants will mean in practice before it comes into force, making for a smooth transition.

The bill has been reported back to the House with no amendments. The committee received just one submission, which did not address the substance of the bill.

The shortness of my speech reflects the nature of this bill: a simple amendment to the existing transitional provisions in the Climate Change Response Act 2002, to maintain a layer of protection for small forestry participants in the New Zealand ETS until a more proportionate penalty is finalised.

To conclude, it is great to see this bill making swift progress through the House. I look forward to the discussion today and to debating the bill in more detail during the committee of the whole House. I commend this bill to the House.

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill with a very long name. I think, interestingly, we supported this bill at the first reading. It’s come back to the House in exactly the form it left the House—to go to the select committee—which is very unusual. So it’s quite difficult to manufacture a long speech on a bill that’s come back, having spoken on it at the first reading; the bill has come back to the second reading in exactly the same form.

The Minister just explained very well what this bill does, but I guess the issue that I want to talk about, really, is—the fact that we’ve had to bring this bill back to the House points to the very complicated nature of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and our response to climate change initiatives in New Zealand, and the challenges that some of our response is going to create as a result of the legislation we put in place. And I’m not criticising that legislation, because I guess we’re in uncharted territory to a large extent. We’re the only country in the world that really only has one mitigating factor in our emissions trading scheme, and that is the sequestration of carbon by trees, and I’m not arguing with that—

Simeon Brown: What about mangroves?

IAN McKELVIE: Yeah. We could have—we could have dandelions and all sorts of things as well, Simeon. But I’m not arguing with that, because I think, in New Zealand’s circumstances, we’ve gone down that path, and I think that, having gone there, we need to stick to it and we need to make it work for New Zealand as best we can. So having gone down that path, it’s a great shame that in the early days of this discussion—and I think that would take us back at least 10 years—we didn’t get to a point where we had a plan and a road map as to how we intended to use trees, for example, to manage our climate change challenges and to manage the ETS. So this bill is one little feature of the myriad of issues that arise as a result of our management of the emissions trading scheme and of our challenges around climate change.

So the Minister explained very well what happens in this situation. And the simple essence of the reason for this bill is that there’s a myriad of small land owners in New Zealand—and these are foresters affected by this bill—what are termed “small holdings” or “small forests”, basically. Interestingly, the value of those small forests is quite significant if you put it into carbon form—and, in fact, even on recent log prices, quite valuable from a log perspective as well. So what can happen is that those trees can be either inadvertently cut down and the land sold to another purchaser, and I’ve seen a number of these cases—that purchaser, not knowing there was a liability around those trees that have been cut down, or disappeared or harvested; and consequently is facing this liability. Now, that’s a challenge that’s always going to exist; this bill won’t change that. But this bill does give those landowners and those forest owners who find themselves in those circumstances longer to manage the liability—and it also, I guess, manages the liability as well to some extent, because the penalties were set at three times the current carbon price, effectively. So the penalties would be very significant under the current legislation, and the need for the extension to that changes the liability on that and certainly improves the situation.

So there are some other challenges in this area as well, and we’ve seen just recently where the Ministry for Primary Industries have got a massive backlog of applicants wanting to register for the ETS, there’s significant backlogs there and—oh! I just about knocked the glass over. I suppose you could argue that that backlog, and the fact that those applicants have been delayed, and enter another stage of the emissions trading scheme—effectively, that’s taking credits out of the marketplace for a certain time, and the fact that you’ve taken units out of the marketplace, you could argue that it’s forcing the price: a higher price for the unit seller in the marketplace, and more cost to the cost of living price indexes, and all of those sorts of things. Because the application of the ETS, effectively, will increase the price of a whole lot of things that we either consume—and the most obvious ones of those are fuel, and also electricity. So having delays in these processes affects that, and the reason I raise that is because this bill is just one of those many responses that we’re going to have to negotiate our way through the future of this very challenging situation.

So we set out, as I said earlier, on a pathway to include sequestration of trees in our ETS. We set out on that pathway, but we didn’t ever put a plan in place, initially, as to how we would manage that process. The Government, in recent times, has been struggling with this very issue and have proposed a number of initiatives, which so far haven’t found a home. The great danger of this, as we try to manage our way through this process, is that we certainly don’t want to undermine the ETS, we don’t want to undermine our response to climate change, we don’t want to undermine our international liabilities, and we don’t want to undermine our credibility in the international marketplace. So there’s some very big challenges for New Zealand in this sector, quite apart from this bill.

The other matter about this bill is that it does line us up with those few countries in this world that have a similar process in place, and it’s very important that we line up our climate change initiatives with international best practice, because if we ever do branch out in New Zealand and take our response to the international marketplace, that will allow us to fit into that international marketplace easily. So it’s important that we get these things right.

So I said, when I started speaking, that there was very little for me to talk about, because the bill didn’t change as it went from the first reading to the committee, and then back to the second reading, and it hasn’t changed at all. So, as the Minister said, there was one submission and it wasn’t relevant. But the reason there was no need for a long select committee stage or for change at the select committee stage was that the department had done a very good job of consulting on this in the first place. It is a relatively simple matter, but, none the less, they’ve done a good job on consulting with it, and, as a result of that, the bill came to the House in the shape it needed to be in—a simple bill—and went to the select committee stage and came back to the House still in that stage. And I very much doubt—despite the optimism of the Minister—that the committee stage will take very long.

I probably can’t add any more than that; I’ll probably talk for far too long on far too little—ha, ha! Thank you.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on this bill with the very long name—as the last speaker, Ian McKelvie, said—the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. I would like to agree with a lot of what Ian McKelvie just said, in terms of it being a fairly unusual select committee process—that is, we did not hear from any submitters. We did, of course, hear from officials, and I thank them for their time, but there was no hearing and it was a very short turn-round. The first reading was on 18 October, a great day, and we have, as a select committee, made no changes to the bill. As the previous speakers have said, it is in fact a very simple bill; so I’ll just quickly cover what it is about.

It is about the small forestry participants that we’ve heard about, and that is how they fit into the Climate Change Response Act 2002, which, of course, provides for the emissions trading scheme—the ETS—which covers forestry. We’ve just had some explanation of that from the previous speaker. The obligations of the ETS include surrender of a credit for every tonne emitted and, if you don’t surrender, penalties apply. So these forestry obligations are very complex; some of that was just touched on.

The change in the last Parliament amended the penalty provisions and provided a deferral for the small forestry participants until 1 January 2023. You may have noticed that 1 January 2023 is fast approaching and a new penalty of sufficient proportionality for these small forestry participants has not yet been worked out. The current provisions in the Act do not seem to be appropriate for those small forestry participants, so all that this bill does is extend that deferral for another two years—so that is until 1 January 2025—to give officials an opportunity to work out what the right penalty is for these small forestry participants.

As Ian McKelvie mentioned just before, one of the reasons why the select committee didn’t receive submissions, apart from one that was out of order, was because of the previous consultation that happened, and, importantly, in that previous consultation that the officials undertook, there was no objection to an extension of this deferral. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call—I’m just having a mental blank—

Hon Members: Andrew Bayly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —Andrew Bayly. It’s just that it was the quietest I’ve ever heard you stand up, Mr Bayly—perhaps was the problem.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I’m so pleased that you could finally remember my name, Mr Speaker.

Simeon Brown: Stranger in the House!

ANDREW BAYLY: Stranger—let’s not go there. Anyway, it is a pleasure, and I wasn’t scheduled to talk, and that’s why the honourable Speaker is having trouble, but it is a pleasure to be talking on this climate change response—no, I’m not going to read it all—second reading. And I’m a ring-in, because this didn’t come before the committee that I sit on, but, none the less, it’s a very important matter, this.

I think this is about making sure that people get a fair go. As all the speakers have noted, there are situations where people simply do not apply and don’t know what’s happened with the land. Maybe you’ve just acquired it, and you suddenly find out that a few years ago—it may even be prior to 1990—the land previously had exotic forests on it that were removed. And, hey presto, you paid what you thought was good value for the land, and then you find you get suckered with, or socked with, a huge bill. So what this bill does is it defers it from 1 January 2023 to 1 January 2025 to give that time, as everyone has spoken about.

But no one’s actually talked about the numbers. Just to put this in context, what if this has a maximum threshold or minimum threshold? However you look at it, in terms of if you have less than 25,000 units, you will be able to operate under this delayed time setting. And to put those 25,000 units into perspective, that probably represents an area of about 35 hectares, so there are a lot of small exotic forests around New Zealand. So this is dealing with those smaller blocks.

So, again, if it’s 25,000 units at the current carbon price of about $88, that means that the owner of that land will need to pay approximately $2.2 million in terms of the emissions trading scheme (ETS). So with a three times charge, which is what the rules are if you don’t meet this requirement, you will be charged three times the current rate. That would mean, potentially, a liability of $6.6 million. And so this is just giving time for people to recognise and to check what the situation is. But also for some people, that is a substantial amount of money, particularly if you hadn’t anticipated it.

So the deferral was developed in response to submissions, although I heard one, to the Environment Committee. But the principles behind it were: the size of the penalty was viewed as excessive—and I just explained that—and the current rules mean that if someone had a legitimate reason why they mightn’t have known about a previous plantation, it didn’t matter because what would happen is they would get charged the penalty anyway. So it was a way of trying to mitigate that and to enable the regulator to take a more appropriate view on it.

And, interestingly, Māori had some concerns about this. They were concerned, particularly when you think about a lot of iwi land is held in trusts and it’s very unclear what the ownership is and who actually has the responsibility to make the penalty payment. So they were particularly concerned about this. And so this is a pragmatic way of dealing with it. As everyone said from our side—well, Ian McKelvie said and no doubt my colleagues will—we will be supporting this bill.

But the other thing to note with this is that the design of the penalty aligns with international jurisdictions. So it’s, to some extent, futureproofing whether in fact the ETS—New Zealand’s ETS, which is quite a distinct climate change mechanism—can be aligned with other international practices, which is an option we should keep up our back pocket.

Now, the last thing I just want to talk about is backlog, because I have been approached by a number of constituents who have been seeking to get clearance, whether in fact they are surrendering credits, to get confirmation from the regulator. And what we’ve been hearing is delays of up to a year. So in the case of one particular landowner I know who wishes to sell his land but can’t because he can’t get the clearance from the regulator, he is now sitting in a situation of hiatus. He cannot get that done. He cannot proceed and get on with his life, because we’ve got a Government department—

Simeon Brown: How many bureaucrats do we have there?

ANDREW BAYLY: 14,000 extra bureaucrats over the last five years. Approximate cost: $2 billion a year.

We need a Minister to focus on making sure these consent applications and the issuance of these ETS credits are done quickly and promptly. And it’s not good enough to blame it on COVID. We should be getting the resources in there now and dealing with it, because it’s putting people’s lives at risk and creating a whole lot of tension that should not otherwise be. So I hope the Minister will action that side of it. He’s certainly been made aware of it. But it is something that needs desperate attention, because this Government should be trying to make sure that people can get their ETS credits and the confirmations that they require. But on that note, I’ll let the others take over.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Talofa lava. Thank you for the privilege to take a short call and to speak to the bill tonight in the second reading. The Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill before the House advises the applying of a necessary approach to extend the time line of the original legislation. Can I begin by acknowledging and thanking Minister James Shaw and officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment for their hard work, valuable contributions, and also to acknowledge the one submitter through the public consultation process.

This Government bill will change the New Zealand emissions trading scheme by amending the Climate Change Response Act 2002. The penalty was strengthened in 2020, but there were concerns that it may significantly impact small forestry participants, causing serious financial hardship in some cases, and those concerns persisted. The bill seeks to extend the transitional engagement period from the end of 2022 to the end of 2024, allowing more time for a new, more proportionate penalty to be developed, and, in particular, participants to be educated on the new penalty before it’s implemented in 2025.

This afternoon, we heard in the debating chamber about the economy that was debated in the general debate session across the House, with our Government Ministers Dr Megan Woods and Minister Nanaia Mahuta highlighting the Labour Government’s commitment in achieving a low-carbon future for Aotearoa. Aotearoa cannot be left behind with our future exporting industries, our economy, and the environment. The Government has strong climate change priorities in the carbon reduction scheme and continues the credible plan to reduce our emissions in order to meet climate change targets. The Government released the first emissions reduction plan in May 2022 when I was sworn into the House as a representative and it is the road map to reduce emissions in Aotearoa for the next 15 years.

This bill would amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002, otherwise known as the Act, to extend a transitional arrangement by the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act 2020. The transitional arrangement that is being extended allows small forestry participants from being subject to a repayment, otherwise known as the three to one penalty, as part of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. The extension of time will ensure that enough time is given to educate affected parties before the new penalty regime takes place on 1 January 2025.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the chair, Eugenie Sage, and members of the Environment Committee that I have had the privilege of joining this year. I thank them for their professionalism, the collegiality of their work, and their valuable contribution on that particular select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m pleased to take a call on the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. There were various comments in the Environment Committee—and I thank the previous speaker, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, for her comments about the collegiality of the committee—about the title of this bill. It is a mouthful, but it is what it says on the tin.

It is a very short bill, as other speakers have canvassed—and I will be brief—about ensuring that our emissions trading scheme (ETS), which is one of the few in the world which includes forestry, actually works for smaller participants who have got forestry on about 30 hectares and have liabilities of around 25,000 units annually. It ensures that they are not liable for these, what could be for them, quite burdensome penalties at the moment. There was consultation in August by the Ministry for Primary Industries, Te Uru Rākau, and that highlighted the support for what the bill does, which is extending the transition period until the Government has been able to work out what is a suitable penalty for the smaller forestry units.

So the bill was unusual in the fact that we had a very short submission period. There was only one submission. It was out of scope. But there were some 25 submissions on that consultation exercise that Te Uru Rākau had done from across the forestry sector. So the committee was reassured by that earlier consultation and we didn’t recommend any amendments because none had come through the submission process.

So it’s a small bill. It does benefit those small forestry owners. It does help the ETS to work better. The Green Party is happy to support the bill.

SIMON COURT (ACT): It gives me great pleasure tonight on behalf of the ACT Party to confirm we will support this bill. Now, I did have significant reservations at first reading, which I set out quite clearly. Unfortunately, due to the very short time available, the committee was not able to attract any significant submissions. And knowing how difficult it is for organisations and individuals, particularly smallholders, particularly small farm foresters, the type of people and businesses that this bill—people carrying out forestry activities with low volumes, people in those situations often find it very difficult firstly to know when Parliament or select committees are calling for submissions, they often need to get advice, they need to talk to memberships or co-ops about what’s our position going to be, how should we respond, what are the various concerns. And so it’s not surprising that we didn’t get any submissions that could help the committee potentially deliver a better bill back to the House. But let’s just look back at what this problem is.

Essentially, the current legislation imposes an extraordinarily extreme penalty to farm foresters, to organisations, individuals who remove trees from their land and don’t replant. They might do that for a variety of reasons. They might decide to do something remarkable, like change their land use from forestry to productive farming, to beef and lamb, even dairy. They might decide that, actually, they’re going to remove the trees, the pine trees, if they are, for example—and they’re not going to replant anything, they’re just going to let the bush come back by itself because maybe those paddocks are just too steep, maybe it’s too difficult to get equipment in there. Maybe during the cost of living crisis, they can’t afford to pay for the equipment to get in there. And maybe with the immigration settings still pretty much turned down to zero under this Government, they can’t get the labour they need to go and replant what are often quite remote and challenging bits of terrain in the back country of New Zealand, because those are the kind of people who—after 1996 and particularly when the Kyoto Protocol was signed by New Zealand—realised there might actually be some benefits to continuing to allow forests to grow on their land and not cut it down for a reasonable time and to participate in schemes that allow them to claim carbon credits.

But, of course, the problem is that when this legislation was passed, the climate change response—well, essentially, the zero carbon Act back in 2020—the penalty that would have applied to farm foresters and smallholders to remove trees from their land and didn’t replant, or who had removed them since 1990, would have been in the order of $20 a tonne times three. A three times multiplier, a penalty of about $60 a tonne for every tonne of carbon they were assessed as being obligated to compensate the Government for in order for the Government to meet carbon targets that they had announced. So crikey, I mean, if I was a small holder or farm forester and I knew that I had a liability to either replant the land I’d cut trees from or pay, you know, $20 a tonne if I didn’t pay it, crikey, if it was going to be $60 a tonne I could be assessed on—so it’s kind of like an IRD of emissions trading penalties—then I might choose to do something. But, of course, what’s happened is a lot of these farm foresters and smallholders really had no idea what their liabilities, what their exposure was.

So this bill, this extension of time for the Government to work out what’s a fair regime, recognises, actually, the penalties and the regime that were going to be imposed on small holders—on farm foresters, for example—was completely out of proportion to the risk that they didn’t replant their land with pine trees or some other vegetation; the risk that they didn’t fulfil their obligations under the emissions trading scheme or under the Climate Change Response Act to pay off their carbon debt. That risk is actually tiny; it’s infinitesimal. When you think about the scale of global emissions, the fact that New Zealand emits over 80 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide from manufacturing, from transport, from energy production and consumption, from making things—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, could the members on the left please just keep it down; they’re affecting the concentration of the speaker. So could you just move closer if you want to have a conversation, rather than across the House? Mr Brown, you might just leave something. Just behave.

SIMON COURT: Mr Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carry on, my apology. In fact, I’ll ensure you get an extra minute.

SIMON COURT: Thank you. And, look, ACT Party MPs enjoy the support and the occasional encouragement from members from the National Party here to my right. And so I just assume, faithfully, that it was just the usual encouragement and “Just give them hell” that we expect from my National colleagues. But thank you, Mr Speaker, for offering to run defence, to protect me from people like Simeon Brown and his sharp tongue, his great wit; and, of course, Nicola Grigg, who is—like me—a regular attendee at agricultural shows, A&P shows like the Christchurch show New Zealand Agfest last week. Of course that’s the kind of places that New Zealand farm foresters, that small holders, the kind of people who grow a batch of pine trees on the back of their property potentially as an investment, something that mum and dad thought about years ago: “We’ll get into one of these pine-growing schemes and will get these pines, and, in 20 or 30 years from now, someone will come and cut them down, and that’ll form part of our retirement investment, our savings for the future.” And, of course, it’s people like that—it’s people who never expected to have to face these incredible penalties under the emissions trading scheme and under this piece of legislation, who we are trying to give a break to at this time.

Because the penalty regime was never really intended to punish such a group of people who have such a small stake in our overall emissions or emissions reduction—emissions mitigation—as this group. But, of course, what’s happened since the legislation was passed, the carbon price is not $20 or $25 a tonne; it’s about $85 a tonne. So a three times penalty is going to be somewhere in the region of $240 to $260 a tonne for the obligation that these people are under who might have cut down some old growth forest pre-1990. They are required, if they haven’t replanted it, and it was there on their land before 1990, to fulfil their obligations under the emissions trading scheme, to pay a penalty or to, basically, buy carbon credits and hand them back to the Government at $85 a tonne. That makes no sense. Because if you’ve got some forest that your mum or dad or grandparents planted or let regenerate on your family farm, say up the back of the King Country, where I visited a farming family in January, at Aria, and who showed me a bush block that their father and grandfather had allowed to regenerate, and they said, “Well, look, we don’t get any carbon credits for it because it’s pre-1990, but if we were to cut it down, we could pay that bill and we could replant it with pines and we could earn around $85 a tonne for the carbon sequestration.” None of this makes any sense because the way this Government’s meddled with the emissions trading scheme, introduced a zero carbon Act—in the words of the Hon James Shaw and Dr Rod Carr, the Climate Change Commissioner, what they say is they want to pull all the levers on every aspect of the economy to reduce climate change. None of that makes any sense.

The emissions trading scheme, if it was allowed to function as a market-based scheme—and I know that the Minister Megan Woods this afternoon asserted that, you know, in order to reduce emissions from the transport sector, for example, the cost of a unit of carbon in the emissions trading scheme would have to be over $500 a tonne. Now, again, none of this stuff makes any sense, because when you look at the way the Labour Government back engineers its terrible social engineering policies to get us out of cars, and comes up with prices that are completely unrealistic—like $500 a tonne of carbon to incentivise a change of direction—this back engineering stuff is one of the ways that they justify some of their terrible policies, when, really, if you just let the emissions trading scheme do its work, with one change only, and that would be—I mean, it’s important that we give an extension of time to these people while the Government works out how not to ruin a whole bunch of smallholders and mums and dads and older people at retirement age who have saved for their retirement by putting some pines on the land and cutting them down.

While it works out how not to ruin them, there’s one more thing they could do. What they could do is adopt my member’s bill, which is the Climate Change Response (Offshore Mitigation) Amendment Bill. What that would allow New Zealand businesses to do—and thank you, Mr Uffindell, for paying attention, it’s very, very important. The National Party needs to have a close look at this policy; we expect you to support it as well. What my bill would allow is for New Zealand businesses to mitigate their emissions offshore. Currently that’s not allowed. This Government imagines that New Zealand’s climate is a little bubble. It’s like the town of Springfield in The Simpsons; it’s got a glass bubble over it, right? And under that glass bubble is all of our emissions that we’re supposed to emit and then mitigate, right? Now, in fact, if we were allowed to mitigate our emissions offshore, we could do it at a much lower cost; we could engage in proper climate diplomacy where we’re helping developing countries replant forests that they’ve lost to unsustainable land-use practices. Places like Fiji where they cleared mangroves to get tourist boats in, we can help them regenerate their environment, reduce carbon, or suck it up in all of the regenerating bush, and actually allow threatened species like orangutan and eels and other things to have homes in places that currently they don’t.

So, look, ACT will support this bill, the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill, but we think there’s a couple of important things that we could do under the emissions trading scheme. Mr Speaker, thank you very much for your concern, running defence. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to point out that the reason National Party members had difficulty hearing each other is that Simon Court is wearing a tie that is very loud! I just want you to reflect on that.

Simon Court: Responding to the point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I don’t know what’s been happening in the House tonight, but members should just sit down and let it wash over themselves, and I’ll call Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to stand to take a call on this bill—a much-anticipated call. I am going to actually read out the name—the full 17 words—of this bill, the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. It’s a very short and discrete bill. It actually doesn’t cover Simon Court’s views on climate change leading up to his member’s bill on a totally different subject matter, you may be surprised to know. In fact, it only has, as I can see, three active parts, one of which is there for consistency, with the main change which is simply a change of date from 1 January 2023 to 1 January 2025. So, essentially, changing the implementation date from one date that is coming up soon to a date in two years. So quite a simple change that does make sense within the scheme that the Government’s put in place with the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act and the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act.

This Government is committed to a just transition in climate change, and I think this is what this bill represents. There’s an acknowledgment that, for small forestry participants, it’s going to be difficult for them—due to the size of penalty that they would have otherwise had to pay, and the size of the assets that they hold—to actually have this Act come into force at the original intended date. I think it is both pragmatic and fair, and I think that was probably reflected in the fact that we seem to have support from around the House for this very sensible bill.

I don’t sit on the Environment Committee, but I do commend them for their work and their collegiality and the fact that they have agreed, I think by majority, that this bill should go ahead in order to, as I said, just ensure that there is fairness when we do implement these emission trading reforms and that there is pragmatism. I think all those people who are looking to the Government’s climate change initiatives should see this as a very positive move because it shows that there will be times when we need to take a step back and just allow that time for education and information to be provided to people that the emissions trading scheme affects, and that this is the perfect example of that. So I commend it to the House.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I’d like to congratulate my colleague over the way—Camilla Belich—for going through all 17 words in the title. I thought about doing the same, but—

Hon Members: Do it.

SAM UFFINDELL: Well, they’re saying go—no, I don’t know. It’s probably a bit of a mouthful, and I have a tendency to get tongue-tied and twisted this late at night. But I will dive into the more substantive points around a revised penalty regime, which came into place on 1 January 2021, which strengthened the penalty applied for people who failed to surrender or repay units to the Crown. It increased to three times what the carbon price was.

I was very happy to see through this—and I see it has unanimous support across the House—that this penalty has been deferred until the beginning of next year, and rightly so, as well, because, as has been reasonably well-trampled-over, over the course of this bill’s discussion, there are a number of small holders who will get punished, and the price of failing to surrender or repay units is fairly significant. I would probably wonder aloud, if you may indulge me, whether this was the intended penalty to be applied when first established. The carbon price was notably lower.

Simon Court walks off. I was going to talk about your member’s bill—no, no, go on! But it has risen significantly, and we note, for someone with 25,000 units, around 30 to 35 hectares, as my colleague Andrew Bayly intelligently advised us earlier tonight, the cost of that is significant. What are we sitting at, at the moment? Around $88 per tonne. So, for someone with 25,000 units that they have failed to replant, that is around $2.2 million. If you apply the three to one penalty, that balloons quite significantly to $6.6 million. That’s a lot, and that can be quite punishing.

It was also noted how we had quite a few Māori land owners and organisations raise concerns around this, given the nature of Māori organisations and how they’re set up and how it could produce a situation which was not equitable. I think that is a good thing to raise, and I think it’s a good thing that this has been pushed out a little bit longer so that people can develop awareness. I do acknowledge that there are probably quite a few participants in the industry who don’t have awareness of this, and I hope they don’t get to see their neighbours run into this sort of trouble, but I’m sure there will be one or two bad stories that do filter back down through the grapevine.

I did note that Simon Court talked about the ability to offset offshore, and before he had even said it, I had written down a note here. I actually wrote it earlier in the afternoon because I wanted to raise it as a point, because to me it strikes me as something that is quite a sensible option. The reality is that climate change is a global problem and it requires a global solution, and if we are going to achieve it, it is going to be expensive, but the best way to do it is in the most cost-effective manner. If we can spend, let’s say, $50 a tonne mitigating climate change overseas, then why not do that? Why would we spend $500 a tonne in New Zealand? That makes no sense. We get the same result.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: We actually have to get to zero everywhere.

SAM UFFINDELL: We get the same result. It’s a global problem. So let’s be smart and spend money as best we can.

Simeon Brown: It’s just the greenwashers—that’s all.

SAM UFFINDELL: There is a bit of that, Mr Brown. There are other ways that we can decrease the impact of climate change. We note that this Government probably doesn’t have a great track record on that. We did have quite a lot of Indonesian coal coming in over the last year—about 2 million tonnes.

My best friend is from Huntly—Tim, if you’re watching this, I know you’ll be very happy to know that the Huntly burners are burning loud and proud and putting their smog over the Waikato. Unfortunately, it’s not from the local mine in Huntly, but it’s keeping the lights on. But there are better ways, and we need to be more efficient. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I’m delighted to rise to take a call on this small but mighty bill. I am reminded of that well-known children’s story about the young lady called Millicent Margaret Amanda, whose name was too long for her short stature so everyone changed it to Milly-Molly-Mandy. I suggest, therefore, that I will continue to refer to this bill as the “Forestry (Low Volume) Amendment Bill” as a shortening.

This is a very simple bill, as has been said. For those watching at home and wondering what is going on here, we have the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act of 2020. This puts a small change to that regime to mitigate the risk of hardship for small forestry participants as they get to grips with our climate change emissions programme.

And as they come to the party, it was interesting to see, across the way, our colleagues in National—the “grey men of politics”—struggle with Mr Court’s bright tie and become distracted and, frankly, a little giggly. I can only urge our friends across the way to perhaps try to embrace the brighter side of Barkers. This admittedly is somewhat difficult for them but I’m sure, if they try, they can find a little diversity out there somewhere when it comes to colour. Otherwise, I do commend Mr Court for at least embracing—alongside his diverse and colourful tie—the concept of climate change. It was nice to see a member of ACT affirm the possibility that we might need to protect orang-utans, who apparently live in the Fijian mangroves, but never mind.

So a small but important bill which will help us to reduce the tide of water coming in on our beaches, and assist to make it easier for small forestry owners to slip themselves into the emissions scene easily and continue to help us with our climate change response. And on that colourful note, I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A little bit of confusion there. I hope I’m in the right place at the right time. This debating chamber’s been on fire this evening. It’s been good. We’ve had robust debate. This brings us to talking tonight on climate change. As I look around the room, a number of our Transport and Infrastructure Committee members are in the House. Of course, a lot of work that we do is to reduce the emissions into our atmosphere. It’s a very important part of what we are trying to achieve. I note, today, National’s commitment—or U-turn, should I say—to our piece of work in Government, and I’m very, very grateful for their support and I encourage them to keep on going further. To my colleague over there—Simeon Brown—I’m excited to continue the dialogue to look at how we might work together to achieve better outcomes in transport for our climate, my friend.

This bill, the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill, is a very good bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister responsible for this bill, the Hon James Shaw, who does some incredible work addressing our climate change challenges and coming up with great solutions for us, moving forward as a country.

This bill will extend the transition period provided for New Zealand emissions trading scheme participants with low-volume emissions liabilities related to forestry activity, within which they must comply with the penalties and compliance regime introduced by the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act that was passed in 2020, I understand, by this Government. At that time, we were in Government with the Greens, and I appreciate their support to achieve this. This extension will last until 1 January 2025. It will mitigate the risk of serious hardship to small forestry participants who would fail to surrender or repay units by the previous due date of 1 January in 2023. It’s unbelievable that 2023 is just around the corner.

So I just want to acknowledge that this is a good piece of legislation. To my colleagues Rachel Brooking and the Hon Eugenie Sage, who leads out the Environment Committee: kia kaha tonu, the work that you do on such legislation like this is about supporting key stakeholders in the area to achieve the same goal that we all aim to achieve. But also the common goal there is to reduce emissions and address our climate change agenda. So, without further ado, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy to take a call on this bill; my excitement to leap up before just about pre-empting the previous speaker’s contribution. But, look, ultimately, what we’ve got here is a pretty straightforward response. We’ve heard from most of the speakers now on some of the ins and outs of why it’s important. I do just want to touch on a couple of aspects.

As we’ve heard, it’s unchanged from the select committee, but, effectively, what we’ve got here is a pragmatic solution, which is refreshing, to a challenge that was coming at a rate of knots—quite quickly, as it were—1 January 2023 being only some six weeks away. And, of course, the need to have to comply for those owners of small forestry holdings—not necessarily themselves small, but the holdings of which they have some forestry being relatively small in scale—being able to then have a bit more flexibility around working out how they may comply if they do find themselves in the position where they have this liability being imposed on them through the legislation, now have a further two years in which to work through what a solution might look like for them.

I’m sure that will be a massive weight off their shoulders, because, indeed, it could be a quite significant obligation. As we’ve heard, the threshold here is that small forestry participants are considered to be below 25,000 units per year—of course anywhere within that—but, potentially, if they were at the upper end, based on that current unit price in the $80-odd range, you’re talking a $2.2 million liability. At a three to one penalty regime, of course, that blows out to $6.5-odd million pretty quickly. That’s quite a large sum of money for someone to come up with, particularly if they are a smaller business, and looking at that sort of contribution would be daunting, to say the least, I’m sure. Even if they were able to borrow to fund that, you’re still looking, then, at a debt-servicing cost of several hundred thousand dollars. And, when you look at that in the scheme of what may be a small to medium farming business, or growing business, that could potentially be significantly damaging for their business, such that they are no longer viable.

I think, particularly when we look at the current environment—and we’ve seen interest rates moving significantly through the last year in particular—that potential liability from a debt-servicing perspective of someone looking at the upper end under this threshold would have shifted from somewhere around the low $300,000 mark as the annual interest bill, to now north of half a million dollars off the back of interest rate changes that we’ve seen. So that is a significant shift—an additional $200,000-odd of interest costs for business if they were borrowing and, in this instance, to try and repay that potential liability.

So anything we can do to relieve some of the pressure from this cost of living crisis we’re finding ourselves in across the board here in New Zealand is certainly welcome, whether that’s in a private capacity or for businesses. And, of course, we’re seeing them again across the country, facing unprecedentedly high costs at a time when revenue streams can be somewhat variable, and that is leading to a lot of pressure in a whole range of industries, but certainly in the food and fibre space as well. [Cellphone rings] And I suspect that may be my time up or some sort of acknowledgment of my wonderful contribution today! But I will give it another minute or so, just to check that that wasn’t actually an aberration—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ll take something between the two. Carry on, Mr van de Molen.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, as I say, you know, this is potentially a very big obligation for anyone who finds themselves in the position where they have a liability occurring under this legislation, and having that flexibility of a further two years to try and come up with a solution is certainly going to help. Of course, I gave that example of the debt-servicing scenario; I’m not entirely sure that there would be too many banks who would be willing just to provide an additional $6-odd million of debt to fund a liability under this legislation. And, as I mentioned, the ongoing viability impact that would come from the half a million dollar - odd interest bill would, of course, be challenging for the business as well.

But, ultimately, it does give them that capacity, and I’m interested—and not having been on the select committee or involved in this previously—around whether there are implications, not just in some of the scenarios we’ve heard earlier throughout this debate of people who came into or perhaps bought a block of land and found that they then inadvertently had a liability that went alongside that, which may or may not have been a result of, you know, due diligence not being as thorough as it could have, or it was perhaps just a genuine situation where it may have changed hands several times and none of those parties knew, and now suddenly somehow it’s come up. I’m stretching it a little bit here, but the reality is you could find yourself with this liability and those situations.

But, quite aside from that, too, if you were to perhaps inherit a property—and therefore there was no risk of someone saying, “Well, hey, you perhaps should have just done better due diligence and worked this out.”—actually, in that situation, I suspect you’d still be facing a significant liability under this legislation. You wouldn’t be exempt, and so you would have to work through a solution as well.

So, on the face of it, a further two years to manage through that challenge is appropriate, given that we are talking, in the overall scheme of the emissions trading scheme and what we’re trying to achieve: a relatively low impact, a negligible impact from these small holders or holders of small forestry blocks, as it were—not small in the people themselves or necessarily bonsai-sized trees—but I think we’re all aware of the context of, generally, a small block of land, compared to a large forestry parcel. And so, on that basis, I think I’ve outdone my time, and I will commend this bill to the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): That was an excellent contribution. I’d like to commend that member, Tim van de Molen. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill.

When we think about the last year—and lots of things have happened—but when we think about the Wellington region in New Zealand, we’ve seen the wettest, warmest winter in our history. We only have to look around our roads, our coastal areas, our hills to see the kind of impacts that climate change is having on our communities and on our natural environment. And, at the same time when we have COP27 meeting, with accounts of a third of Pakistan being flooded, US Hurricane Ian—yes, there is a hurricane called Ian—devastating, having an impact over the United States. There’s been significant weather events going on.

So this bill will operate to extend the transition period provided for New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) participants with those low-volume emissions liabilities related to forestry activity, within which they must comply with the penalties and compliance regime that’s been introduced by the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act. This extension until 1 January 2025 will mitigate the risk of serious hardship to small forestry participants who would fail to surrender or repay units by the previous due date of 2023. So, again, this is providing an ability for a just transition. So while it’s important that we move and make those changes that we need to do, it’s important that we do that in a way that’s sustained, also, by those that are in the smaller forestry areas.

In a nutshell, it operates a simple premise: businesses that are responsible for greenhouse gases that cause climate change face a price for those emissions, and those that reduce emissions or plant trees to take carbon out of the atmosphere do get the benefit of that financial reward. For the decade that it’s been in place, prior to our reforms, it’s not been allowed to do the job it was designed to do—to cut climate pollution—and so this is another step in that direction to make sure we make that change and make sure it’s able to be complied with.

The emissions trading reforms were not just about reducing pollution that businesses emit to the atmosphere but it was also about removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, both by discouraging deforestation and incentivising the planting of trees in the right places. The legislation added a permanent forest option for post-1989 forest to the ETS. This has provided more incentives for landowners to integrate permanent trees into their landscape, better use of their less-productive agricultural land, and also the ability to diversify their income should they wish to.

As a Government, we are listening to the concerns of those communities and those sectors involved. We are also considering the independent expert advice provided to us by the Climate Change Commission. It’s important that we make these changes as part of our wider work in this space. As part of our work to implement a just transition, we must support those in the forestry and the agricultural sectors that we are working with on a wide range of other initiatives. Earlier this year, we consulted on a code of ethics for registered forestry advisers. The code was made in September and came into force on 17 October. And we are also, in addition to this, working on managing exotic forestation incentives and consulting on a national direction for forests in the Resource Management Act (RMA).

These proposals give the opportunity for local councils to have more control over where forests are planted and how they operate within the area. They also aim to manage the effects of exotic carbon forestry on nature, improve wildfire management for all forests—which is critical in some of our rural areas—and address the key findings of the one-year review of the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry.

I’d like to conclude by saying we need to continue making changes in this space if we are serious about towing our weight internationally and driving the climate change that our planet so desperately needs, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Chair, and good evening to everyone. Look, I’m pleased to be here today—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before you do—I’m sorry. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 43, “Amendments to [the] principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Now, I’ll give you the call, Minister.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Chair. So I’m pleased to be here for the committee stage of this bill, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. It has been going through the House process for some time. It started under the previous Minister, Tracey Martin. This bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by partially repealing the subsequent child provision so that the subsequent child provisions will only apply in respect to parents with a conviction relating to the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child in their care; by repealing a redundant provision relating to data sets; and by making a number of minor and technical amendments aimed at improving clarity and addressing omissions and ambiguity in the Act—tidying up an Act that is over 30 years old.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their examination of the bill during the select committee stage, and all the submitters for their time and contribution to the bill.

So the main change proposed in this bill is the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions. The subsequent child provisions were enacted by the previous Government and currently apply where a parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care or has a murder, manslaughter, or infanticide conviction for the death of a child in their care.

The bill proposes to partially repeal those provisions as they apply to subsequent children, where a parent has had the care of a previous child removed and it has been determined that there is no realistic prospect of return to the parents. The proposed change reflects a first principles review of the subsequent child provisions, which found that the provisions were not promoting the best interests of children and, rather, the provisions were causing harm, particularly for children with an older sibling already in care.

The court is required to determine that there is no realistic prospect that an older sibling would be returned to their parents’ care, and this results in additional, and potentially traumatic, court proceedings for the tamariki and the whānau. Additionally, these provisions predetermine risk in a manner that is contrary to modern social work practices. This is clause 6. There is a presumption that any parent who may have ever had a child removed from care is therefore unable to care for any subsequent children, regardless of any changes that may have occurred in that parent’s life.

So if I can talk through a hypothetical example, just so people understand exactly what’s happening here. So if a young woman, say, at the age of 18, becomes a parent and, as a result of circumstances at that time, the child is removed from their care, this may have been because of safety concerns or there’s been an assessment that the child needs care and protection. But, then, if the same woman turns her life around—they pursue further education, get a full-time job, and sort their living situation out—but later she falls pregnant again 15 years after the first child was removed from her care, under the current legislation there is no way for a subsequent child to remain with the parent or caregiver, despite all the positive changes in that mum’s life, unless it’s decided by the courts.

And this is where the courts get to interfere in the lives of the family. If the subsequent child provisions apply, then the Family Court must consider the matter, even when Oranga Tamariki has no care or protection concerns for that subsequent child. So of course if an assessment is made and there are care and protection concerns or that it is unsafe or unsuitable for the child to be in the parent’s care, then there are still options for alternate care. It would be entirely inappropriate for social workers to consider if that person is going to be a safe and suitable parent.

The partial repeals mean that the assessment can be made rather than be considered a foregone conclusion. The partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions will also strengthen the ability of Oranga Tamariki to work in partnership with the whānau, hapū, and iwi to look for solutions that address the collective and longer-term wellbeing of the child and the whānau. The ability for this to happen is currently limited by the provisions that are in the Act.

Also, the subsequent child provisions have significantly damaged the relationship between Oranga Tamariki and Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal itself found that the provisions caused prejudice to Māori and would be a continuing breach of the Treaty until they are partially repealed. Partial repeal, therefore, supports the rebuilding of relationships with Māori.

The subsequent child provisions will be retained where they relate to parents who have been convicted for the death of a child in their care. This does reflect the seriousness of those offences. The partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions will not diminish the ability of Oranga Tamariki to respond when there are concerns about the safety and wellbeing of a subsequent child.

So I look forward to the views of others as we debate the bill and the Supplementary Order Papers that have been submitted. I believe that this bill is an important step to improving outcomes for tamariki, rangatahi, parents, and whānau, and I’m very happy to answer questions on this bill.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for the explanation on the bill. As we’ve heard in previous readings on this, there weren’t very many submissions because of the timing of this bill and there’s just a couple of questions throughout this bill that I just wanted to clarify the intent and the meaning behind some of the things here.

But I’d just like to, first of all, speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, on clauses 5 and 6, and just explain the rationale behind what I was trying to do with these two changes within this SOP. So the first one, I was quite concerned to see the language change by taking the words “ill treatment” and “neglect” out and putting in the words “concerns about safety or wellbeing”.

It’s very clear what the words “ill treatment” and “neglect” mean. It’s very defined and people understand those words. But the words “concerns about safety or wellbeing”, not so much; they’re a little bit open to interpretation. They haven’t really been defined of what that actually means.

Maybe we didn’t have time or enough submissions to talk about that, but I was very concerned about that. So I thought of coming to a compromise—instead of removing the words “ill treatment” and “neglect”, just adding them in so that both of those definitions are in there. So you’re not losing the “concerns about safety and wellbeing”; we’re just adding to it. So that’s the first proposed amendment.

The second one is around the subsequent child. And I agree: the way it is right now is not fair. Natural justice is not done well, the way it is currently written. Parents should have an opportunity to be able to turn their life around and have a second chance, but there are some circumstances where I feel we’re not really reflecting the seriousness of the offending when it comes to how our young people are being treated in some homes.

And I’ve wanted to add into the definition of the person described in this section, “somebody who has been convicted under the Crimes Act of assault or injury of a child or a young person who was in the person’s care or custody at the time.” An example that I could use is an article last month about a young four-year-old boy that was injured so badly by his caregivers that he was left permanently disabled, with so many injuries that his life will never be the same again. Now, I mean, are we reflecting the seriousness of that by not including that under this provision? Because I feel manslaughter, infanticide, and murder, yes, are very serious. But so is abusing a child to the point where they are disabled or they are left with permanent injuries that affect them for the rest of their life. So that was the purpose of that change to this bill. It would include anyone that is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least three months in relation to that offence, so that’s not for minor injuries, but this is lifetime injuries on a child; this is enough for a person to be sent to jail for their crimes. This is a person that would have attacked a child—a defenceless, innocent child—that cannot defend themselves. In my mind, a person who could do that should have to prove that they are capable of looking after another child that comes along. So thank you.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. This evening, in speaking to the committee, in this committee of the whole House stage, again, just an acknowledgment to Sir Wira Gardiner. There were a few members in this House this afternoon who were at his commemoration service, I was one of those. I knew Sir Wira, or Wira, both personally and professionally over the course of my younger days when I worked with Wira in the Department of Māori Affairs and then latterly, although not directly—indirectly—here, as a member of Parliament, with Sir Wira being the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki. So my mihi to his whānau, my acknowledgment to Wira this evening.

I now turn to business before the committee of the whole House. Minister, thank you for your contribution and openings this evening. As is known, the National Party is opposed to this Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. The more controversial provision is the partial repeal of section 18B. My Parliamentary colleague Karen Chhour has talked to the Supplementary Order Paper that has been submitted, and there will be further debate in relation to that. I will touch on that briefly before getting into the detail, Minister, around the section 18B partial repeal and the associated concerns with that.

In the Supplementary Order Paper that’s been tabled—quite appropriately and correctly—my colleague has identified that the person described in section 18B is a person who is qualified as being under the spotlight, the magnification of concern of Oranga Tamariki, of a parent who has had a child previously in care and then with a subsequent child who has come to notice. This partial repeal should go further than the person described as one “who has been convicted under the Crimes Act 1961 of the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person who was in the person’s care or custody at the time of the child’s or young person’s death.” We have the most horrendous record of child abuse in this country. How many more children need to die as a result of the lack of scrutiny and the lack of intense supervision and assessment from our State welfare, care and protection agency, Oranga Tamariki?

So I acknowledge my colleague because the purpose of the Supplementary Order paper is identifying that there are, sadly, parents who have abused their children and who have been convicted of this horrendous abuse. There are parents who have abused their spouses, who are victims of the most horrendous domestic violence. And, Minister, when I practised as a child welfare advocate, as a court appointed lawyer, Family Court judges repeatedly stated that the past is an indicator of the future, and past behaviours of parents’ treatment of their children was, regrettably and sadly, an indicator of more to come. That was the experience that many of us working in that space had, and judges as well.

So the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper of my colleague is recognising the importance that those persons who are parents and who do have a conviction for a serious offence—either domestic violence, aggravated assaults, or violence of a serious form—where a sentence of imprisonment has been imposed, that that really must be factored in under this child welfare care and protection law. Oranga Tamariki has an obligation, a duty, and a responsibility to ensure that the law and the social work practice puts in place, implements, and adheres to the necessity to have processes, procedures, and laws that will protect our children.

So, Minister, I invite comment to the Supplementary Order Paper about consideration of previous convictions of parents who have had a child taken out of their care into permanent placement in custody elsewhere, and that with any subsequent child, where there is a conviction, it be factored in. Thank you, Mr Chair.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Minister. I’m particularly interested in the discussion that we have had in the past about the process of how the subsequent child is removed from the parent and the process that occurs around that. So, first and foremost, if the Minister can talk to us how the status quo operates currently and then speak to us how this change assists or alters the way that things are done, with particular reference and speaking to the Supplementary Order Paper—whether in fact the assessment for safety of children will still occur, whether or not a subsequent child is present or not.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Look, just to respond to a couple of the points raised. First of all, I think we’ll all agree with the member Harete Hipango: New Zealand has a terrible record of not looking after our children and not loving our children like we should do. I don’t think there’s any argument across the committee. We’ve all heard of the instances, the cases of abuse. Not all of them mean that a child passes away, but regardless, no abuse is acceptable, no form of pain inflicted on a child is acceptable.

So I’ve got no problems whatsoever with the subsequent child provisions applying to a child for parents whose previous child has been murdered, manslaughter, or infanticide. But when it comes down to a parent—such as the hypothetical situation that I explained in my opening remarks—a mother, through whatever circumstances, maybe as a teen parent, her life is not flash, something happens, a child is removed, but 15 years later, after education, after maybe getting into a new relationship, after drug and alcohol counselling, after making all these improvements to her life with the help and support of whānau, all of these things do happen. We can’t just assume because something happened when a person basically was a child themselves, a young person themselves, that, as a 30-something-year-old, the behaviour is going to still carry on. So with the support of Oranga Tamariki, with the support of agencies and services, if they don’t see that there is still ongoing concern, the question is: why should somebody have to go through the Family Court to prove that they’re OK? If there are all these support people, all these agencies working with them, why should that happen?

See, one of the things—and maybe just digressing a bit—is the impact that the subsequent child provisions had on the relationship of social workers with a parent. It’s really difficult for a parent to want to engage with a social worker—a parent, say, who is pregnant, has had a child removed, even if it was 15 years ago—knowing that under the current provisions, when that baby’s born, that baby’s going to be taken off that parent. Why would a parent really want to engage and how difficult is it for the social worker to engage with that parent, with that whānau, knowing that the baby’s going to be taken anyway? All of us who are parents just can’t even imagine the pain that would be caused by having your babies removed.

If after 15 years you’ve cleaned up your life, you’ve got on with things, you’ve made changes, you’re educated, and all that sort of thing, I’ve got no problems. If a parent doesn’t appear to have made those changes in their life—if Oranga Tamariki, if social workers, if community providers are saying “We still have concerns.”, I’ve got no problem. But it’s when the person has shown that they’ve made the improvements to their life, I think it’s—and particularly over a long period of time—not the fairest thing, sometime later, for their baby to still be taken off them.

That’s not to excuse any form of abuse that has occurred. I totally take the member’s point that some parents can do some horrible things. But, in particular, an extended period of time where they have proven that they can parent, that they’ve shown that they have made changes in their life, I think that there’s an opportunity to trust the services and the people and the support that’s been wrapped around them.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thanks very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to also return to the same topic of the subsequent child, but outline it by providing the interesting data that I found when we were going through the select committee process and other readings, which was that New Zealand ranked 35th out of 41 developed countries in terms of child wellbeing outcomes.

Now, that was a shocking statistic for us to read, but when the Minister has explained his rationale for providing that opportunity for that mum sometime later, after having gone through a process of intense support—which I completely support—what is the balance that the Minister is weighing up when he talks about having to go through the Family Court process to ensure that all of that work that has been done by all those social services and support networks have been completed and signed off, that the Family Court will have the final say? Balancing that against what has happened to previous children who have not been the victim of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide, which is the bit that’s staying in the Act, but those children who have been victims of abuse and some, as Karen Chhour has pointed out, intense physical and mental abuse, who have been removed from that family situation and put in a home for life. So they’re in a home for life for 15 years while that mum finds her way back to a position where she can care for children again. What is the Minister doing to weigh up the cost to those children who we believe, on this side of the House, should be paramount in the consideration in this legislation? Not whether it’s inconvenient for the mum later to have to go through a court system to ensure that those social services, those support networks, are in place, that she has a stable home, that she has a stable income. We all wish that for her at the other end, but, Minister, how are you weighing up the inconvenience of going through a Family Court process to ensure that is intact against the wellbeing of those children who have been in a home for life? Thank you.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): So if those children, say, for 15 years have been in a home for life, they’re in a home for life. It’s not their welfare that this is about; this is about a subsequent child who is yet to be born as a baby. So if for 15 years that parent or parents have made those changes, turned their lives around, and have had the support, and if Oranga Tamariki still have concerns in that house, then I’ve got no problems with them going to the Family Court. But if Oranga Tamariki has been through the process, been there on the journey, and supported, and then there’s another baby on the way, then I don’t see the point in going to the Family Court. I know what you’re saying. It is a tough decision. But I think if they’ve seen the support, they’ve seen the changes that a parent has made in their life over a period of time, then let’s trust those professionals. Let’s trust them. There is always the fall-back position if necessary. So it is about weighing things up—I take the member’s point there—but I think that with the support and the care and the wrap-around with Oranga Tamariki working with that parent or those parents, there’s an opportunity there just to make sure that they can get on with their lives. It’s not to say that the agencies disappear and just leave them to it; they’re still there. They’re still there, involved and supportive when they need the support. But in terms of saying that if the first child is in a home for life, then if they are there for 15 years, I can’t see them being impacted by this. It is another baby on the way or just being born that we’re talking about here.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come to report progress on this bill.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The committee has considered the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.