Tuesday, 21 February 2023

TUESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2023

TUESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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

[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Visitors

European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand

United States—Secretary of the Interior

SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome two delegations present in the gallery: the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand, led by the Chairperson, Ms Ulrike Müller; and the Hon Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior of the United States, and her accompanying delegation.

Resignations

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, Mt Albert

the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning her seat in the House with effect from 11.59 p.m. on Saturday, 15 April 2023.

Prime Minister’s Statement

Prime Minister’s Statement

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): I present the Prime Minister’s statement.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Copies are available on the Table.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That this House express its confidence in the Government and commend its programme for 2023 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement.

In a little over 50 days, the year 2023 has unleashed a series of extreme weather events unparalleled in New Zealand’s recent history. First, we had the floods. Main routes in and out of the Coromandel and Northland were cut off and the extent of the damage across the upper part of the North Island was significant. Auckland and Waikato were swamped under a deluge of rain, claiming the lives of four people and displacing tens of thousands of people. At that point, it was believed to be the costliest weather event New Zealand had ever experienced, and then there was more to come.

Along came Cyclone Gabrielle, which led to the declaration of a national state of emergency for only the third time in New Zealand’s history. Gabrielle was stronger than Cyclone Bola in 1988 and stronger than Cyclone Giselle in 1968. It has left enormous damage in its wake across large parts of the North Island. From Cape Reinga in the Far North down to the Tararuas and the Wairarapa, the recent weather events have wreaked havoc on millions of Kiwis’ lives. Tai Rāwhiti and the Hawke’s Bay have seen the devastating impact, in particular: 11 lives have been lost and others are still unaccounted for. To those who have lost loved ones in these tragic events, New Zealand is grieving with you.

As we start back at Parliament today, there is still major disruption being felt by many, but I want to reflect on the conversations that I have had with some of those who have been disrupted by these recent weather events. I think about the family in Auckland whose home I visited to see the waterline halfway up the wall. They were cooking dinner when the rain started. It took 15 minutes for the water to inundate their home and for them to lose everything. That’s an enormously traumatic experience to have—to go from cooking your dinner to losing everything that you own in the space of 15 minutes.

I think about the owners of a pub just outside the Esk Valley that I got to meet late last week. They had opened their doors to welcome in the community. Where people would normally be drinking and dancing and enjoying themselves, there are now mattresses where they are providing emergency accommodation for those who have had to evacuate. The pub kitchen is serving meals to all those in the area that need it, and the pub owners are committed to supporting their local community through.

In the room next door, I visited a makeshift health clinic where health workers continued to provide essential support to those who need it. And in a very Kiwi kind of a way, I was talking to one of the nurses working there, who was telling me about all of the families she had been supporting. When she stopped, I asked her “And how are you?”. With a tear in her eye, she told me that she had lost everything, and yet there she was, continuing to work to support those who are most in need, because that’s what Kiwis do in times of adversity. All of those conversations that I have had in recent days have made me so proud to be a New Zealander, because when we are confronted with these kinds of events, we rally around and we support each other, and all New Zealanders are rallying behind this cause.

People continue to live in a great degree of uncertainty; their lives still disrupted now. The number of people without power has come down sharply. We started with 225,000 households without power. People have been out working in the wind and the rain, day and night, to get people reconnected, and as I came down to the House today, that number has fallen from 225,000 to just around 11,000. We absolutely should acknowledge those who have been putting in the hard yards to get people reconnected to those essential lifelines. More than 1,300 people were still in civil defence centres overnight because they had nowhere else to go, and countless more will be living with friends, family, other extended relatives while they find out what happened to their homes and what they can do next. The impact on agriculture, horticulture, and food production is currently incalculable, but we know it will be significant. As of yesterday afternoon, around 250 State highways and local roads were still closed, crews were working on 400 kilometres of highways, and, of course, councils have their crews focused on local roads, cleaning them up and getting them reopened.

I want to acknowledge how traumatic this situation has been for so many people and for so many businesses. I think also of the trauma of those who found themselves trapped on roofs overnight. Our rescue teams worked valiantly up until they were no longer able to do so because of the wind, the rain, and the dark. And they knew that when they had to stop working that there were still people on roofs, and they were back out there at first light the next morning to make sure they got those people to a position of safety. But for some people, it was a dark, cold, and miserable evening, waiting on a roof, and I want to acknowledge the trauma that they have experienced.

I also want to acknowledge our extreme gratitude as a country to the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in the service of their communities: our first responders, our Defence Force personnel, police, community organisations, local marae, volunteers, and so many more who have contributed to supporting others through this. In this time of great need, your dedication has been an inspiration to all of us.

I want to particularly acknowledge Dave van Zwanenberg and Craig Stevens, volunteer firefighters who were killed in the line of duty while protecting their local community at Muriwai. We ask a lot of our volunteers in New Zealand, but no more so than our volunteer first responders. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect all of us. And to their families, we say thank you. Thank you so much for the sacrifice that you have made. You are in our thoughts.

While the cyclone itself might not have directly affected every New Zealander, there is no doubt that we are all going to feel the effects of it in the coming weeks and months. Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Coromandel, the Bay of Plenty, the Tararuas, Tai Rāwhiti, and the Hawke’s Bay account for 30 percent of New Zealand’s land mass, but they are home to more than half of our population and produce about half of our GDP. Therefore, this has been an incredibly significant event for the whole country. And just like with the earthquakes in Christchurch and then Kaikōura, the legacy of that is going to be with us for many years to come. We don’t yet have a complete assessment of what the cost of that is going to be, but we know it will be significant—a multibillion-dollar price tag is ahead of us. And there is no point in sugar-coating it; we know that there are some tough times ahead for the whole country as we work our way through that.

The year 2023 has the potential to be very difficult for many Kiwis, and many of our families and businesses and our communities will be under an enormous amount of pressure. But we will get through this. Kiwis are resourceful and we are determined. And I know that, once again, we’ll tap into our collective strength and our spirit in the weeks and months ahead to come back even stronger. We will do whatever it takes to recover.

We started that yesterday in setting out the first steps of our recovery plan. I want to emphasise again that this will be a response driven by local communities. Central government is here to support those local communities to rebuild and to recover. Grant Robertson will be leading that from the central government’s perspective as our cyclone recovery Minister. He has proven experience in leading us through challenging times. We will have a lead Minister working in each of the regions that have been affected, so that we can make sure that those local communities and their needs are well-connected with our national response. We’ll be working closely and guided by feedback from those on the ground. A task force will be established to ensure that we are bringing together all of the players relevant to the recovery—the insurance companies, the infrastructure providers, central government and local government—and I’m very pleased to say that Sir Brian Roche, who has a proven track record of working in both the public and private sectors, has agreed to lend his expertise to that process.

A $50 million interim support package was announced yesterday to support businesses in the primary sector and the effect that this has had on them, and we’ve also put additional funding into the emergency response fund of the National Land Transport Fund so that we can continue with that essential roading clean-up work while we scope the true extent of the damage and calculate exactly how much more funding is going to be required.

We know that more financial support is going to be required, but the Government is in a very strong position to contribute to that. We have some of the lowest debt levels on a per capita basis in the world, helped by the prudent financial management of our Minister of Finance during extraordinary times over the last 5½ years. We have options and choices ahead of us because of that. Even if we borrow more money in order to contribute to this response, we would still have lower debt than our neighbours and mates over in Australia, and considerably lower than countries like Canada, the US, and the UK.

We know that how we recover has to be done a little bit differently this time. We’ve got to build back better, we’ve got to build back safer, and we’ve got to build back smarter. New Zealand is now, without question, experiencing the effects of climate change, and we are well past the point where we should question the impact of human beings on climate change. Extreme weather events are becoming more common and they are of greater intensity. In the year 2021-22, there was a ninefold increase in the amount of money required to help farmers and growers affected by floods, storms, and drought.

We also see the effect on our roads. The number of events requiring emergency works has more than doubled, from an average of 67 events per year between 2018 and 2021, to 140 events per year. Even before these recent events, we knew that Waka Kotahi was going to need more money just to deal with the emergency response that the extreme weather is causing. Business-as-usual won’t work any more. We have to accept that billions of dollars of additional investment is going to be required, not just to fix up what has been damaged but to build more resilience so that we can better cope with these types of events in the future. We cannot fund new roads, though, by cutting the funding for road maintenance.

We have to accept that building a more resilient roading network and reducing our carbon emissions are not incompatible goals. Most parts of our society are now also having to grapple with these difficult choices as well. There are challenges in front of businesses, utility companies, and other sectors. They are going to need to innovate, as we will need to innovate, and do things differently.

When I became the Prime Minister, I said that we would set a new direction for the Government and that we would have our focus squarely on the basics—including the cost of living that is affecting New Zealanders. Recent events have reinforced the importance of that to me, and there is nothing more basic or critical for a Government than lifting the country back up after a major disaster.

The usual systems and processes of Government will need to adapt to the challenge in front of us. We will need to make some tough calls and we will need to prioritise carefully. I’ve already announced the first round of reprioritisation that we are taking as a Government. The Television New Zealand - Radio New Zealand merger won’t go ahead. While we acknowledge that there are significant gaps in our social security infrastructure, now is not the time for the social insurance scheme, but we acknowledge that there is still a gap there that we should grapple with. We’ve stopped the biofuels mandate, and we have asked the Law Commission to look at the issues around hate speech in their totality. I want to provide a reassurance that when we said to the victims of March 15 that we would stand with them, and that we would take the recommendations of the royal commission seriously, we will not back away from that commitment. But we will also not allow the commitments that we have made to them be politicised in the way that they have been. We want to make sure that we do this properly, and that we address the concerns that the royal commission has rightly raised.

The scale of the task ahead of us is significant. The worthy will sometimes have to make way for the urgent. We have done that before as a country. We saw Governments reprioritise after earthquakes in Christchurch and Kaikōura, and we did that when we responded to the global pandemic. We will do that again. More reprioritisations will follow shortly, but we will still be looking to advance the reform of our water infrastructure. I will say more about that in the coming weeks, but the events of the past month will have focused the minds of many New Zealanders on the need to tackle the challenge ahead of our water infrastructure. It has been tested and it has been found badly wanting. Just patching up ageing pipes and water treatment facilities isn’t going to cut it, and abandoning local authorities to deal with the scale of the challenge by themselves is not leadership. We will make sure we get on with the job of ensuring that New Zealanders have the sort of water infrastructure that they should be able to expect as a First World country.

The cost of living will be at the forefront of the Government’s priorities. We know that we are dealing with a heightened period of economic uncertainty. We have already taken action to extend the reductions in fuel tax, saving families filling up the car by up to $17 every time they do that. We’ve extended the half-price public transport subsidies, and we have lifted the minimum wage, because we are not willing to leave the lowest-paid New Zealanders behind.

In April, New Zealanders will see that our support continues to roll out. Improved access to childcare is long overdue, and New Zealanders will start to see that in the coming months. Improvements to Working for Families and the family tax credit will also be rolling out. Superannuation and benefit rates will increase, as will the Best Start payment. From 1 May, we will deliver the winter energy payment to 1.2 million New Zealanders.

But there is no question that the cyclone has changed a lot, from a Budget perspective, and we will work our way through that, but this is not the time for austerity. It is the time to continue our investment in health, in education, and in the social services that New Zealanders rely on, and that is where our focus will be. We will continue to invest in dealing with the skills shortages that we have across the country, because when we have been faced with these sorts of challenges in the past, Governments have sometimes retreated from that, and the legacy of that can last for generations. So we will continue to invest in our people—and you’ll see that in the apprenticeship schemes, for example, that we have been investing in: 50,000 New Zealanders in work, supported by the Apprenticeship Boost; 215,000 New Zealanders supported through free trade training. We are absolutely committed to plugging the gaps in our workforce, and, yes, immigration will continue to play a role there.

We’re committed to ending the postcode lottery for health in New Zealand, and we will rebuild our mental health system; in some cases, building it from the ground up. By the end of this year, more than 3 million New Zealanders will have access to free primary and mental health and addiction support. Community safety will continue to be a priority for us, but we know that empty slogans simply won’t cut it. We’ve got to make decisions based on evidence and resourcing, and we will have, by the middle of this year, 1,800 extra police on the beat, compared to when we became the Government.

Right now, the task ahead of New Zealand may seem daunting to many people. There is a big challenge ahead of us all, but the cyclone and its aftermath won’t be with us for ever. We will need to look through the cycle. We’ll be building a country of opportunity and energy, where our kids can thrive. We can do these things. We can rebound strongly from the cyclone. We can navigate the global pandemic of inflation. We can invest in the skills, the innovation required to power up for the future. We can build back better, we can build back safer, and we can build back smarter, and we will do that by working together. So let’s get cracking.

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

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the words after “That” be deleted and are replaced with “this House has no confidence in this Government, which is known for three things: wasteful spending, an inability to get things done, and for building bureaucracies instead of improving front-line outcomes for New Zealanders.”

I have to say, that statement was written for Jacinda Ardern and read by Chris Hipkins. That’s what happened there. We got the same laundry list, the same slogans, and the same spin that we’ve seen.

Before I come back to that, I rise wanting to acknowledge the huge physical devastation and the emotional toll that this cyclone has taken on New Zealanders. Like many MPs in this House, I’ve been out and about in those impacted regions, and I’m struck by several things. The first is that we have New Zealanders doing it incredibly tough, when we think about just the families that have been displaced from their homes.

I was at an Auckland evacuation centre and I met a fantastic young dad, a single dad, his wife had passed away four years earlier, he had two children, his son was about to go to high school, and his bottom flat that he rented had been completely destroyed with all of their possessions, and yet he was still staying really positive.

Just two days ago in Gisborne, I met a family of new New Zealanders that had just moved here from southern India through Singapore, as trained engineers, and the rainwater had come up so quickly that it had flooded their basement. They were clearly traumatised, but for the actions of a good school principal connecting them with a local church and finding accommodation for them. But I got the sense they were spending more time in their car with their six-year-old and their three-year-old, as a result.

We’ve also seen communities that have been doing it incredibly tough. Late last night, I talked to Craig Little, the Wairoa mayor, and he was just talking about some of the challenges of his community being cut off and the suffering and the pain that they’ve been going through and experiencing.

A few days ago, I was up in a valley north of Tolaga Bay, and I met a lovely grandad, who had not been able to contact his son and daughter-in-law and his four grandchildren for over five days. In that last hour, he’d just re-established phone contact with them. But it will be days before they can actually get access into their place and be able to catch up in person.

We think about those that are doing it incredibly tough that have lost their livelihoods. It was a kiwifruit orchardist who had had the kiwifruit orchard that he’d been building over the last three years—it cost $5.5 million to do so—completely destroyed two weeks out from taking the first harvest to defray some of those costs, and destroyed by silt and destroyed by slash.

I just say, as an aside, I think we need to come together in this House and actually take action with respect to forestry in this country, because it is a great industry and it’s something we want to continue to support. But it is the only sector I know that gets to internalise the benefit and to socialise the cost. We need to revisit practices. We need to revisit penalties and prosecutions, as a result.

We just do think of those families that have lost loved ones, that are going through tremendous shock and grief, readjusting to a life without their loved one in it. We just thank you for them and we think about them, and our thoughts and our prayers are definitely with them.

Over the course of the last week or so, we have also seen the absolute best in New Zealanders, as well. I just think of communities of strangers that in every region have come together to actually go to work and help their fellow Kiwi. I was part of a group of strangers that came together in Sunnynook, and we went down in each other’s cars, we didn’t know anybody, and we were in a stranger’s house, removing carpet and putting furniture out so it could aerate. I was thinking about the community working bees that were taking place in Sunnynook but also in Puketapu that we saw just a couple of days ago. There have been great donations of food and new clothing that have come from places, as I saw in my own electorate in East Auckland, being sent up to people in Northland.

We’ve also seen the best of New Zealand with respect to the bravery of our first responders and our rescuers. I had a privilege of spending time in Muriwai—that’s a really tight community; 1,100 people there, everyone knows everyone. But those two volunteer fire service personnel who gave so much at such short notice and, as volunteers, stepped up. I spoke to fire service and St John’s people that were with them on that night, and they were incredibly brave. I think about an orchardist out of Napier, who had lost a lot of his orchards, almost totally devastated, and yet had used his own personal helicopter to go off and do a lot of rescues, and we should thank him and be grateful for him and that work that he did there.

I got to see civil defence staff in local regions, but I also want to say thank you to the emergency response Minister for letting me come in and observe what happens in the bunker here, centrally in Wellington. All of our civil defence and emergency management people have worked incredibly long hours on a completely complex situation and have done an exceptional job with it. So we owe them all our deepest gratitude, our deepest thanks and appreciation for everything they’re doing.

But, Mr Speaker, I tell you those stories because I think, in the days and weeks and months ahead, it’s really important that we have those stories and those people at the forefront of our minds as we actually wrestle with the right response and recovery. It’s important that we don’t forget them; we don’t forget that actually delivering for them—really getting things done for them—is what’s going to matter here, rather than just platitudes and nice statements. We need to make sure that we can do it right by them.

And I think we’ve seen a great community response, but I’d also say it challenges us to say that we need to continually upgrade our emergency management response. We will have, sadly, more events like this. I lived in America for a period of time and I remember watching Hurricane Katrina, which was handled poorly, and then seeing the subsequent upgrade of each subsequent event across the different states in the US. I think it’s the same for us here: let’s have a great community response, but let’s make sure we strengthen our responses as well.

So with respect to the National Party, there’s two roles that we need to play here around this disaster, and the first is that we want to be able to be supportive and constructive and offer constructive solutions. We know that this rebuilding effort is about New Zealand; it’s not about politics right now. And right here, right now, our job is to make sure we are establishing contact with the uncontactable. It’s about making sure that we are reaching into those isolated communities—up those valleys where people have been cut off from communications—and it’s restoring that critical infrastructure: power, water, supplies, fuel, and communications that they so desperately need. So we need to carry on that work in the coming days. And we also want to be supportive and constructive. We have a playbook from experiences in Christchurch and also in Kaikōura—we’ve learnt lots from those experiences, sadly.

It’s important that we actually support the Government in making sure that we can action those plans and that recovery in the way we want to—things like a targeted short-term wage support for impacted workers and businesses, things like loosening our immigration settings so we can fast track the clean-up and the rebuild, and things like making sure the banks actually stand by their customers for the coming years and actually support them. If there’s any special legislation that the Government feels is needed—that actually enables a faster reconstruction and enables critical infrastructure to get built—we’ll be very supportive of that. And obviously anything that gives dedicated leadership and gives single points of accountability so that things actually get done and things are well executed is important. So I say to the Government: that’s what you should expect from us. We will be supportive and we will be constructive on the big set pieces that we need to get done well and done right, and we’ll be pragmatic and practical, supportive and constructive around that.

But we do have a second role, and that is to hold the Government to account for its spending and for its delivery, because it’s really important now—more so than ever—that we actually get things done and we actually enable people to get ahead, and we get them what they actually need at this point in time. I have to say to you that we feel some scepticism about that, because we look back at this Government over the last five and a half years and we’ve seen a very poor record of delivery. What we’ve seen is some characteristics of this Government that are consistent and happen all the time: it wastes a lot of money, it can’t deliver anything, it builds centralised bureaucracy and it forgets the front line, and it forgets that it can partner with businesses and communities because it thinks it knows best, and the Government knows it all, and it can do it all here from Wellington, thank you very much. And I’d just say to the Government: that is the complete opposite of what is going to be needed if we’re going to get this recovery done and we’re going to deliver our services back to our people and actually support the people when they need it. I’d just say to the Labour Government: get on with it, get going, get things done. Focus on those people—what is it, today, that we’ve provided them? Clarity, specificity—so that they can move ahead, they can make the next logical step to dig out of a place of hopelessness to a place of hope—is really important.

I’d say we know that the rebuild is going to be expensive; we know that there was $3 billion spent on Kaikōura, we know there was $15 billion probably spent in Canterbury. We know there were bigger impacts around lives and livelihoods as well. We’ve heard estimates of $10 billion with respect to this rebuild and recovery. But it’s really important that the Government actually compartmentalises and defines that cost. We know and appreciate that we’ll need to borrow the money to be able to fund a quality, fast, and good recovery. We get that; we understand that.

But I have to say our concerns are all about delivery, and it’s all about us being quite sceptical of a Government that talks about “building back better.” We’ve heard those words before: we heard them during COVID, we heard them over the course of this year. It over-promises and it under-delivers. Do you remember when you talked about shovel-ready projects? That was a big one, “We’re going to move forward now, we’re going to build back better, we’re going to do shovel-ready projects.” Great; fantastic. There’s 49 of the 225 projects now completed; that’s the reality of the delivery. Remember when the Government talked about “We’re going to build KiwiBuild houses, 100,000 of them.”; 1 percent of them actually built—1 percent of them actually built. Light rail was going to be promised to be delivered, so opening up from Mount Roskill by 2021—hasn’t even started anything. So it’s lovely making bumper stickers and headlines as much as you’d like, but you’ve actually got to do the work, get below the surface, and deliver outcomes. There’s been no major roads started or completed in the last 5½ years by this Government—not one; zero. So started and completed—not happened in 5½ years.

We had $60 billion spent on the COVID programme, and we don’t have a legacy of a better healthcare system. We don’t have a legacy of better health infrastructure. There’s no future legacy for a better, improved health workforce. We’ve got little to show for it. We’ve spent a tremendous amount of money, with little to show for it. So that is our concern.

We will be supportive and constructive. We will hold the Government to account. We are deeply sceptical of this Government’s ability to deliver and get things done. And what I’d say is, I meant it earlier, that was a Prime Minister’s statement prepared for Jacinda Ardern but read out by Chris Hipkins, and it just underscores what we’ve been saying: you can change the leader, but it’s the same team delivering the same poor outcomes. That’s the reality of this Government. You can dress it up as much as you like, you can appropriate and take as much language and change the language as much as you want, but the reality is this is a Government that still can’t deliver.

It’s pretty rich coming from a new Prime Minister, who’s been part of the old Government for the last 5½ years, part of the Holy Trinity of Grant Robertson, Jacinda Ardern, and Chris Hipkins driving the programme for the last 5½ years, who has a coming to Damascus moment and now decides it’s all about getting things done and the cost of living crisis. It’s quite unbelievable; it’s not credible. You can say anything you want to do 10 months out from an election, but there’s nothing in the track record or the background that says he can get things done. You can’t just turn the page and say it’s all going to be different with some words; you have to demonstrate with actions that you know how to do it and you’re going to get it done.

It’s the same old Labour. It’s the same old thing. It’s the same poor outcomes. And I tell you now, the New Zealand people need more than a change of leadership in the Labour Party; they actually need a National Government that’s going to get things done, because here’s the problems, right? The same problems remain. It’s still spin over delivery. It’s still confusing activity with achievement. It’s actually confusing inputs with outcomes—the things that matter most to New Zealanders. It’s a Government that’s addicted to wasteful spending. How do you literally spend $1 billion more each and every week, hire 14,000 more bureaucrats, collect $17,500 more tax per household, and deliver worse outcomes on the economy, on housing, on health, on crime, on infrastructure, on everything? It’s a unique and special skill set. And then the Ministers who are responsible for those outcomes end up getting promoted. I mean, it’s the only organisation that you get to fail upwards in. It’s a unique skill set—it’s a unique and special skill set.

And then it’s also got the same attitude—and you know, you can defer the jobs tax as much as you like, you can fudge the three waters as much as you like, you can talk about hate speech being deferred, all that kind of stuff. But the reality is, we know what your philosophy is: it is to centralise and control everything from Wellington because you believe that you know best. Think about the polytechnic mergers—unmitigated disaster, 5½ years in. Think about three waters—still a debate, 67 district councils having their assets stolen from them. Health restructure—how’s that all going? Not so great.

So we know what the problems are. We know that they exist. I just want to say that, when you look at the bits that matter most to New Zealanders, and the Prime Minister’s started to talk about doing things that matter most, I can tell you what matters most to New Zealanders is the economy. And what’s happening is we have inflation at really high levels in this economy—higher than we’ve had it for many, many decades. And the reality is this is a Government that said there was no cost of living crisis for most of last year; it’s now supposedly a focus. That’s not credible. It’s just not believable that you can turn the page, change some words, and everything’s OK—“nothing to see here”. It’s like a bad episode of Men in Black. It’s literally that wand where you just “neutralise” someone’s brain and do a “mind wipe”. It’s just not going to happen. It can’t happen that way.

This is the reality. The problem has been this Government hasn’t had a proper underlying economic plan to deal with the underlying causes of inflation. They’re not controlling costs, they’re not actually controlling Government spending at all, we can see that there’s no relief coming through to people, the Reserve Bank is not focused, and our immigration settings have actually been too tight, and, as a result, that’s driven huge amounts of domestic inflation. The real wages have declined in this economy for the last 2½ years. Wages are not keeping up with inflation, and everybody is going backwards. Interest rates are rising. And just think about those families that are going to have $600 extra a fortnight in interest payments over the coming year. We’ve got more Kiwis cycling off their fixed rates. They’re going to go from 3 percent to 6 to 7 percent, and it’s going to cost them a lot each and every fortnight. It only gets tougher from here. There’s recession forecast. We need a plan to grow the economy; invest in education; invest in infrastructure; invest in research, science, and development; make sure it’s a pro-business environment; and make sure we’ve got strong international connections to the world. That’s what drives fundamental prosperity and productivity into our country.

We’ve got to talk about crime, because that’s another area where the language has been tough—you know, lots of talk, but very poor action. It’s been very soft on crime. Let’s get clear on the outcomes—and the outcomes are really clear—violent crime is up over 20 percent, gang membership’s up over 56 percent, and we have a ram raid every 15 hours in this country. We do not choose to accept that that is the new normal, that that is acceptable by any stretch. Every Kiwi is owed a right to be able to feel safe in their house, their community, or their business—that’s really important.

We had a former Minister of Police who was presiding over that fund of $6 million that was supposed to be delivered to businesses in need—23 of them got help in eight months. That is startling execution and implementation—just fantastic! So I think it was quite a good decision to probably replace the former Minister of Police, I suspect—good call.

But I do want to talk, in my remaining time, about education, because there’s another place where we’ve had incredibly poor outcomes. How do you spend $5 billion more, hire 1,400 more bureaucrats, and deliver the lowest, poorest, abysmal attendance rates we’ve ever seen in this country? Forty-five percent of our kids go to school regularly; 55 percent don’t make regular attendance. Almost a hundred thousand are chronically absent from school. We have anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 that have been permanently unenrolled from schools. Just stop and think about that: is that a First World response and set of outcomes? No, it’s not. It’s not optional to go to school; it’s compulsory that we go to school and get educated—it’s really important for our future.

So we’ve seen that that’s the case. And, then, if you’re lucky enough to actually get into the classroom, we’ve seen slipping standards. Academic achievement is falling relative to other countries. We know that our kids are not where they need to be; they’re not at curriculum when they move into high school. And so I think the best thing the Prime Minister has done in his short time in the role is to replace the Minister of Education, and that was something we fully support.

We can talk health. Why do Kiwis—now a quarter of Kiwis—wait more than six hours to see an emergency department? How have we gone from 1,500 people waiting more than four months to see a specialist appointment, to now we’re at 44,000? How do we have 32,000 New Zealanders waiting on a surgery wait-list as a result? These are outcomes—that’s what I’m saying: outcomes matter, not just the activity; it’s actually about the delivery and about getting things done.

We can talk housing. And that’s another one that was promised—that was a big promise, lots of outcomes promised there, but none delivered. You know, homeownership’s out of reach because the average house price is up another quarter of a million dollars. If you can’t own one, you end up renting one. That’s another $150 a week in extra rent that’s actually being passed on to tenants. If you can’t get to own a house or rent a house, you end up actually having to go on a State house wait-list. That’s up four times. And if you can’t get a State house wait-list, you’re in emergency accommodation. And that’s 4,000 families waking up in emergency accommodation. It’s up four times. People living in their car—that’s not great.

So, Mr Speaker, what I say to you is that we are—you know, we get it. We want to be supportive and constructive around the recovery. Let’s frame what that investment needs to be—we’ll support that, we’ll be constructive where we can be about that. But we have grave, grave concerns. We are deeply, deeply sceptical about this Government and its lack of ability to deliver.

So I want us to realise that New Zealand is, without doubt, the best country on planet Earth. I can tell you—having done this job now for two years, and as I go around it—we have the best people, we have talented people, we have world-class talent, and we have endless potential in this country. But the reality is that we are not realising that potential at the moment. We are not delivering the outcomes, we are not solving the problems that, actually, this Government said that it would solve. It’s not getting outcomes, it’s not solving things, it’s not helping us realise our potential. And I know that this Government—the risk is it’s going to make it much harder to get this recovery done. It’s going to make it much harder. So, please, don’t make it harder than it needs to be for the New Zealand people.

I do genuinely hope that you get to manage this rebuild and that you actually help the people who are desperate, because they need confidence and they need certainty and they clarity and they need to be able to get things done. But, I can tell you right now, if this Labour Government won’t do it, the National Government will pick it up in October. And we’re very proud—we’ll get elected and we’ll go get this job done because that’s really important to the New Zealand people. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge, on behalf of the Green Party, the fact that, over the course of the last month, tens of thousands of New Zealanders have lost their livelihoods, have lost their homes, and, in many cases, have actually lost their lives. Tens of thousands of people have at some point experienced a level of homelessness and displacement. They’ve been without power. They’ve been without the ability to communicate with their loved ones—to communicate whether they are safe or not—and our emergency services and our civil defence responders and so on have risen to the challenge as best as they are able, but this has been a catastrophic series of events in Aotearoa, and there has been enormous heartbreak for many, many thousands and tens of thousands of New Zealanders over the last several weeks.

Our top priority right now has to be on ensuring that everybody has everything that they need to be able to start the recovery in their communities and in their homes. I do want to say to our new Prime Minister that I think that the immediate response over the last few weeks has been sure-footed. It’s been very strong, and given that the motion in front of the House is that we express our confidence in the Government, I would like to say that we do have confidence in this Government, particularly based on its sure-footed handling of the crisis over the last several weeks.

I’d like to congratulate—well, I was considering whether I ought to congratulate the new Prime Minister, given that, over the course of the three or four weeks that he has been the Prime Minister, he has had to face two of the most significant weather-related events and crises that the country has faced in a century. I would like to say, from the outset, that it is clear that the recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland and Northland floods two weeks before that are obviously going to dominate the Government’s work programme for the remainder of this year and, in fact, the next Government’s work programme as well—certainly for some years to come. So it seems appropriate that in responding to the Prime Minister’s statement and to the Government’s work programme that he’s outlined that we start by talking about the cyclone.

I note that in his response, the Leader of the Opposition, as far as I can recall, did not mention the phrase “climate change” once. And so I’d like to start, over the course of my response, by talking about some of the myths I have heard over the last couple of weeks about the tragedies that have befallen people around the country. Then I would like to talk about what we are going to do about it, and, finally, finish on the theme that the Prime Minister raised around the cost of living crisis.

There are three myths that I have heard, primarily repeated in the media and on social media, over the course of the last couple of weeks—first of all, that these floods and these storms and these droughts and these fires that we’ve been experiencing in the last few years, and, in particular, over the course of the last month, are no different from anything that has happened in this country before, and I will come back to that. The second myth is that we ought to drop efforts to cut pollution, and focus entirely on efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change and to become more resilient to these effects in the future. The third myth is that ultimately—and it’s related to the second one—New Zealand is too small to make a difference so why should we bother anyway?

Let me just start with the first myth, because it is important that we base our response and our recovery programme on science rather than on mythology or whatever we see on social media most recently. First of all, we do know that it is now possible to say what portion of any given event is attributable to the fact that the world has warmed up by 1.1 degrees over the course of the last century and a half. So even before Cyclone Gabrielle appeared, six out of our 14 regions around the country—nearly half the country—was already in a state of recovery from weather-related events; two of those regions were in a regional state of emergency, and that was before Cyclone Gabrielle hit and we had a national state of emergency declared. We haven’t even finished recovering from the last set of disasters before the next one hits—that is the scale of the emergency that we face.

I don’t have numbers for Cyclone Gabrielle, but we do know that when it comes to the floods in Auckland and in Northland, that about 10 to 20 percent of the rain was caused by climate change. So that’s about 2 to 4 centimetres out of the total 20 centimetres or so. Now, the first 2 to 4 centimetres of rain is a puddle. We can handle that, that’s fine, that’s no different from anything else that occurs. But the last 2 to 4 centimetres, that additional 10 to 20 percent equates to a biblical flood. It’s the peak of the rain that causes the peak of the damage. And, of course, this isn’t felt evenly, right? It collects around our flood zones and gullies and so on, and that’s where you saw these catastrophic flash floods that caused so much damage. So we do know that climate change is supercharging these events and making them worse than they otherwise would be.

So these events are related to climate change, and it does not matter whether you believe in climate change or not. That does not change the fact that it is happening. That is like saying whether or not someone believes in gravity or not; whether you believe in gravity or not does not change the fact of its existence. That is merely science. I have no judgment on it, that is just what is happening. So we have to be clear-eyed about that.

The second myth that I’ve heard a lot over the last few weeks has been that we should drop efforts to cut pollution, and focus entirely on resilience and on adaptation. And we have to walk and chew gum, because I have to say, that is a little bit like saying “I’m going to put all of my efforts into bailing the water out of my house, but I’m not going to plug the hole in the roof that the water’s coming through in the first place.” It is as simple as that. We have to do both.

Simon Court: What can New Zealand do about it?

Hon JAMES SHAW: We do know that the increase in the weather events, the intensity and the frequency of the droughts and the floods and the fires and the storms that we are experiencing is because the world has warmed up by about 1.1 degrees over the course of the last couple of hundred years. We also know that the world is on a trajectory to increase from that warming that’s already happened—that will increase over the course of the coming decades and, in fact, the coming centuries. Every gram of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we put into the atmosphere exacerbates that effect—it exacerbates that effect and makes it worse. Every 10th of a degree makes those storms worse, makes the droughts longer and more intense, and makes the fires more fiery. My point is, if we allow ourselves—as we have over the course of the last 30 years that we’ve been arguing about climate change—to continue to get it worse than the kinds of storms and floods that Aucklanders, Northlanders, people in Tai Rāwhiti and Napier and Hastings have experienced over the course of the last few weeks, they will be worse next time. That is what we are doing. Every 10th of a degree matters.

The third myth, and I’ve heard it repeated behind me in the last couple of minutes, is that New Zealand is too small to make a difference. That, actually, we should—you know, we only account for less than 1 percent of global warming, therefore we should just give up and leave it all to China and the United States and the European Union and others—

Hon David Bennett: The Europeans won’t do anything.

Hon JAMES SHAW: —and I’m glad that the representatives of those countries are here to listen to this. New Zealand’s population is about the size of Los Angeles. We’ve got about the same number of people as lives in Los Angeles City. So if we’re saying, “Actually, you know what? New Zealand’s too small to make a difference, let’s not bother.” What we’re saying is that actually “It’s OK, Los Angeles, you don’t need to cut your pollution either.” And if Los Angeles doesn’t need to do it, then New York doesn’t need to do it, and Chicago doesn’t need to do it; San Antonio doesn’t need to do it, and what you’re saying is, actually, the United States doesn’t need to do it either. We all have a part to play and we must all play the part that we are given.

I love the fact that, despite what I hear on occasion from members of the Opposition about being committed to the course, about supporting the targets that we’ve collectively set, we’re hearing a chorus of objection from the Opposition right now to this idea that we might actually try and stop the pollution from causing climate change in the first place. The hypoc—oh, I’m not allowed to use that word, Mr Speaker, but it starts with “H” and it ends with “ypocrisy”. I have to say—

SPEAKER: Order! The member knows he cannot use that word or even imply to use to it. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I withdraw and I apologise, Mr Speaker. So the idea that New Zealand is too small to make a difference is a total myth. There are 90 countries in the world which, like New Zealand, emit less than 1 percent of the global total. Together, we actually add up to about a third of the global total of emissions. Collectively, the small countries of this world emit more than the United States does, more than the European Union does, more than China does, and more than India does. Everybody has a part to play and it’s no different. And so the idea that we would abandon efforts to stop this pollution and, basically, leave it all up to other people is, like I say, like saying, “Well, OK, fine. I’m not going to fix the roof in my house; I’m going to leave that to somebody else. I’m just going to put all of my efforts into bailing out water.” I think that that is an insult to all of the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who actually had to bail water from their houses over the course of the preceding month or so.

This leads me on to what we actually do about it. There are three things I think that we can do and that we can let New Zealanders know that we—and we want to support the Government in this—can do over the coming months and for the remainder of this parliamentary term that will help to set things up, in particular for the next parliamentary term. The first and the most significant one, and we have heard people across the House talk about this, is that we need to support families to rebuild better and safer than they were before—not just for this generation but also so that their homes and their communities will be safe and secure and warm and dry for their children and for their children. That is critically important.

In this country, frankly, our rebuild responses in previous crises have not been brilliant and we have tended to rebuild in the same places to the same standard as we had prior to these events. And what that does is it actually builds in fragility. It makes us more at risk than we were before. So it is critically important that in the coming weeks we are able to say to New Zealanders who have lost their homes, have lost their possessions, and have lost their livelihoods that we will support them to rebuild, whether that’s in the same location or in different locations, to a standard that is secure for the 21st century, not the standard for the 20th century. Also that that standard takes account of the fact that this is not a fixed point, right? There’s no “there” there; this is a dynamic situation in which the world is continuing to warm. It will continue to warm because we do continue to put pollution into the atmosphere, and the effects of these events will get worse and will get more frequent. Therefore, we don’t just need to be building to today’s standard; we need to be building to a future standard for what we can predict is likely to come.

The second thing is that obviously, as the Prime Minister mentioned, our existing infrastructure has been found badly wanting. That has been apparent for some time, but it has particularly been exacerbated under these crisis events. And yet there are places around the country where, actually, things work quite well. And I want to mention the Awataha and Stonefields residential developments, because, actually, they didn’t flood in those recent Auckland developments, and that was because the infrastructure there worked with nature, rather than against it. I visited the Awataha development a couple of weeks ago after the floods there, and the fact that they had daylighted the stream, taken it out of what had been, essentially, a storm drain, returned it to the open sky, and planted the gully and the ravines that it flowed through shows that, actually, when you work with nature, when you have these catastrophic weather events, things like urban rivers and streams and wetlands can make an enormous difference and actually make us more resilient. So the idea that we would simply use more concrete—which, in fact, actually made things worse—is, again, a myth that I think we need to overcome.

So I would like to say that, as we build back from the recent cyclone, we should pay particular attention to our horizontal infrastructure and say: well, how can we make sure that this works with nature in a way that means that when we do have these events in the future, we’re able to cope with it?

The third component of what we do about it that I’d like to bring to the House’s attention—because it has been under the media spotlight for the last couple of weeks—is the Government’s national adaptation plan and the upcoming climate change response adaptation bill.

At the moment, there are many New Zealanders who are very worried about the extent to which they understand what their share of the cost or the risk is here—who pays for it and so on. There is currently no clarity about the share of risk and cost that is borne by the householder, their insurance company, their bank, their local authority, or central government. And generally what that means in that state of clarity is that it all tends to land on central government. And as the Minister of Finance has noted on a number of occasions, there, basically, isn’t enough money in the world to be able to cover every single cost, and we do need to take a hardship-focused approach to support the people who need it the most, but we also need to make it really clear who bears what portion of what cost, and that is the intention of that bill. And there have been calls to accelerate that, and we are looking at what we can do to accelerate that, or portions of that, bill to help us cope with the immediate crisis.

But it is an incredibly fraught area of policy, and I do want to say to Todd Muller and to Christopher Luxon, who have said quite a lot over the preceding weeks that they do want to take a bipartisan approach and they do understand that it is necessary to have a multi-decade approach here and that it is critically important for New Zealanders to know that there is a stable policy environment, I appreciate that offer. My intention is to work as closely as possible, because this challenge is going to take decades to sort out. It is going to need to take multiple changes of Government, and it is more important than any petty partisanship or politicking that we can do. So that is critically important.

The final thing that I wanted to talk about was how the solutions to climate change actually are cost of living solutions as well, and this is again another myth: the idea that trying to stop climate change from happening is somehow going to make us all poorer; it can actually make us wealthier. I do want to applaud some of the initiatives that the Prime Minister pointed to in his speech, such as the increases to minimum wage, the efforts to kind of bring grocery costs down, and the fact that we’ve got more apprenticeships now than we’ve had at any other time, which is obviously going to support the efforts to rebuild. That’s critically important.

But one thing that I think we have glossed over is the idea that every time we insulate our homes, that helps to cut living costs. Actually, solar energy is the cheapest form of energy ever created by the human species, and what that means is that when people have rooftop solar and battery in their homes, they have a lower cost of living than those people who are relying on fossil fuels. They are also more resilient. Can you imagine a situation—like we had over the last few weeks—where thousands of houses were without power, but, let’s say, every third house had a solar panel on the roof? What that would have meant was that we had power for telecommunications, it would have meant that those families had hot water, they were able to have a shower, and they were able to cook. So those solutions actually not just help to cut pollution but they also help to build more resilient communities, and that is why the Green Party has been banging on about these things for so long—because we know that, actually, the solutions to the climate crisis are also solutions to lowering household costs and making us more resilient to the effects of climate change that are happening in the future.

So, as I say, we have to be guided by the science here. We absolutely must be guided by the science. And the Green Party’s solutions that we’ve been putting forward as part of this Government and that we will be putting forward later this year are designed to support New Zealanders through this transition in ways that actually make us more resilient and better off. These solutions will cut the cost of living, but they will also make us more resilient and they will also make sure that we cut the pollution that’s causing climate change in the first place. And this year, New Zealanders will have an opportunity, given the experience that we’ve been having, to say that in the next Government, we will ensure that we are able to put those solutions forward and make sure that we are able to build a better future for our children and for their children.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the National leader’s amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion, but, being the ACT Party—always here to help—I’d like to fill in and add a few details.

Can I start by acknowledging the suffering from the floods both in Auckland a fortnight ago, and in Tai Rāwhiti and in Hawke’s Bay right now—in particular, the 11 who have been confirmed dead in Tai Rāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay, and the four Aucklanders who lost their lives in the floods two weeks ago. On top of that loss of life, those people who are still not contactable and are deemed missing for the time being; let’s hope that they are found; found soon and found alive. To all of those people who have experienced enormous devastation, we say, as ACT, that we hear you, we are with you, and we look forward to working constructively—and that means being prepared to debate, to propose ideas, and to speak on behalf of those affected in a democratic society. But we look forward to working constructively to help with the recovery that is now essential.

To give you a few ideas of what that looks like, it looks like my constituent Erana, who lives in a house that was flooded right up to the second floor, who lost everything and has been burgled multiple times despite there being nothing to steal. Those are people who need help with recovery. It is people whose homes were flooded because the drains around their house were filled with gravel and—miraculously—after the council cleared the drains on Monday night, after the Friday night rains, the Tuesday night rains drained away with no flooding. On the grounds in the Epsom electorate and across the Auckland isthmus, up to Northland, down to Coromandel, we are still reeling from the effects of those Auckland anniversary weekend rains and we see people that are going to take a long time to recover, including those in Mt Eden who have been evacuated for two weeks while a shot tower—a historical relic—is dismantled.

The devastation in Hawke’s Bay and the East Coast, or Tai Rāwhiti, is even greater. I visited, for example, an orchard where they explained that the silts will ringbark the trees and kill them off, that the apples on the tree cannot be harvested; they have incurred all of the expenses for this season and yet they will now have to dump that crop without getting anything this season, and that’s going to be the reality for the next four years, because if they decide to go ahead, they will have to plough their trees into the ground, replant—hundreds of thousands of dollars per hectare of recapitalisation—and those trees will not bear fruit, leaving them with no revenue right through to the year 2027. That is the kind of devastation, on a practical level, that people face, and they’re going to depend on two kinds of banks: will there be confidence in the stopbanks and the municipal infrastructure reinvestment that it’s going to be safe to operate in that area, and will the banks believe as much and fund the recapitalisation so that they can do what’s necessary for their business to carry on?

These are harrowing and difficult choices, and they’re going to resonate outside of the directly affected area. While most of New Zealand is not affected nearly as acutely as that, there will be challenges and choices. And let me agree with the Prime Minister on one point: there is still a lot that is unknown. The full scale of the damage, the full causes, or at least the dynamics that caused the damage not being fully understood, it would be premature to know exactly how to respond. But what we do know is that there will be serious challenges and choices and a requirement to respond with good policy based on sound principle.

One of the most obvious revelations is that this country is going to need to change its approach to climate change. So far, we have been overwhelmingly focused on emissions reduction or mitigation, and it was sad, it was truly sad, to hear the Minister of Climate Change—someone who’s had the job for five years; someone who never studied science past high school—say that he wants to take a scientific approach and then bungle just about everything that he said. For example, James Shaw, it was 28 centimetres of rain in 24 hours on 27 January in Auckland, not 20. If he says that 4 centimetres is the difference between a bit of rain and a biblical flood, then imagine what difference 8 centimetres makes. Get it right, mate.

Then he said that solar power is the most affordable form of energy created by humankind. Well, if you know your Latin, Mr Speaker, then solar power, by definition, comes from the sun and, as far as I’m aware, the sun was not created by man. What I think he meant to say is that solar panels are one of the most efficient ways of converting energy from its solar form into electricity—that would be correct. But it shows the problem with a climate Minister who, like all Green Party MPs, never studied science past high school. They get it wrong all the time.

The reality is that we have a climate change Minister who blames everybody but himself for the failure of his own policies. We have had emission reduction schemes that just don’t work. It doesn’t reduce New Zealand’s net emissions when they are capped under the emissions trading scheme to tax tradies buying utes and subsidise people buying a Tesla as their third car. It might change who emits the carbon dioxide; it doesn’t change the amount. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said, it didn’t help to ban oil and gas exploration; in fact, it may have been counter-productive. And it did not help to subsidise biofuels—even the Labour Party has now accepted that policy was futile—and it didn’t help to subsidise people to plant pine trees all over Tai Rāwhiti; in fact, as we know, they subsidised an environmental harm that made the situation worse.

So if we want to talk about being science-based and economically literate, then, actually, the people to blame are not all of the disbelievers that the quasi-religious James Shaw rages at in frustration. The reason he’s frustrated is that he has failed, and this country needs an approach to climate change that works for New Zealanders and focuses on adaptation. One thing we could do, for example, is start using the nearly $2 billion revenue from the emissions trading scheme for an adaptation fund; that would be smart, instead of various boondoggles bribing people to try and reduce their emissions. The rest of the world hasn’t got the memo—that’s why we’re experiencing these weather events, and we need a policy that works for New Zealanders and that means adaptation, and we see it working.

We heard about Stonefields from James Shaw—that’s true. I told you about the drain clearances between rains in Auckland that made a difference. I heard from Kirsten Wise, the Mayor of Napier, about the $68 million in municipal infrastructure investment that meant that the city of Napier itself was largely OK in these rains last week. It shows the power of an adaptation approach over a futile and often counter-productive emission reduction approach, and James Shaw needs to stop moralising and blaming everyone else in his quasi-religious tone and start looking at the man in the mirror, because he’s been the climate change Minister for the last five years and he needs to take responsibility and maybe a maths class.

This Government will also see further inflation on its watch as billions of dollars are dumped on to the inflationary fire by the global reinsurance industry, just as the Reserve Bank is trying to take away the punch-bowl. There will also be a serious resource crunch for tradies and builders and plasterboard and building materials. And when you have too much money chasing after too few goods, what you get is inflation.

Expect inflation to take off again, and how is the Government going to respond? Well, the first thing it can do is start looking at its own books. If it believes the situation has changed, then it needs to stop spending, spending, spending. This is a Government that inherited the books, spending 27 percent of GDP, or about $87 billion a year; now it’s spending around 35 percent of GDP—up $40 billion a year, to around $127 billion—and even when that spending from COVID comes off as Grant Robertson promised, they’ll be spending 32 percent of GDP.

When a Government increases spending by 5 percentage points of GDP and when it borrows the money to do it, that’s inflationary, and the floods are going to be inflationary too. So what’s the Government going to do to reduce its effect on inflation? Is this Government really going to tell us that every dollar it’s spending is worth it? It used to say that about the biofuel subsidy, and it used to say that about the RNZ - TVNZ merger. If those things weren’t necessary, then maybe Auckland light rail—that was never a good idea—needs to go as well. Maybe the three waters merger that was never a good idea needs to go as well. Maybe this Government hiring an extra 14,000 bureaucrats for no improvements in outcomes for tax-paying Kiwis needs to go as well in order to save the money so that the people of New Zealand have a chance to fight the cost of living crisis and price rises they already face, which will be exacerbated by these floods.

There are more things the Government could do in order to exacerbate the inflationary pressures of the floods. Imagine having a recovery visa: anyone from a visa-waiver country can show up at the New Zealand border and enter the country for 90 days, almost no questions asked. Imagine saying to anyone from a visa-waiver country, “Six months, allowed to work any job in the flood-recovery region—no problem—and we’ll process it within 24 hours.” I was speaking to a business group this morning; there were several infrastructure companies there and they were nodding along at that one. Will this Government have the courage to do it?

They could have a materials equipment register. There’ll be a plasterboard shortage again. They need to start saying that if a material is allowed in Australia, or if it’s allowed in the United States or Japan, it should be allowed to be used for the recovery. We can’t afford to run a parallel market, or, actually, three or four parallel markets—if you take the councils from the East Cape down to Wairarapa—and hope that the global suppliers will come to those fragmented markets.

We should have the New Zealand Defence Force out supporting constables right now, whether the problem is gangs, whether the problem is looting, whether the problem is domestic violence, or whichever one the Government is saying it is from day to day. But let me pay the Government one compliment. I think that Chris Hipkins got something right when he said that the response should be driven from the locals.

I was lucky enough to meet Sally Crown, Annette Brosnan, and Kirsten Wise, who are two councillors and the deputy mayor and Mayor of Napier—what impressive leadership. They are the sorts of people that should be listened to. The emergency response should be supporting local leadership, not undermining and gaslighting local leadership, as we heard the Commissioner of Police on the radio this morning. When local people say, “We need to see police. We are fearful.”, we need a police commissioner who does better than saying, “Don’t be scared.”, “The police are there.”, and “You’re wrong.” We need to start listening to local leadership, and that’s one good thing that Chris Hipkins has said; I’d just like to see the reality of it.

What we see in this Prime Minister’s statement, as we turn to New Zealand’s longer-term future, is, again, an enormous number of dumb ideas, where the RNZ - TVNZ merger, the hate speech laws, and the biofuel subsidy all came from. We have the excessive expenditure.

We have the increase in minimum wage by more than even the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advised, putting more costs on to small businesses that are going to have a very tough year as the economy turns south, and what is the Government doing? Well, they’re appointing more and bigger bureaucracies. We’re going to have a grocery commissioner, and the hope is that the grocery commissioner will be just as successful as the Commerce Commission’s attempts to increase competition amongst petrol stations, which, by the way, have been totally ineffective because the importer margin—the amount charged by the petrol stations—remains the same as it was before they put the latest layer of bureaucracy on to petrol stations, and then the building supplies industry is going to get its own bureaucracy.

All this Labour Party knows how to do is, basically—well, it’s what we used to say: in the back line, shovelling, as the French say, merde. Instead of actually solving problems, they shovel them on to the next person and create a new commissioner, or imagine that’s the solution, when, actually, what people know is that groceries haven’t got cheaper, petrol hasn’t got cheaper, and building supplies won’t get cheaper either just because there’s a new commissioner.

They say that they’re going to fix mental health. You’ve got to admire the sheer audacity of this Government—this Government, which wouldn’t even report on the number of people being seen in mental health. It stopped reporting its own measurements, they were so bad. It’s like they’ve failed so hard for the last five years, the audacity of asking for another go and pretending that nothing that has happened for the last five years is their responsibility is truly admirable. I’ll give them this: they’ve got some chutzpah.

Then they say—what else do they say? They say they’re going to apply the Housing Acceleration Fund. Well, funding infrastructure so houses can get built is a very good idea, if only they did it. They announced it; they just haven’t done it.

We’re going to have a Natural and Built Environment Bill, a more bureaucratic version of the Resource Management Act. All it’s going to do is replace sustainable development with te Oranga o te Taiao. Now, does anyone know what that means? No, they don’t. The courts will figure it out. It’ll take 15 years. By that point, Indonesia will have overtaken us in living standards and GDP per capita, but that’s what it’s going to take to understand the natural and built environments law, which is more complex than the Resource Management Act, which it replaces, and it’s also novel, meaning it’s going to take a long time to figure it out. Meanwhile, getting stuff built just ain’t going to happen.

Then, for businesses up and down New Zealand, there’s the bureaucracy of the fair pay agreements. All you’ve got is a repetition and continuation of Labour’s failed policies, and it’s not surprising, because the new Prime Minister is the one who has a cast-iron—or, should I say, a cast-lead—track record of failure. This is the police Minister who spent a year and $6 million delivering seven fog cannons to embattled dairy owners up and down New Zealand. The criteria he gave one jeweller in Ellerslie was that they had to be ram-raided in order to qualify for protection against ram-raiding. Whatever happened to preventative policing?

This was the Minister of Education who had seen record levels of truancy, and they don’t even measure it. We just heard from Jan Tinetti, the education Minister, that she knew how bad the school attendance figures were for term 3 last year in December, but she didn’t release them till now because the numbers weren’t very good. I mean, is that what we’re teaching our kids: “If you have bad news, just hide it.”? Where are the values of this Government? Where’s the honesty? How is it possible to solve a problem in education if even the Minister of Education is hiding from it?

But Chris Hipkins was also responsible for Te Pūkenga, and Te Pūkenga is kind of like the KiwiBuild of Labour’s second term. It’s almost unfair to bring it up, because they’ve failed so hard—it is a byword for mismanagement and Government mediocracy.

Then, of course, you’ve got the Prime Minister, who was the Minister for COVID response, who leaked the private information of a pregnant Kiwi woman hiding with the Taliban, and he wouldn’t apologise until the courts made him—what a guy! What a lovely man we’re going to have, and what an interesting year of politics we’re going to have when those aspects of his character and performance start to come out.

Then he’s also the guy who’s been responsible as State services Minister for growing from 47,000 bureaucrats to 61,000 bureaucrats, with no increase in productivity whatsoever. We can be so much better.

Imagine a New Zealand that is not divided by its Treaty. You see, all through human history, treaties have brought people together. Under this Government, we have the first ever treaty that is designed to divide people into tangata whenua, or land people, and tangata Tiriti, or Treaty people—the world’s first treaty of division. Imagine New Zealand as a modern, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy, with a place for everyone entitled to one 5-millionth of the opportunity this country has to offer. That is a New Zealand we can get behind.

Imagine a New Zealand with growing productivity. Well, that’s hard at the moment, because the statistics department were supposed to release the productivity stats on Wednesday, but they have their own productivity problem, and the stats for productivity are two weeks late. But imagine productivity actually rising in New Zealand, as we end the war on immigration and welcome skilled people to our border with a minimum of fuss, as if we’re actually competing in a global war for talent, where, right now, Canada and Australia are eating our lunch, and imagine ladders of opportunity for young New Zealanders who can see their path to owning their part of a property-owning democracy. Imagine one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world having the infrastructure funding, the building materials regime, and the consenting regime to create habitat for humans.

Imagine that: the real dream of New Zealand, for which people have come for generations—a First World nation in an island paradise. That is what ACT is working to deliver this year, and we can’t wait to get stuck into the political year. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. Tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatahi kia maumahara mai ngā hunga mate i te wā pōuri. Haere, haere, haere i te awa tūpuna.

Ko te mahi o te kaitiaki, tiaki i te mana o Papatūānuku, o Ranginui hoki, tae noa ki a rawa tini tamariki mokopuna e whāngai nei i a tātou o te ao mārama nei.

He mana tuku iho ki ngā iwi me nga hapū i ēnei rā mā ngā atua me te Tiriti o Waitangi me ngā whānau, ngā hapū, me ngā iwi o whakahaere kia ora ai a Papatūānuku me ana tini uri mokopuna tātou mai ki te tangata.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Thank you. Greetings, everyone. Firstly, we must remember the dead at this sad time. Depart to the ancestral river.

The job of the steward is to care for the Earth Mother and the Sky Father, including the many children and grandchildren who we all care for in the physical world.

It is an authority handed down to us today by the gods and the Treaty of Waitangi and the families, the subtribes, and tribes who organise in order that the Earth Mother and her many descendants.]

I remember, first, to stand and mihi to those whose lives are lost, whose whānau are grieving—at the moment, at home, I remember Hori Luke, who’s in state at Aotea Marae—and mihi to all of those that are going through periods of huge grief and uncertainty. Te Paati Māori would like to mihi to all our first responders. I see the absolute commitment and mahi that they’ve been doing for all of us in Aotearoa. I was very honoured and privileged to travel with w’anaunga in a truck, donating supplies to Hawke’s Bay, Ahuriri, and we were able to see the devastation. As everyone has this afternoon, I’d like to reflect on some of those that I saw.

I think, first and foremost, nothing can prepare you for the devastation that I got to see, so I can only imagine what is going on in the areas that I wasn’t able to access. There were whānau, livelihoods, whenua, orchards, houses, papa kāinga that will be devastated for ever and will probably need to make some big, hard decisions. I think it’s important now that we, in our sphere of influence, try to bring as much of that sight and pain that, to be honest, I think the media have done a really fine job of being able to open up and show us as a country what we’re dealing with.

If I can reflect on what I saw in Te Taiwhenua, at Ahuriri, and mihi to Tania and the crew there, who had just had power restored, they were standing up five, six days after a lot of the other marae had and they had run out of kai because of the demand. They had set up a food centre and were doing an amazing job. We also were able to be fortunate to see the whānau at Ōmahu Marae on Taihape Road; before, I think, the Government had even had the chance to call on extra army and civil defence, they had mobilised rangatahi pahaki katoa with whānau trucks and utes, and were cleaning out the houses, the papa kāinga, the kaumātuas’ houses, the disabled houses, and had created two big stockpiles, I guess, of the rubbish for when they do get to hear from council to move them. The speed and the way that our whānau and marae have been able to mobilise is second to none. I really mihi to the way that they’ve been able to get way ahead of, to be honest, the official recovery and response that we’re seeing.

I was fortunate to also get to see with the aunties the clean-up that they’ve done at Ōmahu Marae, the fact that their tukutuku panels haven’t been touched, the fact that their places of huge cultural significance were preserved, but also saw the pain of the urupā that have been damaged, and the kōiwi—or the bones—of their descendants, their past children from the influenza epidemic, have, sadly, been dispatched into other waters, and so we see a rāhui over there.

I was also able to have the blessing of being at Te Aranga Marae and seeing the stand-up—and also Pukemokimoki—and the way that the whānau have categorised clothing and supplies and food in a way that you would swear that they’ve been running a dispatch centre all their lives. The order and the way that people were able to be seen and mihied and the tears and the clothing and the blankets—you know, there were things like pushchairs and, I guess, all those things that you just can’t imagine that you go without when everything in your house has gone.

I guess, in light, I will share this—I see a lot of rangatahi in the gallery—somebody in Taranaki thought that it was really important that rebuild included a box of condoms. So, in the way that everyone’s trying to help, they’re trying to bring about their own spirit and interpretation of how we look after a community.

What, I think, I really appreciated about those—and, again, I’ve only got a snapshot of what’s going on—is that they have the absolute humility and hospitality to look after all citizens of Aotearoa. The messaging and the way that they were able to get things in real time, when, perhaps, you don’t have a battery radio, when you’re not really proficient with social media, cannot be underestimated. So I want to mihi to the way that they’ve been running. It’s over a week, and we’re still seeing the welfare centres, the food centres, the evacuation centres, the karakia, and the debriefs that are happening at night. In the debriefs, they’re able to bring together all their kōrero, their amuamu, their affairs, and I think it’s really important that the Government connects—I get it, that we must have all the other centralised entities the way that a mainstream response should obviously be, but there’s also an “and”—and it’s critical to hear the debriefing and the kōrero of those whānau in those marae. So I really urge that the Government follows the other templates that obviously we’ve got to learn from but also don’t miss those important critical centres of information and champions of change. So I want to really mihi to them all and to acknowledge them as stand-up heroes in this response, as well. I committed to be able to be used to bring about their insights and their experiences. We saw the dead sheep, and people trying to get stock out as well. These are livelihoods—the loss of crops. It just is devastating. So I mihi to all.

But, of course, obviously, we want to make sure that the marae and the connectors within those local communities are seen. For many, they were reminding that this isn’t their first storm; for some, it’s their second and their third. In Tai Rāwhiti and Tai Tokerau, many of those marae have been dealing with floods after years and years. They are the same marae and the same people who, over the last three years, have stood up COVID responses and manaaki, vaccination kaupapa. They really are dealing with people who are tired and exhausted of uncertainty. So we really implore that the Government supports and resources them for all that it is that they bring to help secure our future, and bring balance.

So I also had people, like Joe Te Rito, who said that—and a lot said this—they’re really scared to go home, and to the point that they don’t want to go back to their home on their papa kāinga, because it’s happened so many times, and they want to now know what the Government’s doing next. They’re worried that they’re going to be left behind in the conversation. They want leadership from the Government; they don’t just want red stickers. They don’t want to be put in places that they know are problematic. They’re sick and tired of the forestry industry destroying their communities. They’re sick of polluters who are refusing to change. They could name those who they’ve been having problems with. They are acknowledging those who are refusing to pay towards the damage they’re doing to their taiao. They feel that there are delays from politicians who are saying the right thing but maybe not following through. And they feel like there’s been years and years and years afforded to be able to act.

I think it’s really important, in my role, to remind the Government that when you first got in, there was a lot of talk about just transition. I know COVID and other things have distracted from that, but we really need to go back to that—and particularly with an equity lens. Our concern is that there’s not. It’s not actualising. There doesn’t seem to be progressive discussion about it. So what we need to see is an equity-based investment—and, from our perspective, that’s not up for debate.

When we came into the House this afternoon, we came with a series of wero, and they are for us—for us all as political leaders. My challenge to the Prime Minister, to Chris Hipkins, is that we need to make sure that we have a programme that’s going to empower a whole-of-Government response to climate change and to do what’s right, and that may not always be politically convenient.

And I guess it’s not about looking for praise for business as usual, but to stay focused on climate change and, again, prioritising equity. And if we are going to be doing local, then make sure that local’s not only a one-stop shop centralised portal, but, actually, we get out to the very communities that are affected and that do look like marae and whānau. And, I think, to also recognise that he has the absolute power to make this difference, and he has the influence to leverage the power of Government for the benefit of our young people and the certainty for our future generations.

Te Paati Māori also issues a challenge to the Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw, that he actually works with all parties in this House and not just what appears to be with the National Party. We have seen, since 2017, his approach has weakened our response to climate change, and, at times, compromised when we should have been our strongest. If he wants to enact the truly bold and transformative climate action that we desperately need and he speaks of in this House, he must adopt a new approach now.

Government must no longer water down climate action because vested interests tell you to do so. My challenge to the finance Minister, Grant Robertson, and the Minister for Emergency Management, Kieran McAnulty, is to put forward targeted by Māori, for Māori, according to Māori solutions to emergency management and rebuild, rather than simply prioritising business. Sending empty shipping containers to marae is unacceptable. If civil defence are going to connect with marae and going to send assets, please make sure those assets deployed are filled with the equipment that’s going to be of use to them.

We agree that there are many lessons to be learnt, and I guess one of the things we issued as part of following up with our challenge is our Te Paati Māori policy calling on the Government to establish a $200 million Māori Taiao Relief Fund—you’re more than welcome to add more to it. But our focus was to immediately look at rebuilding and cleaning up marae, urupā, papa kāinga impacted by environmental disasters. I want to be really clear: this isn’t an “instead of”; this is “as well as”, so this is an “and/and”. So what we can see is there’s a long-term initiative that hapū, iwi, and urban Māori can apply to their climate planning, flood protection, and relocation, and this fund would also resource a Māori national service defence framework, to give hapū, iwi, and urban Māori organisations the same resources and infrastructure as local government, such as access to helicopters.

Again, I’ll go back to the reflections: a lot of those marae want to be their own bunkers in their own stand-up civil emergency response. Again, we have to make sure that assets deployed to them are actually going to be of use—again, not empty storage containers. So our community have demonstrated their value time and time again. Our policy is building on the 2020 climate policy, which committed to fund whānau, hapū, and iwi with adaptation. This is about futureproofing. It is time for action, it is time for good, bold solutions, and it is time to be stronger.

Also, I think, you know, I want to reflect on some of the discussions that may not have been interpreted from the paepae at Waitangi. As tangata whenua, as the first nations of this nation, we’re consistently having to defend Te Tiriti. Te Tiriti is of value. It is something that brings about to us that no other nation can enjoy to the extent that we have here. It is something to be proud of. It is something that we can talk about in restoration, in reclamation, ending poverty, ending racism and injustice, and we’re so close, as a nation, to achieving that. To be honest, our rangatahi expect nothing less; our tangata Tiriti expect nothing less. And we’ve seen it in our South Pacific relationships, that this is an important part of us being able to enjoy what it is that we have, not only as a scientific, modern, future-thinking nation but also as a nation with first-nation indigenous peoples’ tangata whenua knowledge. We’ve seen it used in Matariki, and we can continue to look at maramataka and mātauranga Māori as our solutions.

I think some of the things that we want to commend the Government for is that you have taken up some of our policies. We now have a history of Aotearoa being taught in schools, we have a Māori Health Authority, Māori wards in local government, guaranteed Māori procurement, Matariki as a public holiday, Māori can now switch electoral rolls at any time, and Aotearoa now supports a conditional international moratorium on seabed mining, which we’re imploring that this Government supports and helps to stop as well.

So I guess it comes down to the fact that tangata whenua in this House, tangata whenua out of this House with Government are an absolute partnership and force to be reckoned with. I think that’s this Government’s point of difference—is being able to continuously look at honouring that. In 2023, we have some absolutely unmatched challenges, and never more important for us to be able to unite and bring those strengths together so that we can focus not only on the issues we have to contend with but the opportunities, because every problem is an opportunity waiting to be solved.

So as an opportunistic politician, we really want to make sure that the Government stays focused on the cost of living, that we are ensuring that we’re addressing poverty. It’s getting really hard, and I think that’s one of the things that I can refer to. It’s getting hard to put kai on the table. We see 2 percent own more than 50 percent of the wealth in this nation. We need to make sure that we can have clean, renewable energy, not coal mining or seabed mining, as I’ve said; that we’re looking at farms phasing out synthetic fertilisers by 2025, and we can help that to happen with the right financial support; and that we look at making public transport free, and investing in the circular economy, so that we can buy local and work local. So we’ve got solutions on what the new economy could look like, and it might upset some of the old capitalists, but we must follow the lead of our rangatahi and pressure Government to do what’s necessary, and that’s what we’ll be intending to do.

I also want to talk about recognising the land that we live on and how we read the various signs to ensure that we grow and understand. So we recognise toitū te whenua, the fact that the Western paradigm and how it’s been managed is actually challenged throughout the world, and that we as indigenous peoples have some knowledge that will be key to future planning for crises that threaten to engulf us.

We also will continuously be on about returning whenua to its original owners who live as kaitiaki, recognising our abundance and breaking up the wealth of the 1 percent in favour of the 99 percent, and embracing a tikanga world view, ensuring everyone has enough income, enough kai, and be able to live good lives, implementing, alongside that, our indigenous environmental practices, such as the rāhui that we’ve seen has gone on in Tai Rāwhiti.

So we also want to be able to make sure that we are looking at ways to be able to assist whānau in practical ways, and that means doubling baseline benefit levels. It means bringing down grocery bills through removing GST from kai. It means guaranteeing pay equity for Māori nurses and teachers, and it also means taxing wealth more, income less. So we’re not shy of capital gains tax or ghost houses tax—I know some over here will be absolutely flabbergasted.

People are fed up with status quo. They are tired of the same old excuses, of successive Governments refusing to acknowledge the scale of the problems we face. Some don’t even accept that climate change exists. So what we want to do is see Oranga Tamariki be more competent. We want to see Kāinga Ora be more resourced to pick up and help with those that are homeless, and we don’t want to see 60 percent of them being Māori. We want to see the Ministry of Health giving more support for primary care, including dentistry, and that Pharmac is helping with more lifesaving treatments. We also want to be able to see the Ministry of Education as more focused on creating education that is going to be representative of what our rangatahi and tamariki need in 2023, not the 18th century.

Our prison population has gone up by 2 percent. We want to see a Government that’s going to focus on bringing these things down. And we see police are found guilty of widespread racial profiling and illegal photographing of rangatahi without consent. We want to see things like that stop. So it’s way past the Government being able to continuously feast on the misery of our people, so we want to be able to turn and flip those statistics upside down.

It’s election year. In election year, we’re progressing our wero to parties on both sides of the House, and it is to not use tangata whenua as a political football. We have already, in the last month, seen our people being used as punching bags from major parties, oppositions whipping up hatred and division of Māori rights, and Government caving into pressure and reversing their own policies. This House should rise above the hate, and instead have an unrelenting focus on pushing through policies that progress towards a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa. We are a nation that has the ability to be the absolute best in the world. You have within you first-nation people. Knowledge has proven time after time that that is something that is going to help convert this nation into a future-focused nation that we can all be proud of. We believe in ourselves. We believe in tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti in Aotearoa, but we also need to make sure that the Crown stays focused in believing in us. So examples as I look at those marae, look at tangata whenua, and make sure that we are accountable as Tiriti partners, because that’s what Te Paati Māori will be doing this year, making sure the Crown and the Opposition are true, pono, and tika to Te Tiriti o Aotearoa, Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki Aotearoa hou [true and proper in regard to the Treaty of Aotearoa, to the Treaty of Waitangi for a new New Zealand]. Kia ora rā.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and his motion—in particular, the words that he shared in regards to Cyclone Gabrielle and the devastation and destruction that it has caused to many North Island regions. From the Far North down to Wairarapa, there are many communities—thousands of people—whose lives have been upended because of this severe weather event. And as at 6 a.m. this morning, there were 11 New Zealanders having been confirmed to have lost their lives, and police continue to have grave concerns for others. It’s 11 families that have lost loved ones; 11 communities that are hurting. This cyclone will be referred to as a reference point—much like Cyclone Bola was before that. And it is Cyclone Bola that many people have been comparing this event to as the Prime Minister and I have been travelling around the affected areas. I suspect they won’t be speaking of Bola much anymore, such is the severity of Cyclone Gabrielle.

This is only the third time in New Zealand’s history where a state of national emergency has been declared. It is the first time that a state of national emergency—outside of COVID, covering the whole country; and the Canterbury earthquakes, covering one region—has been over such a large area, with many different regions, many different needs, and many different challenges. And as such, that does present a challenge from a civil defence perspective. The issues in Northland are different to those in Auckland, which in turn are different again to those in Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Tai Rāwhiti, Hawke’s Bay, the Tararua district, and Wairarapa. There are, of course, similarities, and many of those surround our isolated and rural communities. For so long, due to various reasons—being extreme weather, communication blackouts, broken roads, roads covered by slips, etc.—many rural communities were completely cut off from the rest of the country, and, in some cases, for days. This is bound to cause anxiety and stress and trauma that will last for many years.

We recognise the communities that have been cut off in particular. They have banded together, they have supported each other, and they have been innovative in order to provide the support that people need until civil defence and local authorities and first responders were able to reach them. It is pleasing that now National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) authorities and civil defence feel they have a grasp of the need in communities throughout the country now and that they know what they need to provide where until they are able to reconnect those communities either through road or through communications.

At 6 a.m. this morning, I received the following critical updates that I would like to share with the House. Tai Rāwhiti civil defence are confident that they’ve made contact with all isolated communities as of yesterday. Hawke’s Bay now have an understanding of the need in each of their rural communities. Last night, 663 people stayed in civil defence centres in Hawke’s Bay, and five were accommodated in Tai Rāwhiti. Around 50 recognised seasonal employer workers are being accommodated at marae. There were still 104 people accommodated in civil defence centres in Auckland from the floods a fortnight ago.

The Ministry of Education expects that up to 70 percent of schools in the Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti regions will be able to open for on-site learning by the middle of the week subject to the availability of power, water, transport, road access, and staff. Outside of these regions, around six schools or kura are closed, affecting approximately 305 learners, and 28 early childhood centres are closed. There are still over 200 road closures across the North Island that Waka Kotahi are working to open—that’s State highways; that doesn’t account for the many, many local roads that remain closed. More fuel service stations have reopened. However, in Hawke’s Bay, 19 remain closed; in Gisborne, three are still closed; and there are a further four in the Waikato and Bay of Plenty that are yet to reopen.

As the Prime Minister has noted, across the North Island around 11,000 customers remain without power. This is down from 22,000 yesterday, which is down from its peak of 225,000 at the start of this weather event. Full telecommunications have been restored to Wairoa and Central Gisborne. However, 7 percent of cell sites in Hawke’s Bay and 20 percent in Tai Rāwhiti are yet to be operational. The National Emergency Management Agency has procured 82 Starlink units, of which 66 have been deployed. We’ve also reserved an additional 35 high-calibre units that will be available to deploy from Auckland in short order. Water supply remains fragile in Wairoa and rural Hastings. Supplies in Napier and Gisborne have been secured, and I’m advised that water services networks in the Tararua district remain under pressure.

In order to get to that point, it has required considerable commitment and effort from thousands of New Zealanders. To get those worst-affected communities reconnected has been their objective, and they have worked day and night in order to get there. I just want to offer my sincere thanks and gratitude to everyone involved, be they line workers, be they first responders, volunteers, iwi and marae, individuals, groups, committees—the lot. Everyone has stood up in these affected communities. They’ve worked tirelessly, not for themselves but for those that they live with.

I want to particularly acknowledge Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), who have lost two of their own in this emergency response: Dave van Zwanenberg and Craig Stevens. These are fatalities that hit hard. Everyone in Fire and Emergency New Zealand is feeling this loss, in addition to the Muriwai community. But anyone that has had any involvement with Fire and Emergency New Zealand is hurting. There isn’t a single community in this country that doesn’t have a FENZ presence, and in rural and provincial New Zealanders, there wouldn’t be many families that don’t have someone within their own that volunteers for Fire and Emergency. It’s instinctive, when a tragedy strikes, to look after those we love. Volunteers for Fire and Emergency in the first instance make sure their loved ones are safe, then they leave to go and make sure the community is safe. That requires considerable courage and selflessness. And as I was listening to the other contributions today, I was reflecting on the fact that this debating chamber is a war memorial, and we have plaques to commemorate the sacrifice and service of New Zealanders in every battle that New Zealand has taken part in, including the New Zealand Wars. It is my personal view that these two men are equal heroes to this country, because they served this country and they served their communities on behalf of everyone to make sure that people are safe.

I also want to acknowledge police. In addition to being on the front lines of our emergency response, they are now having to go above and beyond to maintain law and order in very stressed communities—many of whom still do not have power after many days and whose only lifelines are reliant on people flying things in or giving to them, causing unimaginable stress.

The New Zealand Defence Force has deployed at scale to respond to this disaster with over 950 personnel, and I’ve seen first hand the lift that it gives communities when our defence force personnel turn up. It gives people confidence; it gives them reassurance. They have played a crucial role in giving people their essential needs, be it helicoptering in water to Wairoa or using the navy ships to call into isolated coastal communities along the East Cape and Tai Rāwhiti region, calling in, giving them food, and giving them generators. They’re also going to be playing a critical role in re-establishing bridges that have been knocked out in crucial links, reconnecting small communities to the larger towns in their area.

It would also be remiss of me not to acknowledge our NEMA staff and civil defence staff. Many of them dropped tools, came together, and have been working roughly 25 days straight in the bunker underneath the Beehive. Their contribution collectively is what’s making this response so effective. Their commitment is commended.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I first thank all of those people who have been involved in dealing with both the flooding in Auckland and also Northland, as well as what has been happening, particularly in Tai Rāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay and other parts of the country. It is a very difficult time for them because those who are working together are often living in the same mess that they’re trying to clean up. And that is why it is really important for us to give our support to them and to thank them for their service. I also want to acknowledge the volunteer fire servicemen who were killed in that very first flooding. It is incredible to think that they have given of their time, personally and voluntarily, to help others and have been caught in that slip at Muriwai and killed. It is a dreadful, devastating thing to happen, not only for them but even more particularly for their families.

It is at these times that we have to come together and try to help the rest of the country in the best way that we can, which is why the Opposition, under Chris Luxon’s excellent leadership, is encouraging us all to assist the Government, because the Government definitely needs some help.

We heard, today, from the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, who is newly minted, and, obviously, we’d all like to wish him well in his short tenure. But it is really important to remember that this Government has not changed. Its face might have changed, but he shares a brilliant quality of Jacinda Ardern’s, and that is the ability to smile and say whatever is needed to be said but actually deliver nothing. And that is one of the problems. Today, we heard Chris Hipkins say, “Let’s get cracking.” Well, I remember someone saying, “Let’s do this.” No one quite asked what that “this” was, or who was going to do it, or what was going to happen, but something’s going to have to get cracking, apparently.

Likewise, we saw, in the speech tabled by Chris Hipkins, a phrase which is, likewise, the mark of this Government: how we have changed to respond to the shifting environment. I think he was responding to the cyclone and its effects, but it could just as well be a response to the polls, and that is one of the problems. So he has said, “We are going to deal with the cost of living.” Well, all we’ve seen happen is it’s gone up.

We see today that the median rate for residential rent is now almost $600 a week. That’s the median. And people who rent, often can’t buy. And if they have bought, then they’re like people in my electorate in Papakura, who may have bought, last year or the year before, for $900,000, or maybe $850,000, a two-bedroom, two-up terrace place in Papakura, and found that Kāinga Ora, the State housing arm, has gone and bought up a whole chunk of those houses in the street and put gang members in them. And then they’ve turned around and they’ve become not only the worst landlord in the country but now the worst neighbour in the country. And I have people like that, that I’m trying to help, whose interest rates have gone from 2 to 3 percent to up to 6 to 7 percent. And they have no equity left in their homes—nothing; they’ve lost everything. And worse, they’re having to pay what they don’t have.

And where is this Government on that? Well, they’ll say they’ve raised the minimum wage. Actually, businesses are paying for the minimum wage, and so are my constituents, who are having to pay for it in increased costs.

They said they were going to sort out supermarkets. I’m just so grateful that it’s the supermarkets in charge of food distribution, otherwise there wouldn’t be any food in the country, because if it was a Government agency, it would not happen.

We’ve seen Chris Hipkins say, in this month, February 2023, “Increase in crime is just an unsubstantiated rumour.” Tell that to the people of Hawke’s Bay. Tell that to the people of my constituency of Papakura, who are ram-raided. Tell that to the dairy owners. Tell that to the people who are trying to make a living and employ other people. Tell them that it’s just an unsubstantiated rumour. I think some of them might want to tell him where to stick his unsubstantiated rumour, and it might not be very polite.

And if we look at Stuart Nash, the MP in Napier at the moment: well, in January 2017, he said it was time to smash the gangs. Now, as the police Minister again—and he is also the local Napier MP—he has urged the gangs to help and not loot amid the cyclone recovery. He told them to remove their patches. I don’t think that’s quite the same as time to smash the gangs. What we have seen is an over 50 percent increase in gang membership under this Government.

And let’s just look to the future, shall we? We’ve had 5½ long years of a Labour Government. What we have seen is we’ve seen now a new Prime Minister, but he comes across as though it’s really nothing to do with him what happened before—that was the Ardern years, it’s different now; it was the COVID. We’ve heard what happened to that poor pregnant journalist trying to get back to New Zealand: the Taliban offered her safe haven. But pregnant New Zealanders under his watch, as the COVID-19 Minister, were not allowed to come back to New Zealand at the same time where 50 overseas DJs were.

Now, there’s got to be something wrong with the mentality of someone who would do that. He ran the managed isolation and quarantine system. It was his fault. It was his operation. He ran the education ministry. And now we have 45 percent of children who turn up to school regularly—they’re the minority, the kids enrolled who actually turn up. He was the Minister of Police, between other unsuccessful Ministers. He was the Minister of Education who stood back and let our kids go without education. It is his fault that Papakura has, in Rosehill College, a college that is only open four days a week. It is his fault because it’s him who has not prioritised teaching and teachers and students. It is him who let that happen. It is him that had the polytechnic merger, which has taken some very well-functioning polytechnics and stuck them in with non-functioning ones into a major mess and ended up with 22 different chief executives. It is him that did that.

The one thing I would say about Chris Hipkins is where he succeeded. He succeeded in growing the Public Service with an extra 14,000 bureaucrats, because he was the Minister for the Public Service for five years. That is him. He did that. He succeeded in growing the Wellington database. Well done! And who has paid for that? My constituents, who are paying extra interest rates. My constituents, who are paying extra rent. My constituents, who are now waiting for cancer treatment. It’s those people who are paying for his largess with their money. And when I hear him say, today, Grant Robertson’s a great finance Minister—for whom? For whom? Did he grow the economy? No. Did he grow the tax take? Yes. And did he spend it wisely? No, he did not.

We have to deal with the cost of living crisis. We have to combat youth offending. We have to get kids in school and get them to want to be there. We have to unlock economic growth and get this country moving. We have to back the police tackling gangs and other violent crime. When I hear of One NZ, the former Vodafone, having their batteries stolen, their generators stolen from Hawke’s Bay by armed gangs, I, like the rest of New Zealand, am disgusted. I do not think this is an unsubstantiated rumour. I do not think that this is OK. I do not think it’s all right for the gangs to be told to take off their patches. I do, however, know that this Government has failed for five years. There’s no reason to believe it won’t continue until the next election.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): It’s a privilege to rise in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. In particular, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge all of the people who have been hit, firstly by the extreme weather event that we first saw affecting the Coromandel, Northland, Auckland, and parts of the Waikato; and then Cyclone Gabrielle. It is unbelievable, the force of nature that has been unleased, that has caused the loss of life of 11 people and others to be unaccounted for. But believe it we must, because we need to get on with both responding to this disaster and ensuring that we continue to take bold action on climate change to make sure that we prevent the harm of these sorts of events becoming more and more common in the future.

I want to focus my remarks on the incredible work of our healthcare system, first in response to Cyclone Gabrielle. In the past week, I’ve been briefed multiple times a day, and the resounding message that I’ve heard about the response, particularly in the Hawke’s Bay and in Tai Rāwhiti, has been about the fortitude of those healthcare workers on the front line. The Prime Minister reflected in his remarks on a nurse he met in the Esk Valley, but I know that that story reflects one of many healthcare workers who has been out serving their community while they themselves have faced very difficult situations at home, having their home impacted by flooding, or their family disrupted as well.

For this reason, we are determined to make sure that we can sustain the commitment of those healthcare workers in affected regions to their communities. That means making sure that they get a break. For that reason, using our new nationally coordinated health system, we’re able to send in a team of nurses and other healthcare workers to areas where they are most needed, in order to give the people who’ve been doing it tough for the last week a break so that they can come back to work refreshed.

The reports have been—and I’m sure members of this House will be pleased—that the hospitals have remained open and able to take care of people and their acute needs. The health system has also made sure that primary care and aged residential care has been able to manage in what has been difficult circumstances. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the healthcare workers in affected areas for their work. It is valued by all of us, particularly your communities.

It’s an honour to be health Minister under Prime Minister Chris Hipkins. This Government has already done so much to tackle the long-running issues in our health system, and I am proud to continue that work. I want to take a proactive approach to health leadership in order to make sure New Zealanders get the services and access they need and deserve. I know there are challenges in our health system, and of course we will traverse them in this House—at length, I’m sure. But I’m also optimistic: we have the chance, the opportunity to address some of the long-run issues which, as a worker in the health system, I thought we’d never get around to. Having worked for almost 20 years in the health sector, I know the workers and the patients well. I know that there is a lot that we can do to make things better for our workforce and the people we serve. It won’t happen in an instant, but I want everyone to know we have a plan and that work is well under way.

In the first few weeks of this job, I’ve been out talking to healthcare workers around the country. They’ve been pretty open with me about the pressure that they’ve been under. I know it, and I recognise it. I’ve visited the emergency department I trained in and seen that it is much busier now than it ever would have been in a February. I want to reassure New Zealanders that the healthcare that they need is available to them, and many healthcare workers are going above and beyond to make sure that that remains the case.

I think the three most pressing issues our health system faces right now is its workforce, waitlists, and winter. So I want to see us deliver a long-term workforce strategy that addresses training and recruitment, and other factors that make staff feel safe and supported in their workplace. We need to reduce the planned care waiting list backlog. We need to plan for the coming winter to ease pressure on emergency departments and the rest of the system.

The Government’s health reforms were initiated to make sure our healthcare system delivers what people need. There’s a lot of discussion on the details in this House over the last several years. I will never lose sight of the purpose of those health reforms: to take care of New Zealanders and their family and ensure that healthcare is equitable and everyone has the opportunity to have better outcomes.

We’ve removed district health boards and the debt that they carry that impaired their ability to help local communities. We’re making sure that we’re having avenues for local engagement through localities and Iwi-Māori partnership boards. We’re giving Te Whatu Ora long-term sustainable funding, meaning they can plan for services in a way we’ve never been able to in the health system before. We’ve established Te Whatu Ora to make sure that Māori always have a voice at the table in the health system and that they can directly commission services for themselves. I’m really proud of what we’ve achieved so far, and it’s a really important part of improving the health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

A key part of the reforms was Pae Ora—wellbeing. Our health reforms have done so much to help us focus on an area I’m really passionate about, which is prevention of illness, to tackle the public health issues that stop people from getting ill in the first place. Our response to COVID showed what we could achieve when the health system worked together to focus on prevention. It’s important, as we’ve been reminded earlier in this House, that we focus outcomes. I want to remind everyone of the very important outcome the COVID-19 response achieved of saving 20,000 lives. I wonder if some, in their remarks in this House today, might have forgotten that was the outcome.

It’s also provided an opportunity for us to establish new systems that we are using to address and fight public health threats. Remember how we had a cluster of cases of monkeypox late last year that didn’t blow out into outbreak like it did in just about every other Western country? That’s due to the improvement of our contact tracing. We’ve responded rapidly to a measles case just recently. The contact tracing there has performed exceptionally well—102 out of 104 contacts have been quarantined, identified, and appropriately managed. The legacy of COVID is that we have a stronger public health system. We’ve also made sure that we’re coordinating on some of the big issues: HIV elimination and hepatitis C.

We’re taking care to achieve great health outcomes by focusing on some of our biggest health threats. That includes the world-leading legislation on tobacco that this House passed last year. We’re using the systems that we developed through COVID to make sure we continue to focus on prevention. For example, the digital tools that we’ve developed will now be expanded. We’ll be making those available to do things like make sure people are recalled for their cervical smears as we move to the new HPV screening later on in the middle of this year. We’ll use data and digital in the way we did in the COVID outbreak to enable many of the changes that we’re seeking through the reforms. People should have control of their own data so they can be empowered to make decisions about their healthcare.

We also have long-running priorities, and one of the key amongst them for this Government has been the improvement of mental health services in New Zealand. There are multiple points in which you can see that we’ve gone from sweeping mental health under the carpet under the last Government to making sure that we have an integrated system of care now in New Zealand; 2.6 million people are covered by a primary care mental health service. That’s half the country. If you can imagine any other primary care system being invented from scratch in that time, well, you’re welcome to have a go about it, but that is a phenomenal achievement. We’ve delivered over 670,000 sessions. We’re seeing nearly 30,000 people a month. We have funded counsellors in 164 schools. We have other services like Piki that has delivered 51,000 services this year. And we’re rolling out Mana Ake, a school-based programme, to multiple regions.

So I want to go back to where I started, about Cyclone Gabrielle. We have a system of integrated mental health care in New Zealand, and those supports exist for people. I’ve received multiple questions from colleagues about this, and we will be making sure that there are clear ways forward for people to reach into services if they need them. But the most important thing we can do after a disaster is recognise that the majority of people have stress and anxiety about the traumatic things that they have seen and been through, and just need the opportunity to talk it over with someone. I encourage all members of this House and all members of our community to reach out to friends around the country to help them do that if they’ve been impacted.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā koutou ki tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. As we have all expressed, we are all seeing, right now, climate change exasperating the devastation of weather events on our whenua and our communities; particularly over these past few weeks.

People have died, and I acknowledge every single one of their whānau and communities who are grieving at this loss right now. People have been scared for their lives and have endured traumatic nights and days without food, and water, and shelter, and company. Livelihoods destroyed, homes lost, and people frightened about the future and feeling really uncertain about what is going to happen. And it has actually been difficult to find the gravity—words to express the heartbreak for those most impacted on right now. But I am hearing all of us give our heart, and I give my commitment also to supporting our country, to supporting those communities. This is a wake-up call—another wake-up call—for us to use our collective positions of privilege and power to better protect and support the people we serve.

My co-leader, James Shaw, has made it clear that every one of us in this House must prioritise restoring our communities so they are more able to manage and deal with the exasperating impacts of climate change. Quite simply, people’s lives depend on us working together and making enduring decisions as well as the immediate ones. Things did not have to be this bad. Political decisions made over generations have also exacerbated the loss that we are seeing. We should have done more to reduce our pollution to prevent that extra warming of the planet. We should have made better decisions about how we use the land and how we build communities. I want to posit in this part of my kōrero: we should have also listened to more schools of knowledge and thought. Diversity in intelligence and knowledge is a blessing. Mātauranga Māori has so much to offer us, some of that simply included in even the way that we have named our regions—“Waikino” offers us a clear clue as to what might be expected of that environment.

We can make better decisions now, though. The future—right now, we have that power. It’s in our hands. Unfortunately, we also know that for those who were already just getting by—on that precipice of poverty, for example—weather events like the ones that we’ve just seen will simply be too much to bear. The hardships from these storms and floods, as we know, can lead to trauma that can reverberate for generations, which is why I’ll continue to push also and support Minister Verrall in the healing support, the healing services that so many communities are going to need from such trauma.

Now, who will bear the worst of such weather events and climate events? I think it’s clear that it won’t be us particularly here in this House today, who have resource and power to be able to call on; who have privilege—unlike many others. Everyone affected today is facing a terrible ordeal. I am also mindful of people who rent, people without insurance, those on low incomes and receiving income support, those who were already homeless, Māori and Pasifika communities, extremely isolated communities, and migrant families, disabled people, and those already battling with mental and physical health issues.

What is certain, however, is that inequitable outcomes should not be inevitable. How we respond to the challenges people face today will shape the Aotearoa our mokopuna can hope for tomorrow. We don’t need to look any further than our own local street or local marae to see people showing us here in Government how to lead in the face of disaster. It is our communities that keep showing up—and keep showing us what hope looks like with its sleeves rolled up or its gumboots on.

Local communities, as many have said here today, have shown us that it is possible to make sure no one is left behind, because they know who everyone is, they know where they are, and they know what they need. This is the power that we have to consistently give over and resource for communities to be able to help in the way that only they know how.

Everyone deserves support and to be treated with dignity no matter what their backstory is or where they’ve come from to ask for help. Together, we are stronger, as is indicated in one of our most well-known phrases: Nāku te rourou, nāu te rourou ka ora ai te iwi. “With your food basket and my food basket, the people will thrive”—and indeed, the food baskets have been getting shared, even and especially from those who have so little to share already. We’ve been hearing stories of the last bit of kai that neighbours have had—go out on to the street and share it with people who have nothing. This is the Aotearoa that I love; this is the Aotearoa that we know.

We’ve also seen that when the political will is there to put—ah—unhelpful bureaucracy aside, the Government is flexible and focused on supporting communities to get resources to where they’re most needed. And that is something that the Greens are going to be particularly mindful of, because we’ve seen in many of our rollouts over time in other situations—and yes, including in the pandemic—that the support didn’t always get to those who most needed it in the first instance, so that’s something we will continue to be mindful of.

I have been inspired to see our agencies and emergency response teams on the ground working side by side with our community: it’s where we should be, and where we must continue to be in this approach as we recover and rebuild, and across all our work in the Government. So how do we give our children and mokopuna hope that their futures are safe in our hands? We must be accountable and we must do things differently. We are the first nation in the world to see the light each day, yet our policies and systems have left many people living in the dark.

I acknowledge the new Prime Minister’s commitment to continue the shared work between his Labour Party and our Green Party. Together, we are beginning to address the long-term problems inherited from decades of previous Governments of all sorts of colours—the housing crisis, climate change, and entrenched generational inequality. As the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence, I wanted to say here in my short time today: violence is never OK.

I acknowledge that, following traumatic events we have seen here and around the world, that trauma can lead to extra stresses, which can sometimes lead to increased violence and harm, particularly for women and girls. I am making it very clear that there is support out there for people to reach out to, that police are working and linking properly with those organisations who are respected and trusted on the ground and know exactly how to help, that there is support for those who are concerned about their own behaviour towards others in their own family or close circles, and that there are numbers like 0800 HEY BRO and other support services available.

And I urge all of our MPs to send these safety messages out to your communities, to your networks: there is help available; please reach out for help—and it will be there, because we are aware that we have to monitor and keep an eye on these extra stresses and that violence is never OK, there is never any justification, but we acknowledge that the stresses can sometimes increase that risk.

I will end on the work of Te Aorerekura, the first ever fully comprehensive and intergenerational strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence, a priority for me as a Minister—and for this country and many in the sector. And I just wanted to highlight that once again Te Aorerekura has made it clear that the community must lead this work with Government support, and once again we are seeing exactly how important that is in the response around our country in those areas and neighbourhoods most impacted. Te Aorerekura simply affirms that mandate and that we are going to have to get real and ensure our communities can cut through all of the barriers that we have far too often put in front of them to do their work; to get on with the job, but with the Government also taking responsibility for the way our own agencies have far too often perpetrated further harm on top of harm already experienced. That is the priority that I will also look forward to continuing. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Tomorrow marks the 12th anniversary of the devastating Canterbury earthquakes—22 February is always a complicated day for Cantabrians. It is a day where we reflect on the 185 lives that were lost on that day 12 years ago, but it’s also a day where we reflect on over a decade of going through the process from disaster, right through response, recovery, and how it is that we can take the best lessons to rebuild and to shape something that is fit for our future. It is a day where we grieve for what we have lost—our city is unrecognisable today from what it was this time 12 years ago. Many of the landmarks of our childhood were simply wiped away that day.

But this year, as we gather together as Cantabrians to mark the anniversary of that day 12 years ago, it will be especially poignant knowing there are other parts of the country that are now going through a very similar set of circumstances to what we as a set of communities went through 12 years ago. It is a day that we can reflect on the things that worked well and the things that didn’t work well in terms of responding to a disaster. It’s a day where we can see what matters as you go through this process. And what we can see is that the response that our Government is putting together is taking the lessons of what happened in Canterbury, making sure that those hard, hard days that we went through as a community are being looked on as something we can learn from and something we can use to help further communities in New Zealand—something that locals always wanted.

We reflect on the fact that local leadership matters, that involving local communities and local leadership and having local voice from right in the days of the response is absolutely critical. We reflect on the fact that we can never underestimate the mental health impacts of natural disasters, that sometimes it is the people you least expect not to cope. There are no indicators, necessarily, for who will cope and who will not cope. I know that some of the people that I would have thought were the most resilient people I knew were the people that simply did not cope with the fact that they had lost control of their lives and what was happening around them. It’s a time when we reflect on the fact that checking in with your neighbours and your friends and being there to support each other is absolutely critical.

It’s also a day on which we absolutely acknowledge that the effects of natural disasters reveal very unequal power relationships, whether that be the ability to access resources—but one of the things that you can see that our Government has already moved on, and a lesson that we took from the Christchurch earthquakes, is that one of those very unequal power relationships can be individuals dealing with insurance and trying to work their way through the maze, and the trauma that that can inflict on people.

Why? Last weekend, we took a service that when we came into Government we set up—the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service, which managed to actually break the deadlock and get claims settled that had sat on the books for seven and eight years—and we’ve put a service like this in place for communities where there will be insurance tangles to work through. It is important that we do that, because recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle will be one of the major areas of focus for our Government over the coming weeks and months. We know that this is something that we have to put our focus on and we are utterly committed to working in partnership with the business community, and with iwi while we do that. We need to learn those lessons. But standing here today, I want to acknowledge all of those that have been affected by these devastating effects. It is hard, it is a slog, and it can be a very anxious and a very scary time for many people, and I don’t think we can ever lose sight of that.

I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about some areas in the response that I have ministerial responsibility for. In the energy sector, we heard the Prime Minister today, in his statement, talk about the tireless efforts of many within our electricity system to restore power. This time last week, 225,000 people in the North Island were without power. Today, that number is down to 11,000 and that has not been a simple task to get those numbers down. That has taken commitment and that has taken a huge amount of work from a number of people.

But most significantly, and what I am so proud of, is what it has taken is collaboration. We’ve seen crews coming up from the South Island, being flown up by the New Zealand Defence Force, to work on restoring the lines in Northland, looking to see what they can do in other parts of the country. I know that Orion, the lines company from Christchurch, and a part of their group Connetics—they very much thought of the days when people came from other parts of the country to help them following the earthquakes and they very much wanted to be part of a combined and coordinated response of how it is that we could help people all over the country. So I’d like to really thank those companies that have done that.

We also know that the cyclone has displaced many people from their homes, that it has devastated people’s place where they feel most secure—their home—and we are working through that. The Temporary Accommodation Service is scaling up to respond to the housing demand felt in Auckland. This is no small task. There simply are not empty houses sitting around waiting for the day after a disaster where we can put people in them. But I think we are seeing some innovation, some agility, and some good pragmatic solutions coming through.

One of the Government’s priorities, of course, has been housing since we came into Government. It is a housing crisis that is decades in the making. We simply have not had enough houses built in New Zealand over a series of decades. And I’d like to acknowledge the team of housing Ministers that are working on this. We’ve just heard from Marama Davidson, an Associate Minister of Housing with responsibility for homelessness. Barbara Edmonds has joined the team of housing Ministers as an associate, and so has the Hon Willie Jackson with responsibility for Māori housing.

We see the complexity of the issue of housing and how large it is and how much resource we need to put into it, and we are starting to see the green shoots of change. We are seeing that we are closing the gaps on the number of homes that we were short of in this country. We can see that very much in Auckland where we have had massive increases in supply. We can also see that in the area of public housing. It is a great source of pride to us as a Labour Government that we can sit here and see that one in seven State houses that stands in New Zealand today was built by this Government.

In five short years, we have embarked on the largest State-house building programme of any Government since the 1970s—and we had to do that, because there had been a decade of neglect when it came to public housing. We had a decade that ended up with fewer public houses than it started with, which is a disgrace—the first time we had seen that in New Zealand’s history, and one of the many reasons why we are experiencing the waiting lists and the housing crisis that we see today. But we have a commitment to keep going with that public housing plan, to not only keep building them but to keep funding our community housing providers to make sure that they can also deliver.

There are more than double the number of houses offered by community housing providers today than when we came into Government only five years ago. So we have doubled that in the time we have been in Government. We have increased four- or fivefold the funding that goes into our community sector and housing, because we will solve the housing crisis by working together. That is our commitment that we take to how we will approach continuing to make sure that we are not a Government that neglects these long-run issues. We need to, as the Prime Minister says, crack on with this and we will.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take this, my first call in the House this year. I just want to start by echoing the comments of many of my colleagues from across the Chamber about the devastation that we’ve seen by Cyclone Gabrielle, which has tragically killed 11 people, including two firefighters: Craig Stevens and Dave van Zwanenberg. The devastation, the loss—our hearts go out to those individuals and their families, in particular, who have lost their loved ones.

On the weekend, I was in the Hawke’s Bay in Gisborne with Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis looking at some of the devastation and meeting with some of the people who have lost everything to the cyclone, to the water, to the flooding, to the silt, and it is truly heart-breaking to see the devastation that has taken place. Not only the devastation to people’s lives and livelihoods but also the massive impact that it’s had on our regions, our roads, the resilience, and our electricity, water, and communications infrastructure. It is critically important that this Government gets on with the job of fixing these issues as quickly as possible. They will have our support in getting that done.

But, ultimately, the issue will be making sure this Government delivers. And what we’ve seen over the last five years is a Government which fails to deliver on every single measure. So we’ve seen the Government respond so far to Cyclone Gabrielle, saying it’s going to allocate $50 million to businesses and $250 million for roading. We welcome that investment, we welcome that to help fix the issues and provide some support to businesses. But let’s just put that into context: this Government spent $52 million on consultants for the Auckland cycle bridge in Auckland—$52 million on a cycle bridge in Auckland, where they’ve provided $50 million so far to business relief in the Hawke’s Bay and to Cyclone Gabrielle businesses who have been impacted.

They’re saying $250 million for roading. While I’m sure that will be welcomed to help fix the 400 kilometres of State highway network and the hundreds of kilometres of local roads—I understand 15 major bridges have been washed out. But let’s put that into perspective: this Government wants to spend $29.2 billion on Auckland light rail—$29.2 billion. That is not even 1 percent of the amount of money that this speech that was tabled by the Prime Minister today is promising to put into light rail, because there on page 13 right at the bottom it says: “This year we’ll continue progressing Auckland light rail.”

So this Government is saying $250 million for roading on the East Coast and to help support that region—yes, it will be welcomed; yes, that is important. The roads in Northland, the Brynderwyns on State Highway 1, the Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, and Coromandel, these connections matter and this money will be helpful. But let’s just remember how much money this Government is also committing in that speech for the Auckland light rail project.

But this Prime Minister finished the speech by saying “Let’s get cracking.” Well, afterwards, all I heard was “Let’s get clapping.” That’s what I think the response was; they didn’t quite get the message. But what are they going to get cracking on with is the question. And let’s actually look at this Prime Minister’s track record, because New Zealanders know that this is a Prime Minister who has failed to deliver across all of his portfolios.

We know the education statistics: regular school attendance under Chris Hipkins’ watch has fallen from 63 percent in 2017 to just 39 percent in term 2 last year, a decline which started well before COVID. The polytechs: he’s turned a small deficit in the polytech sector into a half-a-billion-dollar loss—a half-a-billion-dollar loss under his leadership in the polytech sector. It’s almost as bad as KiwiBuild, which, by the way, the Minister for Housing stood up—did anyone hear KiwiBuild mentioned once in that speech? It’s not even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech that was tabled today. KiwiBuild wasn’t even mentioned.

And what about in Police? Some $6 million was announced for bollards to help protect our small businesses and dairies. And this Government, under Chris Hipkins’ watch as the Minister of Police, managed to deliver 13 before Christmas—only 13 before Christmas. That’s how seriously this Government takes law and order. And you’ve got the new Minister of Police saying that he doesn’t have any idea how bad the law and order issues are in Napier. Last time I looked he was also the MP for Napier. He’s the MP for Napier and the Minister of Police but he doesn’t even know how bad the law and order issues are. But he’s got a solution. He’s on the phones today, folks. He’s on the phones talking to the gangs. He’s calling up the gangs and he’s asking them, “Please take off your patches for a day. Today is not a good day for a ram raid. Today is not a good day for a fight or a shooting. Today is the day to take your patches off, so please, please, please.” We now have a Minister of Police in this country who is actively negotiating with gangs to try to get them to stop fighting each other. That’s how bad law and order has got to in this country, where you have a Minister of Police literally pleading on the phone. The police should be backed and the gangs should be smashed. That should be their approach. But this Government is going out there and calling and ringing up the gang leaders to plead with them. That is a shame and it just shows how bad things have got.

And then what about the bureaucracy? Chris Hipkins has been the Minister for the Public Service for the last five years, where there has been 14,000 more bureaucrats employed in the core Public Service. But have we seen a proportionate increase in outcomes in our Public Service? Have we seen better outcomes when it comes to people wanting a specialist appointment, or people trying to get the police to respond when they call 111? What about our children getting the education that they deserve? Those are the outcomes—what about filling the potholes on our roads? Those are the issues which matter to New Zealanders. But this Government has been focused on building a bureaucracy in Wellington rather than actually fixing the problems and focusing on the outcomes.

We can run through all of the issues, whether it’s three waters, vocational education reforms, the Ministry of Education spending $95 million more on consultants, Kāinga Ora $77 million more—the numbers are eye-watering. This is taxpayers’ money. This is a Government of waste—not a Government of delivery, not a Government of getting things done.

And when it comes to transport, where is the “Let’s get cracking”? The speech says that the Government is still committed to Auckland light rail, but only just—it says, “This year we will continue progressing Auckland light rail.” So what about next year? Is it finally going to be on the block next year? But the question is: what are they progressing? What are they progressing? How many metres of Auckland light rail have they delivered so far? They’ve had five and a half years, they’ve spent 72 million bucks, and how many metres of open light rail have been delivered so far? A big red zero. A big red zero has been achieved. So what are they progressing? It says here in the speech, “We will continue progressing Auckland light rail.” Well, they haven’t even started. How can you progress something which you haven’t even started? But that sums up this Government’s ability to actually get things done.

I can tell you, the people of our regions will much rather that money is spent on roading connections, repairing State highways which have been damaged by Cyclone Gabrielle, upgrading our roads to be more resilient—not on a pet project which goes through Michael Wood’s electorate. That’s simply what’s happening. And even Helen Clark, the former Prime Minister, she was on Twitter yesterday saying that actually maybe the Government should be focused on maybe making sure the buses run on time rather than spending $29 billion on an Auckland light rail pet project to the Minister of Transport’s electorate. Maybe that would be a better use of taxpayers’ money.

The only thing this Government is cracking on with is slowing New Zealanders down. Slowing down the speed limits on our State highways, making it harder to get around and making it more difficult. That’s what this Government is actually focused on when it comes to transport, and National will continue to vigorously oppose the blanket speed limits that this Government is proposing.

This Government—this country—needs to actually get on and address the challenges that we’re facing, whether it’s making sure we build the transport connections and the infrastructure that we need, making sure that we deal with the cost of living crisis that this country is still facing, or interest rates which continue to increase.

These are the issues that this Government is failing to address and simply is passing the buck down the road. National wants to make sure that we get our country moving in the right direction, where we invest in the infrastructure that we need, that we help New Zealanders get ahead rather than continue to fall backwards—because they’re going backwards under this Government; incomes are not rising as fast as inflation. New Zealanders are going backwards under this Government, and this Government does not have a plan to address it.

National has a plan. National will take that plan to the election, and we will get New Zealand moving back in the right direction and actually get things done for New Zealand. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look, thank you, Madam Speaker. And just in response to that speaker, Simeon Brown, they had their chance and they failed miserably.

It’s an honour to be able to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement. I want to acknowledge the incoming Prime Minister. It hasn’t been easy; it’s been pretty choppy for Chippy, I have to say. I would like to acknowledge the previous Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, a good friend to us all, who put five years of her life into improving this nation. I want to put that on the record.

We have been hit by a couple of cyclones, by events that we are told that we have to get used to. That’s a very sad statement, and it’s no comfort at all for the people who are in the Hawke’s Bay, who are in Northland, who are in Pukekohe, who are in the Bay of Plenty—people who are trying to gather their lives, let alone rebuild them. Our sympathy must go out for the families of those who have lost loved ones. We need to offer support for the shocked people who have been through trauma that we could hardly imagine, in darkness, on their roofs, in their ceilings, trying to save or keep hold of loved ones. It is shocking.

But what we have committed to and we will do is offer resources for the recovery—firstly for the response, and I think we’ve seen that on the ground. I want to acknowledge all my colleagues who are still at the forefront of that in these regions—but for the recovery, there will be the requirement for a lot. There’s no doubt about that. The previous speaker was talking about infrastructure—infrastructure that hasn’t been kept up to speed, that will need to be rebuilt, and while we might talk about rebuilding better, I think the people and the families on the ground at the moment just want to get back up and running. And so talk of building back better, I think, is something for the future. We, as a Government, have been prepared to take on those tough challenges.

For the primary sector, particularly those who have been really hard hit, they should, firstly, take some pride in where they have taken this economy to—$55 billion was projected to be earned for this country from those good families, from those people out in the primary sectors, by June this year. I hope it won’t take too much of a hit from the cyclone, but they should be proud of that and then be reassured that we will work alongside them in those areas that have been affected to build back up that capacity. It may not be in exactly the same place; because we have a responsibility as a Government, and I’m sure it will be driven a little by the insurance companies—and can I put on the record that the insurance companies and the banks must be part of this recovery.

The banks have walked away with record profits from the hard work of each and every New Zealander, because we all pay, in some way, directly or indirectly, and we appreciate the stability of the banks and the support that they’ve given us. But they have walked away with record profits, and now is the time to step up and to stand alongside the people who may be facing zero income, who may still face debts, and who will still need working capital to get up and running. Time to front up, I say. Time to front up and show a commitment from those banks to our economy and to the primary producers—those people and their families, who all work 26 hours a day, which is what most of them have done in tough times—to get back up and running. And rebuilding our economy in the regions will generate wealth creation into the future.

In terms of Government, we’ve put $250 million today, it was announced yesterday, into the roading network—vital infrastructure. We’ll work alongside the communications companies to make sure that connections can occur, and we’ll have to have a Plan B. There are new technologies, and I think farmers or those living in remote areas—in fact, even if you’re living in urban areas, and I acknowledge, actually, the damage that has occurred to the people of Auckland in the urban areas as well, so I’m not dismissing that. But it is a bit harder if you’re remote and you don’t have any other connection. You can’t walk across the street and talk to someone. We’re going to have to work on plans to ensure that communication is better as we move into the future.

There are many, many things for us to do. We have the ability to do that, but we’ll do it in partnership. The Government will step up, the communities will step up, local government will step up. We want the insurance companies to step up and provide the insurance moving forward but the banks also to step alongside all of those people who will require some consideration and some working capital as they move forward.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon David Parker, for five minutes.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I begin by acknowledging the trauma, the distress, the damage suffered by New Zealanders—and visitors to our shores, actually, but mainly New Zealanders—whether it’s from Cyclone Gabrielle or the recent storm events that preceded it; my condolences to those who have suffered losses of family or friends or property or businesses.

Can I thank the acknowledgment from the Hon James Shaw of the sure-footed start by the new Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. It’s an interesting thing, I think, that historians will look at the transition from Jacinda Ardern to Chris Hipkins, and I think there will be considerable credit given to the way in which, as a political party, the New Zealand Labour Party has put the interests of the country first and not our own. As a consequence, a few days after the announcement of Jacinda Ardern’s retirement, the Government was able, under the leadership of Chris Hipkins, to in a sure-footed way address the challenges that have been thrown at him.

Before moving to some of the other parts of the Government programme, can I, as my colleague Damien O’Connor has already said, acknowledge the role of Jacinda Ardern: lowest death rate in the OECD under COVID. She had three main priorities: child poverty, improvement on all nine measures of child poverty; addressing housing, doubling the number of houses that are built in New Zealand every year and made a huge dent in that housing deficit and in public housing, as Megan Woods has just addressed; and turning the corner on climate. Obviously, we’re doing well on electricity but, with Michael Wood’s efforts in transport, we’re also turning the corner for the electrification of the transport fleet and also addressing industrial heat causes of climate change emissions and, for the benefit of some members of this House, climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels don’t burn themselves; people do, and people who think otherwise are really the fossils.

Before moving to our forward programme, I think one of the proudest moments for me as a member of the Labour Party was when our then leader Jacinda Ardern said, “They are us.” Who could not be moved by that phrase? It really turned the mood of the nation and brought enormous respect to New Zealand around the world in a very, very difficult situation. So thank you, Jacinda Ardern, and I look forward to your valedictory soon.

In respect of the events, we’ve heard the stats that more than 90 percent of the houses that have lost power have got it back on; similar progress being made with the re-establishment of telecommunications, cellphone towers and the like—obviously traumatic for those people who are left unconnected, and it will get worse. It’ll get worse by the day, and we wish them well, in the meantime acknowledging that everyone’s doing their utmost to get the supports that are needed to those people.

I haven’t got much time to talk about the forward programme, but I will mention a couple of things. Yes, cost of living pressures are pressing in New Zealand. Ninety central banks around the world have lifted interest rates; we’re one of them, as we try to combat inflation. New Zealand’s growth rates are higher than most of our comparative countries—Australia, Japan, the European area, USA, Great Britain—our debt levels are lower, and we are well positioned. We’ve got some big programmes under way as a Government. We’re not only supporting trades training—that’s one of the reasons why we’ve got such low unemployment and we’re able to get cracking with the house building and other repair work that is now necessary—but we’re also making progress reforming the resource management system. We will land that this year.

We’ve got more than 1,700 additional doctors, more than 4,200 additional nurses—a 20 percent increase in both professions—so we’re delivering on the health front. We pay our nurses and doctors more than we used to. Those people have done relatively well compared with what they did under the prior Government.

There’s a lot to do this year. Obviously there are some financial challenges caused by the recent events, but I’m sure that the Budget that’s produced by this Government, the Hon Grant Robertson, this year, will be worthy of support.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): This is a split call, Madam Speaker. Thank you. In the wake of the two cyclones that New Zealand has experienced this year, Cyclone Hale and Cyclone Gabrielle, I’d just like to acknowledge the devastation that has occurred in Auckland, in the Hawke’s Bay, Te Tai Rāwhiti, and our East Coast region, and the people that have been affected—including the families of the 15 who have passed away over these two tragedies—people who’ve lost their lives, and many who have lost their homes, their businesses, and those that have lost stock animals. It’s tough, especially for those that have lost everything.

I’d like to acknowledge the families around the country who are still waiting to hear about their own families who have not yet contacted them. I too was in that situation until a mere two days ago when I heard of family members being safe in Gisborne. Aroha mai. Now we are waiting on news as to the status of the cemetery next to the beach in Tolaga Bay where my grandfather, his siblings, and his parents are buried. Aroha mai.

I’d like to acknowledge the work the work of the volunteers, the communities, the linesmen, police, defence, first responders, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, iwi, and marae, who have been there on the ground. I commend them for the way that they have worked together and continued to work for the benefit of their communities and their whānau.

What I do not understand is the response from the Government in regard to law and order in these areas that have been affected by the cyclones. Those on the ground are telling us that looters and gangs are stealing whatever they can get their hands on, yet the police commissioner and the police Minister will assure the country that crime isn’t a problem in the region. The commissioner even went so far as to tell the country on morning television that crime stats have come down in the region and it’s only domestic violence that’s gone up by 60 percent. Well, when your phone and your electricity are out, it’s kind of hard to report crime, so I’m not surprised at all that the stats are down. The reality is, though, people don’t care about stats; they care about presence—law enforcement presence. They care about deterrence if you can’t actually stop the crime.

This morning we received a message from someone in Gisborne, saying their local Four Square had been robbed overnight. They asked for more police and military presence in the city to curb potential crime. We have two mayors from the Hawke’s Bay, saying they need help with crime because their own security staff are being attacked and abused. And we have watched on television as a lady explained that the local Mongrel Mob were casing her street and they had been stealing generators and food delivered to help the entire community.

Gang membership is up; it’s up by over 56 percent, and we’re still waiting for a new date from the Government as to when the 1,800 police are going to be delivered. The Minister of Police has simply told the gangs to pull their heads in, to de-patch, to pick up a shovel, and to help out. Why is the Minister being so nice to a bunch of mongrels who operate in mobs terrorising people? Lawlessness is their whole point. The affected communities want to hear the Minister of Police say that lawlessness will not be tolerated and that those that are caught looting and threatening others will face the full extent of the law and will be locked up. The affected communities want to see a police and defence presence in their streets, at their roadblocks, and to not be left behind. Being vocal on intolerance to crime and locking up looters and intimidators will send a clearer message to the gangs. This should have been a part of the response, and it is a necessary part of the recovery. Invoke section 9 of the Defence Act 1990 and really support our communities with law and order.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The storm and flood events which smashed the North Island of New Zealand in the past few weeks revealed the best aspects of New Zealanders’ character: people in Hawke’s Bay opening their homes to strangers who have lost everything and escaped, terrified, from surging floodwaters. I heard a farmer in Tokomaru Bay describe how he was helping nurses get to work at the local hospital on his farm bike after cutting a track across his farm with a bulldozer. In West Auckland, the hearty folk of Pīhā and Karekare are cleaning up and helping each other recover treasured possessions from family homes. In the Muriwai community, coming together to support each other and the families who’d lost loved ones—those volunteer firefighters who gave their lives searching, searching, for those they thought were lost in the floods. That is who we are at our best.

The talk has now turned to what we should do in response to natural hazards like floods and man-made hazards like forestry slash. People assumed the places they lived were safe, but flood defences and warning systems were not adequate to protect life and property. Vital infrastructure failed when we needed it most: the flood defences, electricity, communications networks, water, and waste-water treatment plants.

Now this Government is in a crisis response mode. They’re again talking about passing laws to fix long-term problems, but it’s more than likely that their solutions will actually make it harder to build and harder to recover—like pushing on with three waters reform at a time when those planners and engineers who should be rebuilding their communities, their drinking-water and waste-water systems, will instead be told to prepare those assets to hand over to a new water entity.

Or Labour’s resource management reforms—they’re like the Resource Management Act on steroids. They introduce undefined terms like Te Oranga o te Taiao. David Parker guarantees lawyers a decade of litigation fees while they try to work out what David Parker thinks he means. One submitter joked about the resource management reforms: “If they want to control everything from Wellington, why don’t they just set up a Ministry for the Environment office in every town?” Well, that sounds like a bad joke to most Kiwis; the problem is it probably sounds like a good idea to this Labour Government.

So what would ACT do differently? Well, we won’t lecture New Zealand about cutting our climate emissions like James Shaw. As climate Minister for five years, he hasn’t even produced a draft of a climate adaptation plan that he is responsible for. Yet he insists on lecturing Kiwis about a climate emergency in this House today.

ACT won’t lecture Kiwis about giving up petrol and diesel vehicles or driving 20 percent less like transport Minister Michael Wood. And we won’t try to put New Zealand farmers out of business and stop Kiwis from mining for those very minerals that are absolutely vital to transition to a low-carbon future. Instead, ACT would reform resource management laws with our much better alternative. ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature will make it easier to adapt, easier to clean out river channels before the flood comes and destroys lives and property.

ACT’s urban development policy would incentivise councils to spend money on infrastructure by sharing 50 percent of the GST on all new builds with local councils who are meant to service land. This revenue stream could fund more projects, like the 50,000-cubic-metre flood storage pond built on Auckland’s North Shore at the Sunnynook sports fields. That project saved hundreds of homes from flooding. And a revenue stream—50 percent of the GST on new builds—would fund more projects like that.

ACT’s alternative resource management reform would reinforce the “polluter pays” principle, so that forestry companies which polluted the environment with slash would be either fined or have to pay to clean up. ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature will preserve private property rights, make it easier to adapt, and allow us to build our way out of the hazards left by this Labour Government.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I join the Prime Minister in thanking our emergency response services and other front-line responders as we respond and support communities who have borne the brunt of damage from Cyclone Gabrielle as well as the floods in Auckland earlier this month.

I want to endorse the sentiments in the Prime Minister’s speech to the men and women of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Police, the Defence Force, to the linesmen and women, the roading crews, the communication companies, the supermarkets, the transport companies working to get food and goods to where they are needed that are making that all possible, thank you.

As the Minister with responsibility for Fire and Emergency New Zealand, I know firsthand of the tremendous work of firefighters and the support of their families at home. Last week, I spent time in their national coordination centre to see what is a considered a world-leading coordination of emergency responders.

At the weekend, I also visited Muriwai, with the Fire and Emergency New Zealand chief executive Kerry Gregory, and I met brigade members at the station, including chief fire officer Phelan Pirrie. Phelan runs a tight ship of 20 officers, and they are grieving the loss of two of their family, their brothers. I want to extend my condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of Craig Stevens and Dave van Zwanenberg. As a senior firefighter said to me last week, firefighters are programmed to never say no. They do not want to let anyone down. As I looked at Dave and Craig’s cubby holes, with their fire protective pants all ready and their boots inserted into them, I knew that their loss will be felt deeply for years to come. Alofa and support to you all.

After this emergency response period is over comes the recovery and rebuild. We must rebuild back better. We are moving quickly on this, but as the Prime Minister has already noted, the recovery is going to take time. It will be a major area of focus for this Government over the coming weeks and months. The rebuild will come with a multibillion-dollar price tag. But I know the Minister of Finance, now the Minister for Cyclone Recovery, has made it clear: our Government’s books are in good shape to meet the challenges ahead from extreme weather events, as well as to support Kiwis who are facing cost of living pressures. We are in a strong financial position to do so thanks to that careful management of the books.

The impacts of flooding in Auckland in late January and now Cyclone Gabrielle are yet to be fully known, but we do know that this is a significant event affecting families and businesses, as well as the country’s roads, bridges, and energy networks, and it have a sizable impact on our economy. We are working with regional leaders to get communities up and running again. A lesson that Minister Megan Woods referred to from the Christchurch earthquakes was the importance of coordination and of ensuring local knowledge and input into decision making. We will work in partnership with businesses, local government, iwi, insurers, banks, and others.

At this point, I want to particularly acknowledge the role of marae and of Pacific churches who joined the emergency management response. Our marae and churches provided refuge and sanctuary for those who had to evacuate, sometimes without even the shirt on their back. We thank them, in particular, for their care for our Recognised Seasonal Employer workers. And we also thank our officials, such as those on the ground—civil defence, the Ministry of Social Development, Te Whatu Ora, Kāinga Ora, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, who have helped with this response, both on the ground and from Wellington, helping us to coordinate the resources and people to where they are needed the most. This work will continue.

We now also need to focus our time and energy and our resources on the most pressing issues to Kiwis, to help families with the cost of living. I know how hard it is to live on bare income, on $8 in your hand at the end of the week. I know it is such a priority for myself and for my colleagues to ensure that we support our families through these tough times. I know that there is trade-off in household spending at every Budget. But I know that increasing the minimum wage on 1 April by $1.50 per hour $22.70 per hour will make some difference, as well as the half-price public transport subsidy through to 30 June.

There are many changes that we’re bringing through: increases to the family tax credit, Best Start payment, and, from May, increases to the winter energy payment. Our Kiwi spirit will prevail in these tough times, and this Government will do what we can to support Kiwis during this time.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too want to begin my contribution in the House today by acknowledging the devastation that so many across Aotearoa New Zealand have experienced as a result of the recent weather events—both the Auckland floods and also Cyclone Gabrielle. My thoughts are particularly with those who have lost loved ones, and also with those whose homes and businesses have been significantly affected.

Can I also add my thanks to those who have been supporting our families, our individuals, our communities who have been in need, those who have been at the coalface of this support—first responders, community organisations, social services, and individuals. I know, just in my own electorate of Maungakiekie, families who opened their doors to others that had lost their homes in the floods. There are many mosques, temples, churches that have gone out of their way to provide food parcels and other support to communities in need. Can I thank everyone who’s played a part in this support.

I also echo the Prime Minister’s comments that we will stand by New Zealanders as we recover, that we will back Kiwis to build back better, smarter, stronger. Central government’s role is to support a locally led response, and we’ve seen examples of that working time and again across New Zealand. It is to support all New Zealanders and to build resilience for the future as well, and that’s why we’re investing in strong public services for all New Zealanders.

The challenges we face are complex, and for some of our communities, they experience unique challenges, and they experience them disproportionately as well. That’s why our Government has been working to make the system more accessible, more inclusive, and more equitable so that everyone’s able to access the service and the supports that they need when they need it, and in ways that are appropriate for them.

One in four New Zealanders identify as disabled. The establishment of Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People, has been long called for by disabled people. It leads and it coordinates disability policy across Government, including improving outcomes for disabled people in some key issues, some core bread and butter areas like employment, education, housing, and health. Whaikaha is the start of the transformational change that our disabled community has been calling for. They’ve been working closely on the ground with disabled people, tangata whaikaha, and their whānau, disabled organisation support services, and others to ensure that they have their finger on the pulse as things unfold on the ground during the cyclone and the floods, to identify issues and concerns, escalate that through the emergency management processes and the National Emergency Management Agency, other Government agencies, and provide platforms so that organisations can share that information with each other as well.

That’s exactly what the Ministry for Ethnic Communities has been doing as well, ensuring that those issues and concerns raised at grassroots—flax-roots—level are escalated across agencies, and that is the benefit of the ministries that our Government has recently stood up, ensuring disability representation at Civil Defence Centres, ensuring that they are accessible, and that necessary equipment and services like transportation that many rely on are actually provided to those who need it. We’re ensuring, as a Government, that community support packages include specific funding for our disabled communities, and work that we’re doing now is to ensure that those support packages, both to community organisations and businesses, are actually accessible to those within our disabled community, within our ethnic communities, so that they know, in ways that are relevant to them, what support they can access, and how to access that support. That’s what we are doing to ensure that all our communities benefit from the support that the Government can provide at a community level, so that we keep all New Zealanders safe at this time, and so that we build resilience within our communities as well.

I know that it’s been an incredibly challenging time for many across Aotearoa New Zealand, but we are absolutely focused on the basics, to ensure that we have strong foundations to support these different communities in ways that are relevant to them. It won’t be easy in the months to come, but this is a Government that has and always will work for all New Zealanders.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to join my colleagues across this House in acknowledging the trauma and the devastation that people from Auckland and across down to the East Coast have experienced, both in the initial floods that happened earlier in January and then the devastating Cyclone Gabrielle that we have seen more recently. I would like to offer my deepest sympathies to those who have lost their loved ones in both of these events, and I would particularly like to make mention of Craig Stevens and Dave van Zwanenberg, who lost their lives doing what they needed to do in order to protect their communities. They made the ultimate sacrifice as have their families.

I also want to acknowledge all of our first responders, and they have been listed by other speakers today. One of the previous speakers also mentioned those who work in our local supermarkets. And I think it’s really important that we acknowledge them also, because I can imagine that with people panic-buying, very fearful, tempers perhaps flaring because of the anxiety that people out there were suffering, they have perhaps had to be the brunt of some of that. So I would like to acknowledge all those who work in that industry.

I also want to acknowledge people such as the nurses that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech earlier today, who, despite having lost everything themselves, their houses, all their belongings, still get out there, go to work, do what needs to be done, supporting their communities despite their own personal losses. I think it’s important that we also mention or acknowledge the community organisations who have stepped up to offer food, accommodation, and support to those in their communities. We’ve heard about the churches, the marae, who have once again opened their doors, providing food, accommodation, and sanctuary to those who have been affected.

I want to acknowledge those in our agricultural sector, the primary producers, the orchardists who have lost a substantial amount of their income and livelihoods going forward, particularly, if not this season then in the years to come as well. It is going to cost the country billions of dollars to recover from this. But as mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement, I would like to quote: “We will stand by New Zealanders as we recover. You are not alone. We will build back. We will back you and rebuild. We will continue to support the recovery as well as supporting and ensuring that our number one priority going forward is to support New Zealanders and businesses throughout the tough economic conditions that we are currently facing.”

This Government has consistently put families and children at the heart of the decisions we make and the work that we do. Some of the things that I would like to acknowledge that this Government has done are things such as removing the barriers to education, because we know education is the one thing, despite your background, that can determine the course that you may take in life. Things such as lunches in schools. And I’ve seen the benefit of that in my electorate in Rangitata, not just in providing lunches in schools to the children who need it most but that also has a flow-on effect by providing employment to people to provide those lunches. And I know that there have been people who have been given employment in that space, especially those who perhaps might have been unemployed previously. Free period products in schools, the removal of school donations, the winter energy payment are some of the things that this Government has done to support families previously.

But we have some good changes coming in from 1 April. More families will be eligible to receive the childcare subsidy, and that is a big deal. That is a big deal, particularly for women, actually, who are often those who are the main caregivers—not all the time, but the majority—and it will allow them the opportunity to move back into the workforce, potentially, if that is what they choose to do. Family tax credits will increase. And the big one: the minimum wage will increase to $22.70 and that is a substantial amount for those on our lowest income. I just want to finish off—

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

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on the Prime Minister’s statement. We farewell 2022 and welcome 2023 with a great hope and ambitions that 2023 will be, perhaps, a better year. The time will be to focus on what really matters to day-to-day New Zealanders—such as the recovery and other things that really matter to Kiwis. Instead, things have taken a rough turn. Violent weather, floods, and now Cyclone Gabrielle caused devastating destruction to properties and livelihoods, destroyed infrastructure, and has taken 15 precious lives away. We know that many more people are unaccounted for. My heart goes out to those who have been affected by this tragedy, especially the families that are bereaved.

I want to acknowledge the first responders, the volunteers, and everyone, every ordinary New Zealander, who stepped up to help. We have heard a lot of heroic stories of people doing unimaginable things to help others, perhaps even saving lives. What is happening is no coincidence. It’s been in the making, and we have seen climate change destruction in far and near places. But we didn’t think it would hit us this early and this hard.

In October last year I was in Ethiopia talking to a lot of UN agencies about climate change, and they told me that in climate change in the region, four years of drought, no rain, have killed livestock and exposed millions of people to the danger of starvation. People are dying; it’s a reality. Climate change is a reality now. It is here, and it needs to be part of our day-to-day conversations. I am proud of what this Government has achieved in reducing carbon emissions and the effects of climate change, but more needs to be done.

I want to talk about the cost of living. The Prime Minister, since coming to power, has been focusing on the bread and butter issues that affect New Zealanders. That is why the Government has stepped up assistance to help Kiwis to get through these tough times. We know that after COVID-19 and the Russia/Ukraine war things have been tough globally, not just for us, but the Government is committed to getting people through these tough times.

From 1 April the minimum wage is going up by $1.50, which will make it $22.70. We need to talk about things that really make practical changes in people’s lives. Until five or six years ago, I was on the minimum wage, and every single cent that people get makes a difference, and $1.50 is going to make a difference. In the last few weeks I’ve been talking to a lot of cleaners and security guards on the ground who are on the minimum wage, and it is going to make a difference in their lives. They will be able to put extra meals on the table for their kids, and it will help them with buying uniforms. Their lives are better with minimum wage increases. Approximately 220,900 workers, or 10 percent of wage earners, will receive that increase in the minimum wage, and this is a huge number.

Last year, this Government passed the fair pay agreements legislation, and that is going to help cleaners, security guards, bus drivers, and supermarket workers, and it will give them the power to negotiate with their employers and perhaps be able to get fair wages. This Government takes pride in helping ordinary Kiwis and not leaving anyone behind, because at the end of the day, COVID-19 taught us who is really important. These are the people who were out and about risking their lives while many of us stayed home being safe, and the least we can do is tell them that we are here to support them, that we will give them fair wages, and that we always have their backs. I’m very proud of what this Government is doing.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Who could not be impacted by those images of New Zealanders in utter shock as the climate did its worst to us from Northland, to Auckland, to Coromandel, to the central North Island, to Bay of Plenty, to Waikato, and particularly to the East Coast and Hawke’s Bay—those images that we saw on television of utterly devastated people, utterly destroyed families, communities broken. Yet through that, what we saw is the indomitable spirit of an individual helping somebody else in their moment of need, running towards danger, maximally expressed by the two firefighters that we tragically lost as a country. But it was neighbour helping neighbour, family helping family in communities.

But I couldn’t help but get a sense—a deep sense—that we are a brilliant people in a broken country. Our infrastructure is broken, particularly in the communities that have been hit by this weather. And then we hear a Government stand up for the second time in two years and say, “Trust us, we will build back better.” They haven’t built back at all from where we were. They have not built back at all from 2017 or 2020 or post-COVID. We are a brilliant people in a broken country. Our infrastructure is broken. Our health system is broken. Our mental health system is broken. This is not partisan shots—although I’m sure you’ll think it is. Those of us who are constituent MPs get this day in, day out.

People cannot access mental health, they cannot access the health system—it is broken. Our education system is broken. We have more students that are truant than ever recorded in this country’s history: over 50 percent truancy. Our performance in terms of NCEA is the worst that has ever been recorded. It is broken, and no trying to polish those statistics can make it anything other than that. Health broken, infrastructure broken, education broken, law and order broken, rule of law broken. The statistics are there and they hang in shame off this Government. This country is broken and it has occurred on their watch.

Roads: the Prime Minister stands up and says 400 kilometres of roads now need to be fixed, tens of bridges need to be replaced—the same Prime Minister that has sat in a Government for five years that hasn’t built a single road. The Baypark to Bayfair flyover started four years ago, twice the budget, still two years to go. And every one of us can stand up and repeat the same set of issues in our community. Health, education, law and order, infrastructure, everything this Government has turned its mind to, it has failed to deliver. The country is on its knees and the best thing the Prime Minister can say is, “We will build back better.” You had your chance. In 2020, you said, “We want a COVID-endorsed chance to build back better.” Every sector, every Government agency, has failed to deliver against its promise.

And I finish on the issue of climate change. The high end of rhetoric, and yet again the low end of delivery. Emissions up 5½ years in. Yes, we have a zero carbon bill, yes we have a climate commission—emissions up. You’re the Government. The emissions are up. Five years in, yet another area broken. Brilliant people, broken country, it’s time for a change.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I just obviously want to turn to the issue around Cyclone Gabrielle and the floods over the anniversary weekend that will have massive implications for businesses and people for a long time to come. My electorate wasn’t spared. Like many, I had a residential retirement village that was evacuated at 2 a.m.—35 residents. I’ve had many homes that have been yellow- or red-stickered. I’ve had growers who have lost their crops and seen their wonderful Pukekohe topsoil move by the waters down into other areas and other neighbours’ properties. And I’ve seen people who have lost their homes. But, just as importantly, if not more, we’ve seen many people who have had their lives totally destroyed. In one case, tragically, one of my constituents in Onewhero lost his life when he got out in the flood. Also, I was there when the house at Orua Bay at the top of the Āwhitu Peninsula crashed on to the beach and the three Australians that were living there were seriously injured.

So it’s been a period for everyone over the past few weeks dealing with these issues. And I just want to say a special thanks to the fire brigades—I’ve got 16 fire brigades in my electorate, and all of them did a fantastic job—the police, the emergency coordinators. In Franklin’s case, we actually ended up setting up our own emergency centres run by individuals and in some cases by the community patrol boards who volunteered their time to go and look after people during the night. The marae and kura came together and offered beds and food. And I think the other level was the individuals who came together and just helped people in the middle of the night. Some were doing traffic duties while fire brigades were trying to remove residents, through to just helping one another through these really difficult times. Now, I think in moments of tragedy when people come together is a wonderful thing to see and it makes our community so much stronger.

But I want to turn to the issue around small businesses. There are so many businesses across large swathes of, particularly, the North Island who are now facing this issue about what to do. Rebuilding their premises, buying the equipment that has been destroyed, and re-establishing their supply lines is just a monumental task that they face. And in some cases, many of these small businesses are going to take a view that it’s just too difficult, particularly when owners and their staff have lost their homes and their businesses and their customers. And so the time period to take to re-establish these businesses is just such a big issue. And I think we are facing the prospect where some people will think that the physical rebuild is just simply not worth it, particularly where you’re reliant on retail, hospitality, or tourism businesses, particularly in the East Coast of the North Island.

So what worries me is that we are facing the prospect—particularly where valuable staff who have been working in an industry or particular business and that business has been destroyed. And I think about Pan Pac in Napier that has 400 employees—that business may not be open for another six months. What will these people do in the meantime? I’m very concerned that we do not have a business support package by the Government that gives business owners and their staff time to assess what to do and get up and running. That package needs to be sufficient to just tide them over that period of time and to allow them to actually get the premises rebuilt and get the customers back in the door so that they can actually generate the cash flow to get back on their feet. We need a business package that will support not only them but also the employees and their staff during this period, because that is what’s going to keep these poor areas alive, these areas that have been hammered, and keep the businesses and people back in employment.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As the flood waters rose and the storms and the winds blew, Cassandra Robson and her six-year-old daughter Skylar were rescued. And as I was reading about their story, I was taken by what Cassandra said. She said, “We’re just grateful and thankful for an incredible community coming to look for us and making sure we’re safe. And now, let’s do the same for other people.” This was Cassandra and her daughter, who had just been rescued from flood waters from the devastation. And this reminds me of the New Zealand that we live in: the wonderful society that we have that cares deeply for our communities. And we’ve seen that in recent weeks through the devastation and the heartache.

Now, the weekend before Cyclone Gabrielle came through, I attended the Taranaki toughest firefighter event, which happens every year, run by the Taranaki Provincial Fire Brigade Association. Now, I attended that event on the Saturday afternoon, and was aware—and it was very pertinent in reflecting in terms of what was going on in Auckland at the time. And there were heightened feelings of concern for their colleagues in terms of the work that emergency services do. I had the opportunity to speak at that event, and to encourage and thank the servicemen and servicewomen for their voluntary service, for putting themselves on the line every single time a callout is received and they go. And the reason, in thanking them that they do that, is, as Cassandra said, for the sake of their community in doing what they can for others.

There have been many groups and organisations within our communities and individuals that have shown what New Zealanders are made of. And I think of people like the Red Cross and religious organisations and community groups, I think of our police and our ambulance and our fire and emergency services, our air ambulances and our rescue helicopters, etc. The list can go on and on. And we as a Government and we as members of this House say thank you to everyone who has put their life on the line, and, sadly, to those who have lost their lives.

As our Prime Minister spoke this afternoon in terms of looking at where we are and where we’re going, I’m grateful that we are building back better. Now, as we know, that can be just rhetoric—it can be words—so I thought I would share a little bit from New Plymouth in terms of how we as a Government are building back better in the electorate of New Plymouth. In terms of housing, there are 68 families in New Plymouth who were able to purchase their first home through the KiwiBuild scheme. Now, I know that’s a small amount, but for those 68 families in my community of Marfell, that has made a huge difference in terms of getting them into the space of housing, of a home, a place to call home for their whānau, not just now but for generations to come.

Then there are the 45 Kāinga Ora houses that are under construction already in the middle of our CBD, providing one- and two-bedroom homes for those in terms of the demographic as it changes and people age, and we have a number of single people, creating that space for 45 individuals, couples to have a place to call home—all because of this Government.

Then there’s the announcement and the work that’s under way right now for 100 new Kāinga Ora homes within the city of New Plymouth. This is the most in terms of building around social housing in more than 40 years in the electorate of New Plymouth. Over the past 40 years, that’s 100 new homes, 45 new units, 68 homes that people now own in terms of us building back better.

Now, on my way down this morning on the plane, I was reading the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report that’s just been released. I was encouraged to read that they say that social housing wait-lists have continued to decline and build consents are up, showing that we are addressing the housing crisis, and that there have been higher levels of employment and declining levels of unemployment, and there are continuing declines in the levels of child poverty, not to mention youth offending continues to decline in this country. I’m grateful to be part of a Government, serving a Prime Minister, that’s focused on the bread and butter issues and building back better.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stood in the dark at my local civil defence centre (CDC)—it was set up under Auckland Council’s leadership—and I saw coming across the carpark to me three people. They were wet, they were cold, and they were coming towards the bright lights that had recently been set up in what was a community centre. And speaking to these people, I was able to say, as their local MP, without knowing what decisions had been taken at that stage by our Cabinet or what our finance Minister was thinking, that the Government would stand alongside those people, that this Government would be there with them every step of the way to make sure that they had what they needed the next day and in the following weeks. And I was proud, at that moment, to stand with this Government that is responsive to people’s needs on the ground.

I also want to acknowledge what Todd Muller said in his speech—that there has been an incredible community outpouring of support for each other, that neighbours have stepped up, that individuals have taken responsibility for the people around them, and that outpouring of strength and unity has been incredible to see. But I guess our politics are showing a little bit because at that moment, when I knew that the Government would stand alongside these people and help them to recover, I knew that, you know, his worries that we have a broken country—it’s not that big.

What we have is not a broken country; we have broken hearts, we have broken backs, we have broken people, but that is not too big a challenge for us to solve one by one. When we have a Government that takes decisions to stand alongside our people, alongside our social service providers, alongside the people who make their food banks available at a moment’s notice, alongside our marae, alongside all of those volunteers, then we will get through it. I can think of the story of maybe two marae; my adoptive marae in Manurewa that stood up to be part of the civil defence network in South Auckland that supported people through, and then, later, when Cyclone Gabrielle hit my hometown where I am from in Puha, my marae in Tapuihikitia and Takipu.

Our urban marae were part of a broader network that has been established since COVID. They were able to access the kind of community support that in previous Governments they have dreamt of. That support was right there on tap for them to know that they could throw open their doors, welcome people, and support and manaaki them as we are best at. And I was so proud to be part of this community of Manurewa marae and to see that at work.

Then when my marae was hit, I felt the grief that so many of us in Auckland and in Wellington who looked at our home in Tai Rāwhiti and the Napier and Hawke’s Bay region felt: this feeling of not being able to get to our whānau—who we love and who we care for—in this time of incredible need. But those marae, those people who were most affected by that, did the same thing. They were able to stand together. They were able to offer people within the surrounding area a place of light within that darkness. They were able to stand up and offer that manaaki that I am proud of too. And I have faith that those marae—for Takipu, they have extensive damage and there’ll be so many people around the country watching so closely to see how we rebuild in a situation where they are within danger still—were able to stand up in that way.

I have this real sense of gratitude—and I want to echo the comments of my colleagues around this House—for the first responders; for our police and defence; for Red Cross; for those people who are standing up, including the Māori wardens in South Auckland, who did deliveries; for our churches like the Salvation Army in Manurewa and Manukau who went down the line as soon as they could to support those communities in Cyclone Gabrielle; and the public servants like the people within Te Puni Kōkiri who went out and supported the other agencies. That spirit of getting stuck in, of mucking in, is what this response is all about, and that is the strength of it.

I’m thinking today about how we begin to have those conversations around the change that is needed for our country, and that’s why I was listening so closely to Mr Muller’s speech. What I’m thinking of is how this affects Māori, and what I would say to all parliamentarians in this House as we embark on those conversations is that there is so much a Māori worldview can add to the decisions that we need to make about adaptation and about managed retreat.

Considering how people are connected to their whenua and the importance that we carry within all of us about our connection to our place will be really important, and this Government is up for that conversation.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): New Zealand cries for a New Zealand in crisis. This call is a speech in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement. However, top and front of mind is the recent crisis of the adverse weather events that struck New Zealand, that struck our nation, and that struck our people: the devastation and the destruction from Cyclone Gabrielle and the adverse weather event in Auckland and Northland but a few weeks ago.

Much has been said in the House, in acknowledging first responders—all, I believe, have been named this afternoon. Much has been said about the devastation that’s been wreaked upon our nation. The loss of human lives: four in Auckland; 11, to date, in the East Coast; and more predicted, sadly. The loss of animal lives: livestock and pets, numbers yet unknown. The loss of livelihoods: the farms, the orchards, the vineyards, the market gardens, the crops, and the food producers. The impact on our farmers, families, business, and communities—communities united in a common purpose of dealing with this crisis. New Zealand is a nation in crisis—more so now, but it was before.

This speech is in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement—we’ve heard in the debate in the House about how this Government is going to address and build upon the nation. But let’s be real about what this nation has been facing prior to this adverse weather event and this crisis: the crisis where the Government has failed to deliver and has delivered in failure. Instead of lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by 2020, 400, and counting, more children are living in poverty. As spokesperson for children and Oranga Tamariki, this adverse weather event—the crisis over on the East Coast, Tai Rāwhiti, it’s known—Oranga Tamariki has reported—there are 500 children in care over in that community, vulnerable and more vulnerable than ever.

I acknowledge first responders, particularly Whānau Ora and the way that our Whānau Ora providers and communities united with a common purpose in helping and responding to the crisis of COVID-19. They have again done that with Cyclone Gabrielle. Whānau Ora is mobilising amongst the communities—not just Māori but everybody who is in crisis.

Again, I’ve heard in the House reference to our Prime Minister. I do acknowledge the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister with those other leaders who are out there. But as leaders, every single one of us, as New Zealand cries, our hands, our heads, and our hearts must come together in a united purpose and a common unity. But that does not deny the fact that we have a Government that has a track record of failing to deliver, so the standard and the game needs to be upped.

We have, importantly, these catchphrases: “let’s do this”, “let’s get cracking”. The reality check with eyes real to the situation is that we are going to have a nation in crisis not just now for the short term but we’re in this for the long haul. In 2015—and I often reference my kōrero in this House to personal experience and connections to people and place—living beside the Whanganui River, my home was flooded; 400 of us were evacuated. However, the trauma that we endured is not going to be on the scale and the intensity that New Zealanders in these stricken areas of our country are going to be facing.

This is a long-term trauma and we have a Government, regrettably, that’s failed to deliver with the mental health crisis. So I challenge this Government: now is the time to deliver.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to join with others from across the House who are acknowledging in this debate, the weather events that have occurred around our region, our country, and what the impacts have been. The Coromandel took one heck of a beating, and it wasn’t the first beating that our landscape, our beaches, our roads—all other infrastructure—had taken in such a short while. It was the fourth or fifth heavy weather event of this year, and here we are, only halfway through February.

All around the beautiful Coromandel, people, as they did in other parts of the country, gathered together to support each other, to ensure that they were well, that they were safe, and that their property damage was as minimal as possible. So I too want to acknowledge the first responders—who in and around the Coromandel are usually volunteer first responders—for their work in going out in very foul conditions trying to do their best on behalf of citizens and our community, but also I acknowledge the contractors, the roading contractors, the stop-go people who are trying to keep the roads open and the traffic under control when the roads are open, as well as the council staff;, the regional council staff, civil defence and personnel from the National Emergency Management Agency, and even those people who travelled from outside our region to come and assist. I spoke to people that had travelled from as far away as Christchurch and even Auckland. They had been facing their own devastation in Auckland, they had come to Thames and to the Coromandel to help and assist, and we were enormously grateful for their support and their help and their encouragement. To the telco companies and the electricity company providers: their help and assistance was greatly appreciated as well. But mostly it’s our citizens that I want to acknowledge and give grateful thanks to; the community groups that they represent, and, of course, iwi who were so gracious and helpful in opening marae around the region.

But, actually, our region, as my colleague and friend Todd Muller has said, is like so many other parts of New Zealand: its infrastructure is broken—broken and damaged in a way that is going to take a very long time to repair. So the main arterial route across the peninsula, State Highway 25A Kōpū to Hikuai, a massive fall out there—not a slip; the road is actually lost, it’s gone. I’ve been up there with the Minister Kieran McAnulty, and I appreciate him coming to take time to be in the region to have a look for himself, but that is the main arterial route. Now, there are other roads around the peninsula, but that route: we know, even though we are not roading experts, any of us—or engineers—just one look at it is enough to be clear in everyone’s mind that that repair job is going to be an enormously big one.

So when the Prime Minister says today that “The worthy must give way to the necessary”, I want to put it on record right now that State Highway 25A across the Coromandel is absolutely in the necessary category and must be repaired as soon as possible, because the alternatives add time and cost to everybody on the peninsula. And when our roads, our fragile roading network and our fragile one-way bridges are out, and when our electricity is out and when our telecommunications are out and the cell phone towers aren’t working, people are very vulnerable and they need to know that that infrastructure will be there for them at times of great need.

So on the Coromandel the sun came out over the weekend, and that lifts people’s spirits in a way that only a bright sunny day can do, and that’s a good thing. So we’re encouraged by that; we’re drying out—but I want to take a little bit away from the current Government’s talking notes that they seem to all be talking about, about “building back better”. Well, we know on this side of the House what going backwards under Labour looks like, and I want them to stop saying they’re going to build back better. We in the Coromandel and the other parts of New Zealand are interested in you building forward better—not back; build forward. That’s what we want in our area: a Government that has the future of all citizens at heart and will look to the future—forward-looking, forward-facing, forward-progressing with an eye to the future, not a Government that wants to just build back better. We want better than that. We want to go forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa‘afetai lava, Madam Speaker. Community spirit, community support, community resilience. Those are the three things I think about with the response from our community in Aotearoa New Zealand. We were one of the first civil defence centres set up when the Auckland floods occurred. It was great to see our providers rally together, our community rally together, in order to support our South Auckland community. Manu Tukutuku centre in Randwick Park—that’s a centre that we had set up, and it was great to see this opportunity for the community to use this centre, because it’s only been open for the last two or three years, and to see the council and central government agencies working together to support our community has been very beneficial.

I just want to take my time just to thank the temples, the churches, in particular Takanini Gurdwara. I’d like to say a huge thankyou to them, because every time there’s a pandemic or any event that happens, our Takanini Sikh community do a huge job in delivering food, donations, clothing not only to our local community but also to Auckland at large. Red Cross, Salvation Army, the New Zealand Defence Force, the Ministry of Social Development, Kāinga Ora, all the agencies and services that came to support our community were very much needed during the Auckland floods—and then to translate that for the cyclone, because we had already set up all the networks, the community came in during that time as well. So I support the Prime Minister’s statement. Thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This debate is adjourned and set down for resumption next sitting day. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will be resumed at 7 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

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

Bills

Natural Hazards Insurance Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I present a legislative statement on the Natural Hazards Insurance 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 Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I move, That the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill be now read a third time.

I would like to start by acknowledging the devastation inflicted upon significant parts of the North Island by Cyclone Gabrielle—in particular, parts of Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and Tai Rāwhiti—as well as the Auckland Anniversary floods. We’ve all seen the heartbreaking images of homes destroyed, families displaced, and lives lost, but we’ve also seen communities band together and first responders working around the clock to keep people safe and, in many cases, save lives. That has certainly been the experience in my own electorate, where the Titirangi Volunteer Fire Brigade put in endless hours getting water to people, and where communities in Pīhā and Karekare have worked together to save lives and to respond to the cyclone events.

New Zealand has some of the highest natural disaster costs in the world as a proportion of GDP. Our natural hazards insurance scheme has successfully supported New Zealand’s resilience and recovery through two of its most significant natural disasters in recent times. The scheme directly contributed to the recovery of the community, rebuilding their homes to recover from the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake and the tragic 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence, and the scheme at that time directly contributed over $11 billion to the region’s recovery. It’s clear that in the days, weeks, months and years to come, the scheme will also be critical to supporting the recovery of areas affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland floods.

However, the natural hazards insurance scheme also contributes in other ways. For example, the commission is responsible for research and education intended to both understand and reduce the potential impact of future disasters. The first-loss cover provided by the scheme also contributes to the provision of affordable private residential property insurance. With over 90 percent of New Zealand properties insured against natural disaster, our levels of residential insurance are high compared to other countries facing a similar exposure. So, with this in mind, I welcome the cross-party support that this bill has received and thank the members for their thoughtful comments during the first and second readings.

The natural hazards insurance scheme has served New Zealand well. For this reason, the bill retains most aspects of the current cover provided. The targeted changes in this bill will modernise the Earthquake Commission Act. It will do so by enabling better community recovery following a natural disaster, updating and improving the clarity and certainty of the role of the commission and the cover it provides, and supporting the future durability and flexibility of the Act.

The bill has benefited significantly from lessons learnt following the tragic 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence and the valuable recommendations provided to this Government by Dame Silvia Cartwright as part of the inquiry into the Earthquake Commission (EQC). The current EQC legislation needed review. The Act did not adequately describe how cover should respond to the sort of damage that may actually arise in an event of the size and complexity of the Canterbury quakes.

The earthquakes have for ever left their mark on the Canterbury region and its residents, but the commission’s staff, management, and systems were also tested and stretched. Outdated legislation contributed to the delays experienced by the people of Canterbury. However, the commission has also undertaken significant work to apply operational lessons from Canterbury. Role clarity and preparedness for future events were key themes coming out of the inquiry.

The commission has already invested heavily in new systems and processes to prepare for future events. These changes will place the claimant at the centre of its response to future natural hazards, so while the bill does retain most aspects of cover, some important changes have been made to improve or to clarify the cover provided. The residential building cap has been increased from $150,000 to $300,000 per dwelling, excluding GST. Homeowners will still receive the same total insurance payout, but the contribution from the Natural Hazards Commission will reduce premiums in high-risk areas. Cover for retaining walls has been improved by replacing cover for indemnity value—that’s the current value of a property—with an undepreciated value that is subject to a $50,000 financial cap, again excluding GST, and changes have been made to the cover provided to mixed-use buildings to improve consistency between the rules and the amount of cover provided.

Dr David Clark’s second reading speech discussed a number of other changes to definitions, exclusions, or time periods. While technical in nature, I anticipate that these changes will clarify cover and reduce future dispute.

The bill was the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I would like to thank the members of that committee for their diligent work on the bill, which included site visits within Canterbury. I would like especially to acknowledge the leadership and key contribution of Barbara Edmonds and other members who chaired that committee throughout this process, and I’d also like to thank all the officials who worked so hard on the processing of the bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the previous Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission Dr David Clark—thank you, David—who has contributed many hours to the development of this bill and has steered it to this point. This bill modernises the key piece of legislation supporting New Zealand’s future resilience to natural disaster. I commend this bill to the House.

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

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to start by acknowledging all those affected in the Auckland, Tai Rāwhiti, and Hawke’s Bay events. Cyclone Gabrielle certainly had a significant sting in its tail, and it’s something that will live with us for a very long time. I’d also like to congratulate the new Minister, Dr Deborah Russell. I have done that personally, but I’d like to do that officially and get it on the record. I’m sure you’ll do a fantastic job. I also acknowledge Dr David Clark, who steered this bill right through to this point. He did that in a good fashion and ensured he engaged with us on the other side of the House, and I’d like to acknowledge that.

As Dr Russell said, 90 percent of New Zealanders have insurance. So that’s a really important positive for our population, and we will find out the value of that in the coming weeks as we start to move from the reaction to the events that we’ve just had to recovery, and as people then have to face making insurance claims. Fortunately, now Earthquake Commission (EQC) claims can be made through an insurance company rather than going to EQC, which will be a very much, much smoother scenario than it was in the Canterbury earthquake sequence. That was very traumatising for those people involved, who would finally get a decision from a EQC that their claim was over the cap, and then they’d have to go to the back of the queue with their insurance company and go through the whole process again. This is one of the things that has been addressed by agreement, but is now being formalised, and I think that’s a really important step.

One of the other things which I’m sure is of interest to the House is the insurance companies were very concerned about having enough runway to get their IT systems set up so that they could deal with these changes in the Act around the cap and so on, and they wanted 18 months. Now, we’re going to be just inside that period because this will come into force on 1 July 2024, and I’m sure you can do the maths on that. I did speak to an insurance company tonight, though, and they said it’s going to be tight but they think they’ll get there. I have to acknowledge that Dr Clark and I discussed this at a later stage in the process of this bill, and we have been held up another couple of weeks for unavoidable reasons, so it is a little tighter than we had anticipated. But this House has worked together to ensure that we passed it through these stages as quickly as we possibly could to try and make that as painless a process for the insurance companies as possible.

As Dr Russell mentioned, the change in the cap to up to $300,000 is welcomed by those people that are living in higher-risk areas because their premiums will go down. But, of course, Madam Speaker, as I know you’re well aware, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Those lower premiums in the high-risk areas are balanced out by higher premiums in—oh, I might have got my risks round the wrong way—low-risk areas. So in somewhere like Wellington, premiums will go down, and in somewhere like Auckland, premiums will go up—and for lots of those areas. So it’s definitely a significant—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I doubt they’ll go down. It’s a bit naive.

STUART SMITH: Well, it may not go down, but, of course, they’ll go up somewhere else. They’re going to go up, and I think that’s the reality that we have to face.

One of the things of the current events that I’m very concerned about came up during this bill, which was about extending the scheme to a social flood insurance. Much as this is a social, other natural disaster, it doesn’t cover flood damage for homes. It covers it for bridges, culverts, driveways, etc., but it does not cover flood damage for homes.

My concern, which I raised in the select committee and I raise it again now, is that the experience overseas with these sorts of schemes is we would lock people in to their homes. If we take somewhere like the Flockton Basin in Christchurch, if you enable people to stay in those homes by making available insurance which might not be available otherwise, they will be locked in to those houses. What’s happened in the UK with just such a flood scheme—it’s called Flood Re, in the UK—was that they had a long runway until that scheme was supposed to be actually disestablished and it would give time for people to move out. They haven’t moved out. They’ve established themselves and improved their homes and they’ve built new homes in that area, and that’s the danger of having a social flood insurance when, actually, relocation would be a far better option.

I know this because I’ve spoken to the insurance companies about this. They’d be willing to be a part of it, with local government and central government together, to solve a problem that, actually, we have all created ourselves. The councils have tried in many cases to stop people building in these risky areas, and developers have challenged them and they’ve won. So we’re partly to blame—Parliament—because we haven’t given the councils the tools to be able to actually manage this situation, and we are now all going to bear the brunt of that. Now, there’ll be some of that in the current disaster, but it’s certainly by no means confined to that sort of issue. But it is something I raise.

Actually, in the Canterbury earthquake sequence, EQC paid out $11.7 billion. That’s a heck of a lot of money. This current disaster won’t reach that level. However, at that time, there was $6 billion in the Natural Disaster Fund. There’s $300 million in it now. EQC last year negotiated a record amount of reinsurance: $7.2 billion. That’s a significant amount of reinsurance, but EQC doesn’t get to claim that until they have paid out $1.75 billion. So we’ve got $300 million. It’s essentially $1.5 billion that the Government’s on the hook for, or EQC—it’ll be the Crown that pays it—until we can get reinsurance money.

I don’t know how much the EQC payments will be. They may not be any higher than that $1.75 billion because it’s really confined to drains, culverts, retaining walls, driveways, etc.—and, in fact, that’s one of the features of this bill. EQC previously provided cover based on the depreciated value of retaining walls, bridges, and culverts, but under this one it’s the undepreciated value, with a limit of $50,000 per dwelling on a retaining wall and $25,000 per dwelling on bridges and culverts—I mean, it sounds like a lot, but, actually, in some cases, it might not be, but you’ve got to draw a line somewhere.

We had a field visit into Christchurch. We had people particularly concerned about retaining walls who came and gave evidence to the select committee. I don’t know that we got it right—I think it’s pretty close—but, look, the reality is when disasters happen, there’s always a line, and sometimes people fall on the right side of the line or the wrong side. All we can do is do our best, and I’m confident that the Finance and Expenditure Committee did its very best to try and balance those particular things off. But, as I’ve said, there will be people that fall on the wrong side.

The operational efficiency issue is something that was also touched on by Dr Russell, and I think EQC have come a long way since the Canterbury days; there’s no doubt about that. But the reality is that in a disaster, everybody is under pressure—the people that have been affected by it and the people that have to try and deal with it in these sorts of ways—and we’re human beings. People do falter under those pressures.

So, with the best will in the world, I know it’s going to be difficult for EQC and the insurance companies to deal with what’s ahead of them, and I think while the framework in this bill—some of these things have actually been enacted really anyway, and this is just tidying it up in the law. But I think it’s in a lot better space than we were in back in the Canterbury earthquake days, so I just hope that it goes the best possible way that it can for those people affected by these current weather events. So it’s with that that I commend the bill to the House.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like the previous speakers, I do want to acknowledge the devastation from Cyclone Gabrielle and the other flood events in the North, and also tomorrow is the 12th anniversary of the Canterbury earthquake, so it seems like a good day to be talking about this Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. Of course, from that Canterbury experience that the previous speaker has just spoken about, Dame Silvia Cartwright did her review with 70 recommendations, and that’s come through in this process.

I just want to touch on one quite specific issue, and that is around the definition of “natural hazard”. It is defined widely at clause 23, and it includes probably everything that you would imagine to be a natural hazard, including storms.

But there are subsets of that definition and they apply differently, and how that works is that at clause 3 is the purpose of the Act and it is to “reduce the impact of natural hazards”—a good purpose—and to provide “for first loss insurance [as] a direct result of natural hazards”—I am paraphrasing somewhat—“as set out in section 4;”. If you go to clause 4, which will become section 4, it says, “(4) Natural hazard cover provides cover for—(a) damage to residential buildings that is a direct result of an earthquake, hydrothermal activity, a landslide, a tsunami, or volcanic activity or a fire” as a consequence of those hazards. So that doesn’t talk about floods in that subsection. Then, in paragraph (b), we have “damage to residential land that is a direct result of any of those hazards or a storm or a flood, or a fire that is a consequence of a storm or flood.” So the two subsets are treated differently.

The terms that I’ve just read out are defined throughout the bill, and then also, in clause 23, around that wide definition of “natural hazard”, it is, in fact, confined, though, in saying that it does exclude coastal erosion. So whilst this is much better legislation than what we’ve seen before, it’s a very good improvement.

As described by the Minister, there is of course more work to be done, as the previous speaker has said. I commend it to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. Like Rachel Brooking, the previous speaker, I too want to acknowledge that tomorrow is indeed the 12th anniversary of the day that many Cantabrians will never ever forget. It’s certainly something that I won’t forget. I will be attending the earthquake memorial service tomorrow, as I have every year, and we will continue to pay our ongoing respects to the 187 people who perished in that event. My goodness, Christchurch is a different place, and I can only recommend to anyone looking for somewhere fabulous to go to take a visit and see our new city, because it has indeed risen out of the ashes.

I do certainly want to acknowledge those who are going through the absolute trauma of the disaster recovery that is occurring in the North Island at the moment. I think that more than anyone else, Cantabrians can understand and empathise with the drastic impacts that a natural disaster of this kind of scale has on lives and livelihoods. So my thoughts are with the people of Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne and the upper North Island.

I think, as has been very clearly highlighted by Cyclone Gabrielle, it is really important that when disasters like this occur, there is a need for a secure and an effective system that’s ready to go, that is modernised and effective, and, of course, that is underpinned by legislation that will strengthen that system already in place. This bill certainly seeks to fix the gaps that we’ve now been aware of thanks to that review led by Dame Silvia Cartwright.

The bill’s aim is to better enable the community recovery from natural hazards. Once again, I refer to my own experience in 2010 and 2011 in Christchurch, and indeed from what I understand to be occurring in the upper parts of the North Island at the moment, the community recovery has been something to behold. It is quite extraordinary how organisations and groups and neighbourhoods gather together at a time like this.

The bill will clarify the role of the commission and the cover provided. It is there to enhance the durability and the flexibility of the legislation. We’ve certainly seen—again, I know I keep referring to the earthquake situation—that the outdated and now former Earthquake Commission Act was utterly inflexible and it has caused ongoing stress and trauma for 12 long years for some people who are still trying to seek insurance and opportunities to rebuild their homes and their properties and often, at times, to rebuild their lives as well.

It is, of course, I think, as other speakers have acknowledged, a necessary and very long-overdue change that has resulted from the original review of the Earthquake Commission Act of 1993. So one would say that it is an old Act now and does need to be modernised. As we do start to see an increasing level of natural events and natural hazards, we do need a system that is going to be flexible and is able to cater for all sorts of natural hazards. I note that it will deal with a huge array which is anything, but it is not limited to landslips, volcanoes—some might think, well, why would you need volcanoes, but we do know all too well here in New Zealand why we need cover for events like that—as well as tsunami and, again, hydrothermal activity.

The National Party is very pleased to support the updating of this legislation. From what I understand, our members have been collegial and supportive during the select committee process, with the thrashing out and the ongoing passage of this bill through the House. It does in many parts look to improve operations but also clarity of definition, and to—I think, most importantly—improve the speed and simplicity with which resolutions can be made and, ultimately, payments can be given out to those claimants.

I would also like to point out that the previous Earthquake Commission (EQC) cover provided for depreciated value of retaining walls, bridges, and culverts. I think it is very pleasing that this bill, in particular, actually proposes using the undepreciated value—obviously, with a limit, and I think that’s $50,000 per dwelling on a retaining, and $25,000 per dwelling for bridges and culverts. To me, this seems an issue of natural justice—a fair price paid, a fair price paid out, I would probably more colloquially describe it as.

I did just in my final comments want to take a moment to vocalise an observation I have made of the culture of the Earthquake Commission that I think began two Ministers ago. It’s certainly not regarding the current Minister, nor indeed the former Minister, but what I’ve observed is a culture of simply clearing the decks within EQC, and it’s simply just making payments for the sake of getting rid of them and for reaching targets. I do think that the building industry needs to have a laser run over it. I think there is an extraordinary culture in Canterbury whereby the veracity of claims and quotes actually needs to be further analysed. There are vastly inflated quotes and claims being made that are being paid out, and, yes, I absolutely acknowledge that inflation is very live and very real across the country at the moment, but this has been going on for a number of years now. I think that if I could, I would encourage the new Minister to start asking some really serious questions of the senior leadership within the commission.

With that, I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you for the opportunity.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like previous speakers, I do want to begin by acknowledging the recent natural hazard events that have impacted the lives of so many in this country: those who are tied up with Cyclone Gabrielle, ongoing; those who have been unable to contact family members and friends. We know that there is a long way ahead, and we are thinking of you. I also want to acknowledge the Auckland Anniversary floods and the impending anniversary of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. I think these events all serve to highlight why this bill is so important and timely.

I want to make a few brief comments as formerly the Minister responsible for the bill, but I do at the outset want to acknowledge and congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell on your appointment to this portfolio. I know that you will be superb in this role, and so my personal and heartfelt congratulations.

Dame Silvia Cartwright’s public inquiry was a real guide in the shaping of this bill. She and those she worked with observed the changes that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had to make from having a few dozen staff, scaling up following the Christchurch earthquakes to 1,100, I think it was, and then they’re now back down in the range, I think from memory, of about 600 staff. That was an organisation that underwent rapid change, and there are a whole lot of lessons that came out of that experience. One of those was the importance of having claimants at the centre in terms of making available to them the services they needed as immediately as possible. That shaped the insurer response model that’s now in place, so that people do not have to contact EQC separately, but can go straight through their insurer to get issues sorted. We’re seeing now, in effect, as we encounter other natural hazards that insurers are there at the front line, they have more offices open, they’re more readily available to support, and they can scale up more rapidly.

The other series—well, there were a lot of recommendations to come out of it, but a lot of them spoke to the need to clarify existing practice, or actually make sure it has a sound legal backing, and that’s what this bill is actually all about. One of the significant things was raising the cap. That decision has already been taken and put through regulations, but this bill solidifies that. The cap on residential building cover has increased from $150,000 to $300,000. Originally, it was $100,000 in the early 1990s, which was about the cost of building a new house at the time. It is timely to put it up and make sure that this actually functions as a social insurance scheme—that’s what it’s set up to do. No one expected the earthquake sequence in Canterbury. We all shared the cost of that and, likewise, with this scheme into the future for natural hazards, having that higher cap means we all share the burden across New Zealand, because we never know in this country, which is prone to natural disasters, where the next event will be.

The cover for retaining walls, bridges, and culverts has been covered off by the previous speaker Nicola Grigg and others in the debate. It does provide clarity in the law and that means that the private sector and their offerings, which go over and above the EQC offering, can also be clear about what they’re offering, and that’s part of this. It’s making sure that people know what they’re covered for and what they’re not covered for, and that has proven to be a really important lesson out of those prior events.

The name update is something I wanted to speak briefly about and then the timing, and that will be my contribution. The new name, which is changed by the bill to Toka Tū Ake – Natural Hazards Commission, reflects the broad range of hazards covered by the Act and dealt with by the commission, and I’ve had interesting explanations given to me. It’s the beauty of languages that things never translate one for one into other languages, but it’s about a firm place to stand and grow—that’s my kind of understanding of it. It’s about preparedness and recovery from natural disasters—you know, literally, toka is a rock, tū is the place to stand or where things take place or where things are convened or established, and ake is the act of raising upwards. So it speaks to uplifting but also to preparedness and standing in a firm place—a fitting name for the commission—and also that broadening to be the Natural Hazards Commission rather than the Earthquake Commission, which actually reflects what they do.

Now, the timing—and I do want to thank the Opposition for their support in this regard. We have pushed out the timing a little to allow the insurance companies to develop their IT systems to handle this new legislation, perhaps not as far as they initially wanted, but as we’ve heard from those who have spoken to the companies, it is enough that they believe they can get these systems in place in time.

So I will end my contribution there. I will say, though, what a privilege it has been to work on the bill with such competent officials as we worked through an enormous amount of detail to bring this bill to fruition. It is important that New Zealand has updated legislation here. This is a generational update, and I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I’m pleased to take a call on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill, and can I formally acknowledge the former Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission, Dr David Clark, and all of that mahi that he and officials and the Finance and Expenditure Committee have done on the bill, and congratulate the new Minister Dr Deborah Russell.

When we were doing the second reading of this bill, we’d just had the Nelson storm event. An atmospheric river dumped more than a month’s worth of rain in 24 hours on Nelson/Whakatū, flooding the Maitai River, leading to about 350 landslides, which Toka Tū Ake – Earthquake Commission (EQC) will now be dealing with—really, flooding disrupting lives, disrupting communities. So I acknowledge the ongoing distress to people in the Nelson region, and also, of course, the huge trauma to everyone in Tai Tokerau, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Tai Rāwhiti, and Hawke’s Bay who have been affected by the Auckland Anniversary storm and Cyclone Gabrielle, and my sincere condolences go to the families and friends of those who have died. Just acknowledging too the huge community effort from volunteer firefighters to marae, the police, National Emergency Management Agency, neighbours reaching out to neighbours—everyone trying to keep each other safe and moving on that recovery path.

As Toka Tū Ake – EQC told select committee last week—and I quote—“New Zealand’s natural hazard risk profile is becoming more complex as the effects of climate change become apparent. As a country, we will be exposed to more frequent and … severe weather events as a result. Managing the impacts of climate change and natural hazard risk can, and should, be complementary—mitigating the impacts of one can improve [the] outcomes for both.”

In 2021-22, with several severe weather events, 76 percent of Toka Tū Ake – EQC’s claims were for landslip, storm, and flood damage to land, and that compared to 31 percent in the previous year. So in the last 12 months, one of the insurance companies told the select committee last week of 12 extreme weather events causing direct financial costs of $440 million, with, of course, much larger social, economic and human costs. So this bill is an important part of how we keep people safe in a world with a broken climate, where these fearful and traumatic events of the last few months are going to happen with increasing frequency.

Toka Tū Ake – EQC is all about reducing the impact on people and property and communities when these natural disasters occur by ensuring that we’ve got insurance against the damage. It is an important bill because it replaces the 1993 Earthquake Commission Act and, as others have noted, it seeks to implement the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake series. One of those key lessons is to make the commission’s functions and its role and the insurance cover it provides much clearer, and to set some new objectives.

One of those—and I hope that people in Hawke’s Bay, Nelson, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Te Tai Tokerau benefit from this—is to ensure that the commission manages claims so that they’re settled in a fair and timely way. There is much more direct involvement by insurance companies now, being the agency that people go to in the first instance, but the bill also introduces a clear statement of the repair standard for buildings and land cover, and that was a problem in Christchurch. It establishes a standing dispute resolution scheme and requires the commission to participate in that so that homeowners don’t need to go to the court in the first instance. It’s also about sharing costs and—as Dr David Clark noted—the increase in the cap.

One of the commission’s other functions is to facilitate research and education on natural hazard issues, including ways of reducing risk and building resilience before natural hazard events occur. The commission invests about $21 million annually in science and research to better understand natural hazards—or it’s done that in recent years—and it’s now moving into advocating on district plans to try and ensure that that natural hazard information is taken into account by councils when they decide where building activity and where residential zoning should occur. But, like Stuart Smith, I think more needs to happen in this area. This bill is not enough.

We need national direction, and quite urgent national direction, under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Work was started some years ago on a national policy statement on natural hazards, but that wasn’t completed. We’ve got the Natural Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill before select committee. Those aren’t expected to come into effect for seven to 10 years—fully into effect. They’ve got better natural hazard provisions than the RMA, but it will be some time before they come into play, and, as the Insurance Council has recently said, we need to stop building in dumb places.

It doesn’t make sense for insurance payments, whether they’re from private insurers or through EQC, to be used to rebuild homes on flood plains, where people are at risk of being flooded again or in areas that we know are vulnerable landslips, yet that is exactly what happened in Westport. We had insurers paying out more than $73 million in claims on houses, contents, and motor vehicle damage for people in Westport, and another $24 million in the wider district. One company did propose that there be a managed retreat programme for the most vulnerable and exposed properties, with claims payouts going to enabling rebuilding on stronger, safer ground. That didn’t happen, so the insurance payouts funded rebuilding or repair of houses in largely the same place.

So the work that Toka Tū Ake – EQC does in research and the payout regimes that happen post natural hazard events really need to ensure that there is this movement towards stronger ground, and I acknowledge a recent working paper by the Environmental Defence Society on the principles and funding for managed retreat. The commission in, I think, future legislation in the Parliament, with things like the climate adaptation bill, really needs to take some of the proposals that are in this working paper into serious consideration.

We benefit from EQC because the costs are shared. We also need a sharing of costs where we have a managed retreat situation, and I’m sure in areas of Hawke’s Bay there will be areas of those flood plains where people shouldn’t be rebuilding, because of their vulnerability. We need to share the costs of allowing people to move. That was enormously successful in the Christchurch earthquakes, allowing some 6,500 homeowners to move and get on with their lives, even from the residential red zone.

So we need Treasury and we need agencies to be looking at other financial mechanisms to allow people who are living in areas that are very vulnerable to natural hazards to actually go through a community discussion process with councils, with iwi, and with others, and to work on how we do this thing called managed retreat, what are the financial incentives, is it grafting things on to the Earthquake Commission Act, and is it establishing a separate fund like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which is funded from a variety of sources. But that’s the benefit of EQC, because the levy on people’s insurance policies contributes to helping people recover from the event. Similarly, we need a fund that can help people move away and to move to stronger, safer ground.

So this bill does make a very good start. It makes some major changes to EQC. It provides meaningful change in terms of the scope, the certainty, and the processes around EQC’s cover, the ability for people to access and navigate the claims process post a natural hazard event and disaster. It strengthens and modernises the commission, but we do need to go further in dealing with this issue of managed retreat so that people are not in harm’s way, and we need to ensure that the research that the commission does really informs a good planning process. Kia ora.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. I want to congratulate the Minister and the previous Minister for all the hard work that’s gone into this, and the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its diligence.

The ACT leader, David Seymour, has made a visit to most of the affected areas. On behalf of the ACT Party, we have to say our heart goes out to everyone who has lost someone and who has lost their possessions as well, and are missing. It really is a state that is unprecedented, and we’d like to help in any way to alleviate the troubles of those people. He listened to them and he heard from them, and he knows the devastation is enormous, and, as our leader, he articulated very clearly this morning at caucus that we should really put our faith in locally elected officials in the community to get on with matters at hand, with financial support from the Government. They must not be marginalised, and ACT stands in support of these people.

Before I move on to the bill, we must really now consider the lessons from Christchurch. We need to enact a strategy now of adaptation in this country and build physical defences, and not retreat. Centralised control and disaster politics are just counter-productive, and everybody instinctively understands that. It leads to frustration, and it led to frustration in Christchurch. People can’t wait days for help, or for the Government to show up and tell them then not what to do. They know their leaders locally, and what has happened in the regions is not just a cyclone; the real issue is the flood. The failure of stopbanks and slash-destroying bridges contributed to just an all-round disaster.

The biggest lesson was that it was far too easy for Government to look at Christchurch and admit that it unintentionally frustrated and stalled the recovery. We can’t let this happen on this occasion, and this bill does go some way towards that.

One option I’d like the Government to reconsider under this bill—if it worries that too many houses are built in places that are too risky—is an adjustment to how Earthquake Commission (EQC) premiums are actually set, and I should think Mr Clark would sort of share the sentiment that this could be worth a further look. EQC is the insurer of last resort, so it is funded by a flat rate on existing insurance premiums. In future, as we consider how some areas are going to bear greater levels of risk because of climate change, such as those on flood plains or beachfront properties exposed to the storm, then we need to consider how EQC is funded in a way that sends the right price signals to properties that at are higher risk, and also how properties that are at low risk of natural hazards or that have put in controls to reduce natural hazards are not subsidising other properties. Let’s not have another expansion of Government power around this one.

Where mitigation fails, the country must focus on adaptation, and the policy implications of the cyclone recovery need to have action steps that actually really work. Sometimes the Government is the insurer of last resort, but there is a role for a market-based solution and it exists, and we should look immediately at EQC’s role now, given current levels.

When this bill was contemplated, the levy system was based around eventualities from the Christchurch earthquake, and this is a new scenario which redefines this bill even further. Let’s build defences and learn from other countries like the Netherlands, and use fast test cases, solutions. Dr Eric Crampton from the New Zealand Initiative puts it succinctly: “Currently, your EQC levy depends only on the value of your property. A million-dollar home perched on an unstable clifftop with beautiful views will pay the same EQC levy as a [multi-]million-dollar property in the safest part of the country. Work by Motu in 2018 showed that this aspect of our natural disaster insurance scheme works, on average, to the advantage of richer neighbourhoods rather than poorer ones [or poorer regions]. Letting premiums vary with riskiness would encourage building in safer places. It might also reassure private insurers who seem to have feared the political risks of such moves.”

We have to also be honest with ourselves and say that New Zealand is a country with many challenging features, making land free from risk difficult if not impossible to find, and that is the reality of the country that we live in. The Insurance Brokers Association have been discussing with this Government as part of the work being done on the national adaptation plan and flood insurgency plan. Early assessments of domestic and commercial properties, and prioritising settlements and progress payments are some of the ways that the insurance industry responds to reduce hardship and support clients to get back to normality.

Another lesson from Christchurch is that the Government might help to resolve uncertainty that would otherwise hinder recovery, and in the next couple of days and weeks, I would hope that that list emerges and a framework from Treasury comes out which shows how we can finance and fund this. The recovery and rebuild will be huge and Christchurch provides learnings we must not ignore or forget.

Following on from this bill, Prime Minister Hipkins must give local government a much more central role in the cyclone recovery and believe in localism and this Act. Leadership from those on the ground must now be made to matter. Linking EQC private insurers with an approach to riskiness will mitigate what is rebuilt—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member—I just would encourage him to have reference to the Standing Orders around a third reading. It is not permissible to introduce discussion on matters that are not contained in the bill. So I’m listening very carefully and the member has strayed a little bit too far about what he believes—could the member sit while I’m—

DAMIEN SMITH: Sorry—yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member has strayed a little too far out of what is, in nature, a summary of the bill. I have allowed context—plenty of context—around this reading, and that applies to all members. But in the member’s remaining nearly three minutes, can I invite him to stick to what is actually in this bill. Thank you.

DAMIEN SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point that I was raising was that when this proposal and law was brought to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it had four or five great elements to it, and that we commend this bill to the House. It’s just in the state of the last couple of weeks, things have changed, and I wanted to make the point that the EQC levy system may be not as appropriate as we originally contemplated it. So ACT does commend the bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I share the sentiment of the House today and this evening as we remember those in Te Tai Tokerau and Te Tai Rāwhiti, my whānau down in Hawke’s Bay, and, in fact, those in Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—that have been impacted by recent floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. But most of all, we see the response of our communities and local people, and their ability to unite in solidarity and to support each other and support our families and tamariki that are out there during very tough times.

This particular bill, the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill, takes into consideration the important lessons we’ve learnt over the last decade, and now is the time where we take a step back and reflect on where we are at as a country and how we are, in fact, responding to the challenges in front of us. When I think of the Christchurch earthquakes, it seems so long ago, yet to the people and communities that live there now, it probably just seems like yesterday—and those of us that are in the struggles of floods and cyclones currently are in the midst of those challenges, but it’s time to reflect.

But today is about moving forward. In the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill, Toka Tū Ake—to establish—the bill makes the rules for mixed- and multi-use buildings clearer. It clarifies regulations relating to repairing buildings and land following a landslip or other land damage. It simplifies the excesses and calculations for retaining walls, bridges, and culverts. But what’s important, as our Prime Minister said today, is that it’s time to crack on, and as we reflect on our current times, we reflect on incidents that happened a number of years ago and pieces of legislation that will push us forward to achieve a better future. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Andrew Bayly—a five-minute call.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be speaking on this Natural Hazards Insurance Bill, and first of all I just want to acknowledge the former Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission Dr David Clark sitting on the other side there, because, obviously, under his watch, this bill progressed through the House, and, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, he was very much involved in that process. I just want to acknowledge him because we did make some changes, and, in fact, the Minister and the other members of the committee agreed with National on one of the particular aspects about delaying the implementation of this bill.

So I think this is an example of a bill that shows bipartisan, or, actually, cross-party support in the House and a select committee that worked proactively to achieve a good outcome. Time has actually shown, even in the recent months since we finished talking about this bill in the select committee, that this was a good piece of legislation to put through, obviously, with the cyclone and the floods over anniversary weekend.

So, obviously, this increases the monetary threshold from $100,000 to $300,000, but the more important thing is—and this was the debate that we had at select committee—what should be a natural catastrophe? What should be the hazard that the cover should cover?

Under the old rules, the Earthquake Commission (EQC) arrangement for the $100,000 was just restricted to land damage to residential land from storms and floods, and it used some inane terminology. I’m just looking my notes here about how it described an earthquake—gee, I don’t know whether I can find this here. But it was just unbelievably overcomplicated terminology. So things like definition of a storm, an earthquake—all those sorts of things.

We actually tidied up the wording around that to make it much clearer, but this bill extends the cover to a loss or damage from earthquakes, volcanic eruptions—that was another one where we had to redefine it, because they obviously had some scientific guru, but I’d say another word, who came up with some description that no one would understand—landslips, hydrothermal activity, tsunami, and natural disasters. Widening that definition was very much part of it so that not only do you have a higher amount but you have a wider definition.

We also extended the time period for an earthquake from 48 hours to a week, so that was another important thing. The other bit, and this is something we discussed quite significantly during the select committee stage, which was the issue around—obviously, you’d want a house covered in terms of residential property, but often things like retaining walls aren’t and are subject to a lot of issues. So we picked up some of the other structures that are not directly part of the house but are related to the house, and that’s also covered.

So where we ended up: the big debate, as I said at the beginning, was around the implementation date. That got pushed out from 1 December 2023—so that’s in a few months’ time—to 1 July 2024. That really reflected what industry wanted, and there’s a practical dimension to that and why we did that.

The other big part of this bill is having a dispute resolution clause, because it’s vital that things get settled in an appropriate way. Obviously, we’ve seen what’s happened during the Christchurch earthquakes and, obviously, what we’re now about to observe with some of the claims that will be coming in. It is essential that there is a good dispute mechanism, and an independent dispute mechanism, in a clause that’s built into the bill.

The big thing, of course, is the extent of cover sitting inside the EQC—although it’s been renamed now. But the equity of the entity is only about $250 million. They have reinsurance, which is where they go offshore and get insurance, of, roughly, about $7 billion, but when you think about the scale of the natural disasters that have just happened recently and the quotes of $13 billion, it shows that we need money in the account. The EQC generates about $500 million a year, and we need to build those reserves up.

But it’s a good bill, and we worked well on it. I think it’s going to be a great outcome for New Zealand and New Zealanders, especially having regard to what’s happened recently.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It’s a privilege to rise and take a short call on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. As everyone has reflected all day today, we are in the middle of such difficult, dark days, and I’m so acutely aware that natural hazards are impacting so many more of us so much more frequently and severely. But somehow, in the middle of all of this, the mahi undertaken through the inquiry and by the Ministers and the select committee process, and the members and the officials, of course, have brought us some reassurance in the middle of all of this chaos.

We have learnt those very hard lessons from Christchurch, and we have applied them across and within this House. I’m grateful for that, as someone who has been spared the slips, the floods, and the earthquakes in recent years. I live on the side of a volcano, and I’m not being flippant. I feel I can sleep a little easier at night because of the work that was done, and I recommend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It can’t not be poignant tonight, on the anniversary of the Canterbury earthquakes and in the wake of the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. It’s such a reminder of how geologically young this country is and how prone we are to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes and, in fact, the movement of water across our landscape, and the slips and erosion and the damage to the land that occurs as a result of that.

I want to congratulate the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work that they’ve done. Evidently, they worked very well, with a lot of non-partisan cooperation, on this bill. I also acknowledge the previous and the new Minister stewarding this bill, and, of course, the officials.

It is, above all, a response to the pain and the trauma that was felt by the people of Canterbury in dealing with the Earthquake Commission and other insurance companies in the wake of the earthquakes. I think it’s a very good effort to improve, simplify, streamline, and provide some certainty and clarity in the newly named Toka Tū Ake – the Natural Hazards Commission.

I’m really conscious of my own constituents in West Auckland, having recently spent the last three weeks up close with the trauma that they have experienced from the floods—life-threatening events—seeing their homes, their biggest economic asset, wiped out by the floods, and then dealing with the often very challenging process of working with their insurance companies to get a result. The detailed changes that have been made in this bill are designed to make the process more timely, to introduce more clarity and certainty, and to make the organisation more responsive to the needs of their customers. It is really to be welcomed. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party as the member of Parliament for the North Shore to speak on the third reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. As the previous speaker acknowledged, tomorrow will be the anniversary of the second Christchurch earthquake, which happened at around 12.51 p.m., in which 185 New Zealanders and members of other communities in other aspects of the world lost their lives. So I think it is timely in the context that that event, in effect, formed the crystallisation of this bill, and the process which we’ve gone through is where we are at this point.

I also want to acknowledge the prior Minister for this bill, the Hon Dr David Clark, for his work in regards to shepherding this bill through the House. Along with my colleague Andrew Bayly and other members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we had a very productive and collegial process with, I think, all members in this House in order to do what we could to take on board feedback, and a significant amount of feedback, from both experts and industry specialists, and, actually, from individuals that were impacted by these natural disasters across the country—to take that feedback on board, identify opportunities to improve the bill, and actually follow that through, and I think that that is a good example of where our cross-party work can lead to improved legislation. So I acknowledge the Minister for that, and other members of the House that are here who sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

As has been noted, the context in which this sits in terms of the Earthquake Commission (EQC), which has been renamed, is that the view following the Christchurch earthquakes was that the implication of that did show us that the EQC was not prepared to be able to deal with the magnitude of the damage that was faced as a result of that disaster. The National-led Government initiated a legislative review which kicked off and undertook a review of the Earthquake Commission, and that inquiry came back with recommendations, of which this bill puts in place a number of elements there. I think that is appropriate due process in regards to weaknesses that were identified, and it stands us in good stead as we move forward.

The implications, I think, have been highlighted, particularly over the period of the last week. I was reflecting, actually, that even though day one—today—is the first day that we’re back in the House, it doesn’t feel like it’s sort of the first day of the year. I was trying to think, have we had summer yet? I don’t think it feels like we’ve had summer, but it’s been a long, long number of weeks for all New Zealanders. I think the implications of both the cyclone and the flooding and the storms make us feel like we’ve—I think all Kiwis feel like they’ve had a whole year of time, even though it’s only a couple of months into this year.

Ian McKelvie: Well, for us old jokers, another quarter of the year’s gone.

SIMON WATTS: That’s a very useful insight there from my good colleague Ian McKelvie. Depending on one’s perspective, it will define how long it has felt—very wise words there.

So back to the bill. In regards to the scope of coverage, my colleague Andrew Bayly articulated that well, and the fact is that this bill has increased that scope and modernised a number of features in regards to that. I recall the select committee process in terms of some of the conversations that we were having around the position of dwellings and other aspects, whether that was in scope or out of scope in regards to landslips, and other aspects like that. It is important to reinforce that the committee did get into such detail because getting into that degree of detail was essential in terms of making sure and testing that this legislation would be fit for purpose and appropriate to deal with what we have ahead of us from here.

The other aspect that is worth just reinforcing and touching on is in regards to the change in the monetary value. It is increasing from $100,000 up to $300,000, which I think recognises that the increase in the implications of costs in this current environment will be appropriate. Also, there were a number of other aspects that we have changed as well, just to iron out a number of the problems that were previously in the EQC model that needed some resolution in regards to that.

The other component that I just wanted to touch on—and it is relevant in regards to the bill—is the implications of what we’ve seen in my home electorate of the North Shore. Probably in the region of around 100 to 150 homes in the North Shore electorate have suffered quite significant damage from flooding in a very isolated zone. Some of those houses are uninhabitable. The houses are red-stickered and the individuals have moved out, and I think the complication of having that in an urban setting—I mean, granted, often we see flooding that is in rural and provincial New Zealand. But the scale of that impact in an urban setting—and I think I heard our colleague from Northcote, who was previously speaking on this bill. His electorate, like many others in Auckland, was implicated as well.

I think it just reinforced the need for us to have a broader scope in terms of how we look at the implications of natural disasters in making sure that the response and remediation provided by the EQC is appropriate for those circumstances, because while these events headline, and we use these ratios of sort of one in 50 or one in a hundred, or whatever the ratio, it doesn’t particularly matter when you are the family or the household that is implicated and is impacted by that natural hazard and are having to deal with the following clean-up and process. Having seen that experience in my home electorate reinforced the importance of making sure that we have the appropriate processes and controls wrapped around this to ensure that we do look after our people, our communities, and our neighbourhoods in times of need in making sure that that process is both efficient and effective but also—importantly, I think—timely, because the degree of anxiety and stress and pressure that many Kiwis are feeling right now across our country, but particularly when one is implicated in events such as what we have seen, is significant. So I think that having this improved legislation is going to be important.

So that’s pretty much all I wanted to cover on this. I’m looking forward to—

Hon Scott Simpson: No, give us more.

SIMON WATTS: —this being progressed through into law. Actually, the Hon Scott Simpson was just referring—and I do want to acknowledge you, the Hon Scott Simpson, for your work in the Coromandel. This was the work that you have been doing in an area that has been significantly implicated as a result of that—particularly as we watched it on the TV—in terms of your roading corridors being taken out and the inability to get food and other supplies up to quite isolated areas of your community, and I know that you have been working very hard to ensure that you are looking after your community. I must say that I know a number of people in your neck of the woods and I’ve had a number of positive comments of appreciation back for that, so thank you for what you do.

So I’m going to leave it at that. We commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It is indeed poignant that we are considering this bill on the eve of the Christchurch earthquakes and with what has happened recently around the weather events in New Zealand. When I first spoke on this bill, I acknowledged Dr Dominic Bell, who was the best man at my brother’s wedding, who, very sadly, passed away in the CTV Building in the Christchurch quakes. It is profound and sad that again this week, we are seeing people who have died in the wake of natural hazards, and our hearts go out to them.

What we heard in the select committee was around trauma, not only from the events but the trauma of going through a process where society was meant to come in and help, and help repair and rebuild, and yet, actually, it retraumatised and retriggered the trauma of that event. So what this bill has done and what we have sought to do as a select committee is make sure that doesn’t happen again. I feel really confident that we have achieved that through the gratefully received submissions from people who submitted, and also from the briefing given to us by Dame Silvia Cartwright, who led the inquiry into the Christchurch quakes.

So there are three changes, really, that this bill seeks to make to the current system around recovery and around the claims process, the clarity on the role of the Earthquake Commission, and also the durability and the flexibility of the system. It is particularly for claimants that I think we have made the most difference, and we hope that they will find in the future, as they go to use the legislation, that they will not be retraumatised in the way that they have been previously.

So I am really grateful to my colleague the Hon Dr David Clark, who shepherded this through the House. It’s fantastic having him on the committee, and I know that as we go forward, this legislation will be increasingly important as we see and deal with more of the events that we’ve had the last couple of months. I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) 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 JAMES SHAW: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 July 2023, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

I would like to preface my comments today to acknowledge all of those who have been affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and, of course, the earlier floods over Auckland anniversary weekend in Auckland and the north of the country. This is precisely why we need to keep working hard to get climate pollution under control.

In 2008, New Zealand established an emissions trading scheme (ETS) in order to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, and we were one of the first in the world to do so. I’d like to acknowledge the role that the Hon David Parker played in that as a member of the Clark Labour-led Government at the time. Carbon pricing is a simple idea—that is, to provide the incentives that businesses need to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Those that remove carbon from the atmosphere are rewarded, while those that continue to emit carbon dioxide face a financial penalty.

Now, for most of its history, the emissions trading scheme was rendered almost completely ineffective as a result of decisions by the Government of the time. Fixing it was one of my top priorities when I became the Minister for Climate Change in 2017, so that we can get to the point where clean, climate-friendly technologies are more cost-effective than those that for so long have locked us into a high-emissions pathway.

Since then, we’ve put in place the foundations for long-term, meaningful action on climate change, including the country’s first emissions reduction plan and emissions budgets, and the ETS has been turned into one of the most effective tools that we have to reduce emissions. However, there are still some aspects that are not operating as we would like them to, that are not fair and just, and that is what this bill proposes to fix. The improvements that we make today will help to futureproof the emissions trading scheme by ensuring that we more accurately cost carbon pollution.

This bill focuses on two key elements of the ETS for improvement. The first is the free allocation of units to industry, known as industrial allocation. The second is a revised penalty for small forestry participants who fail to pay units on time.

Now, when the ETS began, it was decided that some companies would receive up to 90 percent of their pollution credits for free. The purpose of this was to help protect these companies from more lightly regulated competitors outside of New Zealand. However, the baseline that was used to decide how many credits each company would receive is exactly the same today as it was 12 years ago. Over the last decade, major polluters have changed how they do business and are now receiving many more credits than they need. The Government at the time said that it would begin phasing down the free allocation of units from 2013, slowly driving up exposure to the cost of pollution. However, the subsequent Government intervened and this did not happen, meaning that we have been stuck with an out of date system that has directed large amounts of taxpayers’ money towards big polluters, whilst keeping emissions higher than they should be. Allowing this to continue would be incompatible with the climate targets that we have set, and so we are stepping in to fix it.

Our biggest polluters will receive only the pollution credits that they need, making sure that they play a major role in meeting our country’s targets. These changes will encourage innovation, industrial decarbonisation, and the proper functioning of our carbon market. Together with our plan to phase out free allocation over time, this will push bigger polluters to make a larger contribution to meeting our goal of building a net zero future.

Let’s start with the industrial allocation reforms. When the ETS was established, it was decided that some companies should be given free credits to help offset their greenhouse gas emissions. This is called industrial allocation, and it was set up to help to protect companies from unfair competition from businesses in other countries where there is no price on carbon pollution, which could lead to companies moving to other countries in what is known as carbon leakage. For some companies, this allocation of free credits was up to 90 percent of their entire obligation. However, the baseline used to decide how many credits each should receive is exactly the same now as it was at the very start of the emissions trading scheme, despite the fact that because of advances in technology and efficiency, many companies no longer need as many credits. As a result, many are, in fact, getting more than they need, offering them windfall gains and costing New Zealand $60 million a year.

At the time that the ETS was established, the Government said that the allocation of free credits to trade-exposed industrial emitters would start being phased out in 2013. As I mentioned, that did not happen, and we’ve been stuck with an out-of-date system that has seen large amounts of taxpayers’ money being directed to big climate polluters and keeping New Zealand’s emissions higher than they should have been.

Our biggest polluters should receive only the credits that they need, making sure that they play their part in meeting our climate targets. Changes to industrial allocation are long overdue, and making those changes now will help us to meet our carbon budgets and our international obligations to cut emissions. Our biggest emitters should receive only the credits that they need, making sure that they play their part in meeting the country’s climate targets. These changes will remove a major obstacle to innovation, to industrial decarbonisation and the proper functioning of our carbon market.

The bill proposes changes to three key areas of industrial allocation policy. First, updates to the rates of allocation for businesses in ineligible industries. These are known as allocative baselines and reflect the emissions cost per unit of production—for example, in the cement industry, an allocative baseline is the amount of emissions costs per tonne of cement produced. Many of these baselines are out of date, which is leading to over-allocation.

Built into this bill is the ability for baselines to be reviewed again. These reviews can happen every five years. All allocative baselines will need to be reviewed every 10 years to see if they need updating. These periodic reviews will balance the risk of additional cost to the Crown from over-allocation with providing businesses and investors with the certainty that they need to invest in the innovations, technologies, and new processes that will lead to emissions reductions.

Second, the bill proposes reassessing eligibility for current activities and a new approach to assessing the eligibility of new activities. This will make the process clearer. The qualification thresholds which make a part of the eligibility test will be updated to reflect the recent carbon price. We will update the eligibility criteria to make sure that we are getting the settings right for each industry. One industry might no longer need as much support, while another industry may need more. We will update the emissions intensity thresholds to account for the significant increase in the emissions price in the last two years. As the emissions price increases, so do costs to businesses, which increases the risk of emissions leakage. At the same time, we are aware that some industries may now have lower emissions.

Now, there is one element of this that I would like the select committee to pay particular attention to, which is that the proposed settings may increase eligibility for industrial allocation, while, for the most part, industrial allocation will decline. I did take the official advice on this, but I am keen to hear what the select committee has to say about it.

Third, the bill comprises technical improvements to industrial allocation policy. These are enabling technical updates to allocative baselines if emissions factors or other technical settings change, better access to data submitted for industrial allocation applications, and a new methodology for resetting the electricity allocation factor used in determining levels of free allocation. It is likely that we will need to update baselines and eligibility in the future as technological developments and economic changes occur. The earliest the changes to industrial allocation could take effect from is 2024, following extensive data collection and regulatory change as empowered by this bill.

The other major element that this bill addresses is the penalty that applies when small forestry participants fail to pay units on time. Small forestry participants are those with average yearly forestry liabilities of fewer than 25,000 units. On 1 January 2021, new penalties came in for ETS participants who fail to surrender units on time. Set at three times the price of carbon, there was concern that this could cause small forestry participants serious financial hardship, so the penalty for these small forestry participants was kept, for the time being, at the old rate, but this transitional arrangement will expire at the end of next year.

In summary, this bill proposes to make improvements to two aspects of the ETS, the industrial allocation settings and small forestry participants. It is time to set these reforms into play, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister has given a very fulsome and good outline of the two major changes that this piece of legislation seeks to achieve. Indeed, in listening to the Minister, I couldn’t help but think that they are exactly the kind of pragmatic, sensible, practical changes that a National Party Government would do if we were in the position to be able to do that. So I’m pleased to advise the Minister that we will be supporting this piece of legislation at first reading and we’re looking forward to the work that the select committee will do.

I’d like to thank the Minister for giving direction to the select committee in terms of questions that he wants answered. I think that’s a useful process and it helps create the dynamic that select committees are good at doing, and I’m sure that we’ll be able to do it. My only concern is that the select committee has got a wee bit of work on at the moment and the report-back date of 20 July—let’s see how we go on that. The committee is completely immersed at the moment in resource management reform legislation, and that’s likely to be the case for the next several months. But anyway, notwithstanding all that, let’s see how we go.

So, as the Minister said, this bill essentially focuses on two areas. One is the rules relating to the penalties that apply when small forestry participants of less than 25,000 units fail to surrender or repay those emissions trading scheme units. And as the Minister has said, in that respect the previous regulatory situation was that those penalties were a matter of strict liability and the potential for undue hardship to be inflicted upon those small forestry lots and the owners and operators of those small forestry lots was out of kilter with the misdeed or the wrong that had been achieved. The so-called three to one rule set a three times the price of carbon for each unpaid unit, and that was, as I said, an absolute strict liability penalty. Now, that may well be a good and proper arrangement for large commercial foresters, but for the smaller operators it would have potentially created a very heavy-handed approach to the penalty that was in place.

So we think that the decision that is being proposed in this piece of legislation, that the Environmental Protection Authority have an ability to waive that absolute liability to pay a penalty if the participants can prove a total absence of fault, then a revised penalty formula would be applied—we think, as I say, that that is a sensible, pragmatic, and prudent thing to do.

The Minister spent most of his time on the second leg of this piece of legislation, which relates to the industrial allocations that are given out to protect actually New Zealand jobs, New Zealand manufacturers, New Zealand businesses that are high emitters, and that is in order to essentially protect those businesses from a carbon leakage situation. So when we get to 2050 and we have achieved our net zero goals and ambitions, we will still need aluminium, for instance. We will still need glass. We will still need steel. We will still need to have fertiliser and we will still need to have a range of other products that are currently manufactured here in New Zealand. But if the industrial allocations were not provided, those businesses would then be very susceptible and very vulnerable to offshore businesses that would be able to compete on the basis of less strict rules than we have. And those businesses would then in New Zealand be very vulnerable. So the concept of the industrial allocations is, in our view, sound but, as the Minister has said, does need tweaking because since the passing of the original legislation back in 2002, the businesses that have been receiving the industrial allocations—many of them have actually really improved and changed the way that they do their business.

I had an opportunity to visit New Zealand Steel at Glenbrook not long before Christmas and to see the focus that they have there on lower carbon emitting production of steel in South Auckland is very laudable. Similarly, the aluminium smelter in Invercargill is also making progress about reducing their emissions footprint in the processes that they use to create and manufacture very high quality aluminium that is exported in the most part.

So those are businesses that, in our view, are worth protecting and ensuring that they are viable and that they are profitable and that they continue to employ large numbers of New Zealanders in an important sector. But because the allocations were set quite a number of years ago, some of those businesses now, because of their improved systems and manufacturing and way of doing business, actually don’t need as many allocated units as the Government is currently giving them. So this is a piece of legislation that refines that formula.

The Minister didn’t quite use the term “winners and losers”, but there will be ups and downs as some businesses’ allocations are reduced and some other businesses have their allocations increased. And again, on our side of the House, we think that is sensible, prudent, and practical and we think that that is something that is only reasonable and sensible to do. So at select committee we’ll be looking forward to hearing submissions from stakeholders, businesses, interested parties, and I’m sure that there will be some who will come and say, “Well, look, we think this is going to have this kind of impact on our business.” And there will be others who say, “Well, we think our business will have that kind of impact.” and they will want to tell us about changes and improvements they’ve made to their business. And they will also want to highlight the underlying foundational principle that is the reason for providing industrial allocations in the first place.

I think that’s going to be a useful commentary. It will be useful exercise and the committee I know will turn its attention to the questions that have been posed by the Minister. And I’m sure that in our report back, whenever that may be, we will be able to provide, hopefully, some clarity, some answers, and some insights into the questions that he has posed for the committee.

So on that note, I’m happy to reconfirm that the National Opposition will support this legislation at first reading. We’re looking forward to the select committee process and to hearing from submitters and, indeed, to providing, hopefully, some guidance and answers to the Minister in due course. So thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We know that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is complicated but also a very important part of New Zealand’s decarbonisation. I join with the previous two speakers in commending this bill to the House. It’s going to change those industrial allocation settings that relate to the free New Zealand units (NZUs), and the whole system there is to address the carbon leakage. We think that there’s about $60 million a year worth of NZUs going that don’t need to be, that that’s a cost to the New Zealand Government. This bill will fix that and make the ETS more accurate. I commend it to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the House for the first time of the House sitting in 2023, noting that the country’s been through a lot in the last month or two. All of our hearts go out to those families who have lost family members and good friends in the process of what’s happened in Auckland and the Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti up in Northland. There’s been a lot of struggles with weather over the beginning of 2023, and we can’t let that go unnoticed when we’re talking about a bill around the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and a bill around climate change.

About two weeks ago, I joined the Environment Committee, and I have to say it’s been a pleasure sitting there for the last two weeks. As the Hon Scott Simpson, my colleague, said before, we are spending a lot of time talking about the replacement bills for the Resource Management Act. I have to say that it’s timely, as is this bill, in terms of how we adjust and make changes and make way for how we’re going to get to our emissions reductions targets, which we’ve agreed to. But the one thing that we always question is just making sure that we’ve got the right path to get there, and, often, that’s where we in Parliament—we all look out into the future and we know where we want to go. The biggest debates we have are on the path to succeed and where we want to go.

And so, like has been mentioned before, I do thank Minister Shaw for being open to the select committee feedback, because when we talk about these industrial allocations, the concept, as has been mentioned before, is sound and it is to reduce carbon leakage. And we know that as time goes by, businesses do various things to their business that either makes their liability more or less, and we can’t afford to have taxpayers paying out for businesses who have improved. Congratulations to those businesses who have done things and managed to improve. But I think one of the things we’ll need to be looking at, as we go through the select committee process, is exactly some of the things that were mentioned before: that in this country we have a number of businesses that are processing much-needed products for our future, and we need to be careful that while we are readjusting this, we make the new numbers fair and equitable for what we’re actually seeing today and over the next few years. Because it absolutely is out of date and it’s time that we did have an update.

I am pleased that we are supporting this bill, because the small forestry owners—you know, there is a break for those on the “3 to 1” rule that currently sits in place, and it sits there around undue hardship. Just of late, we’ve had a lot of conversations about forestry and a lot about, you know, what forestry needs or we require forestry to be doing in the current environment, particularly with the heavy rainfall and the issues of slash. So when we look at the small forestry owners who have harvested and who actually make an opportunity to do the right thing and clean up, if they’ve got some undue hardship in terms of paying that money back, then this bill is actually very good at just giving the opportunity for us to get some submissions at select committee. But I’m sure this is something that’s going to be really, really well supported.

And shouldn’t we in New Zealand be encouraging small forestry owners? We’re always encouraging people to diversify, and I think it’s really important that we make sure that our own people have an opportunity to participate. We should be encouraging them to do so and to do the right thing. So we don’t want people to be feeling like they have undue hardship and have to pay a whole lot of money back because, you know, they’re in that range. So I think this is a really good thing to do. And at that point, I want to just say that we look forward to the submissions coming in to select committee. I’m really pleased that the Minister’s open to select committee feedback. When we’re in Parliament and we go into select committee, a Minister with an open mind is a good asset to have, in terms of someone who is open to how the feedback comes back.

While we think the bill is in the right direction, the devil is often in some of the detail, and while this is a good bill to take out there for submissions, there will be some tweaks and balances and changes that need to be made. So with that, I reiterate that National’s supporting this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to acknowledge Minister Shaw for bringing this bill to the House, for giving this House the opportunity to update its emissions scheme and make it fit for purpose as we attempt to tackle climate change as a nation. I think it’s also fitting to record that the National Party have asked some very valid questions leading up to first reading, the question being: is climate change real? What is the evidence for climate change? And I’m not trying to poke fun at anybody in particular, but in the select committee hearing, those are valid questions. And I would ask anybody who asks those questions to also ask the people of the Hawke’s Bay whether it’s real, ask Mr Apple whether it’s real, ask Turners & Growers in the vineyards, and also ask the families living in South Auckland who’ve lost houses, ask also the people of West Auckland whether climate change is real. And I think that will help us dispel with the doubts that may still reside in people who are representing our nation. So I think those are the questions valid in the first reading, and I commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I commence my short call, can I just acknowledge our people, first responders, who have been on the scene and especially in Māngere, South Auckland. We have had, since the Auckland floods, a community hub that has been open since 29 January, and it is still open after 3½ weeks. So I want to acknowledge specifically councillor Alf Filipaina, chair Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich, and Harriet Pauga, and the hundreds of volunteers that have come through and the contributions and donations from all across the motu.

Back to the bill: this is the first reading, Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. The amendment bill is timely and urgent. The climate change response that we have seen in the recent weather events—the Government declared a climate emergency on 2 December 2020, and this work couldn’t come sooner because of the Auckland floods and aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle.

The Government understands, front of mind, the ambitious but urgent and coordinated response in its agenda, and even though complex and challenging, it is work to do. The Government’s priority is that just transition to a low-emissions climate-resilient future. On that note, the amendment bill will update the decade-old industrial allocation settings. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I’ve just obtained the latest research on industrial allocations from the Parliamentary Library, and it makes for very surprising reading. I’ll share some of this detail with the House.

Firstly, I just want to talk about the premise of the bill. Industrial allocations for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries—what does that mean to people who might be watching at home? What it means is that for businesses like Golden Bay Cement; New Zealand Steel; New Zealand Aluminium Smelter; in fact, orchards; glass manufacturers; hydrogen peroxide manufacturers; lactose manufacturers—that’s another word for “milky stuff—pulp manufacturers; fibre; forest products; methanol—New Zealand produces 3 percent of the world’s methanol—packaging and industrial paper; protein products—we’re talking meat products—wood panels—those are the things we make houses out of—tissue paper. Who knew that dozens of orchards and hothouse tomato growers depend on an allocation of emissions credits under the emissions-intensive trade-exposed category? These are all businesses that, through no fault of their own, either have inherited industrial processes or ways of working which mean that they produce carbon dioxide when they make stuff—stuff that we use to build and stuff that we eat.

So here’s the dilemma: some of these businesses—like, say, growing tomatoes in a hothouse—you might say, “Well, look, if they were to pay their fair share of their carbon price, maybe it would be too expensive by the time they’ve burnt some kind of fuel to put the carbon dioxide into the hothouse to make the tomatoes grow faster; maybe they should just grow tomatoes outside in the two or three months of the year where you can do that in New Zealand.” Well, that’s all very well. That might have worked when New Zealand’s population was 1, 2, or 3 million, but we’re 5 million, and most of us want to eat tomatoes all year round, and we’d prefer to buy New Zealand tomatoes rather than imported tomatoes, because we’re Kiwis and we like to support local businesses.

And then we think, “Well, what about concrete? What about the cement that goes into concrete?” It’s all very well to say, “Well, instead of burning coal to crack the limestone to make cement, we could burn some other material. We could burn waste timber. We could burn shredded tyres. We could burn something else.” Well, that’s all well and good. That’s what Golden Bay Cement are already doing. They’ve significantly reduced their emissions from the energy component of making cement. In fact, the cement and concrete industry will tell you that they’ve reduced their emissions by over 15 percent in the past 10 to 15 years.

But there’s one problem with making cement or steel or aluminium, in that it’s a chemical process that produces carbon dioxide, and currently there’s no replacement for that process—no economic replacement. Sure, there’s benchtop scale systems which would show you that you can make cement with hydrogen gas; well, that’s an incredibly expensive high-tech fuel that would no doubt be better used in other industrial applications, even fuelling vehicles, rather than burning in vast quantities to crack limestone to make cement.

It’s the same with steel. In New Zealand, New Zealand Steel at Glenbrook uses locally sourced iron sand, and coal from the Waikato, to make steel. Now, there is no other chemical process that we could call on in terms of getting enough heat or getting enough energy to turn iron sand, dry sand, into steel. It’s coal.

So here’s the problem to solve: do we apply the current emissions trading scheme price of about $70-odd a tonne to these emitters, which include tomato growers and the people like Oji Fibre, who take all of the cardboard and paper that your councils pick up in your recycling and they take it to big processing plants and they use natural gas to boil up all of this paper and turn it back into a recycled quality product. Do we hit them with the full emissions trading scheme price of 72 bucks a tonne? Or do we say, “Nah, look, we’re going to give them this free allocation.” If we don’t give them the free allocation—if you look at the explanatory notes in the bill—the advisers to the Minister are quite clear: these businesses will simply, instead of paying their full cost of emissions under the emissions trading scheme, relocate to another country.

And that’s what their business leaders have told me: “We don’t need to be in New Zealand.” Big Japanese and European companies, they don’t need to be in New Zealand making stuff. What they said to me is: “If you want this stuff, you can send us a purchase order and we’ll send it to you by ship and then we’ll send you the invoice—it will cost quite a lot more and it might take a bit longer to get to you. And, by the way, for a country of 5 million people, when the rest of our markets are 500 or 300 or a billion people, you might not be at the top of the list for deliveries.”

So here’s this wicked problem that this bill tries to solve with industrial allocation of, essentially, Government-funded credits. And that’s where we come down to the real problem. So Minister Shaw, in his crusade to save us from the climate emergency—I mean, let’s just reflect on that for a minute: Minister for climate for five years, who has failed to bring the climate adaptation bill to the House, the bill that would have, potentially, helped us resolve some of the issues around where we build and what climate resilience looks like, hasn’t done that. But what he has done is insisted that the carbon price needs to be much, much higher in a very short space of time in order to encourage businesses like these, which benefit from these allocations—that they reduce their emissions much, much faster.

Of course they have to do it much, much faster because he’s flown off to climate conferences in places like Glasgow and Sharm El-Sheikh—which I understand is a resort town; an unusual place to hold a climate conference—and made promises on behalf of New Zealanders, New Zealand businesses, and future New Zealanders who aren’t even born yet, that we would meet the most outrageous targets for carbon reduction that even his own officials—officials at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the Ministry for Primary Industries, Ministry for Environment, and Treasury said, “We don’t know how you’re going to meet them, Minister. We don’t think it’s a good idea to announce them.” But he announced them anyway.

Here’s the real problem. Over the past five years, the cost of providing these free allocations to industry has gone up enormously. At the same time that the carbon price has gone up from around $20 a tonne, the cost of these emission credits has gone from about $270 million in 2017 to over $2 billion of taxpayer funds budgeted in 2023—$2 billion. That’s the problem.

The Government’s approach, the Green Party’s approach, and every other party in this House’s approach to combating climate change is fundamentally flawed because it looks at New Zealand as if all of our emissions need to be controlled within New Zealand, in a bubble, even though it’s a global problem.

What the bill identifies very clearly is that if we put these companies’ carbon charges up, they’re simply going to leave, we’ll export the emissions to another country—they’ll still happen; it’ll just cost us a lot more to buy the same stuff.

So what would ACT do? Well, what we’ve said is that we should tie our emissions reduction targets—those are the targets that different Ministers of different Governments have gone to wonderful conferences in Paris and Sharm El-Sheikh and Glasgow and made these announcements and commitments on our behalf—to those of our top five trading partners and get actual reductions in emissions. But guess what! They’re not reducing their emissions, because their populations are growing and their energy demands are growing. So what are we going to do about it? Well, the ACT Party says, “Do you know what? We could also let New Zealand businesses offset their emissions offshore through certified schemes.” At the end of the day, we should, in fact, be focusing on mitigation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to stand here to make my first contribution in 2023, on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the four people that lost their lives in the Auckland floods, and of course now we’re at 11 people who have lost their lives during Cyclone Gabrielle—and I want to acknowledge everyone who has been affected, but particularly want to acknowledge those first responders and everyone who are volunteering to help. So just want to acknowledge that.

This bill updates 10-year-old industrial settings, so that’s what this bill does. So currently, those settings are costing the country $60 million a year. So the bill allows allocated baselines to be updated with new data, it allows the reassessment of eligibility of the current industries, and it makes four technical improvements to the industry allocation policy. I urge everyone to make a submission on this bill, as it is important; it is about our contribution to eliminating—or reducing—our carbon use, and I commend this bill, the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill, to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Sam Uffindell.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to start this call by acknowledging the disastrous impacts of the floods and of Cyclone Gabrielle that have impacted New Zealand over the past several weeks and the past week in particular. I want to echo the sentiments of the prior speaker, Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki, to extend my sympathies to the four people who lost their lives in the Auckland floods and also to the 11 people in the Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti regions who have also lost their lives, and I dearly hope that there are no further additions to that number as it stands.

We acknowledge that man-made climate change is very real, and we are now feeling the impacts of this, and it is very serious indeed. Through this amendment bill, there are two main adjustments. The first one seeks to adjust the penalties that apply to forestry growers when they were retiring old areas of forestry and not surrendering those emissions trading scheme credits or replanting the forestry. The “3 to 1” penalty regime that was previously in place was very punishing. And certainly I know that there would have been a lot of forestry owners out there who may have been converting to something else through the country, in places like Tokoroa and other places where they would have been severely impacted by that and also around Tai Rāwhiti. The regime in this amendment bill is much more sensible. It is far less punishing and it is more reflective of where we should be.

The second piece on this is to update the baseline in determining industrial allocation. And a couple of people have touched upon this, where industrial groups were over-allocated credits. This was based on a prior technical understanding, but as has been acknowledged, the technologies that have come in have reduced the emissions that these industrial bodies have been emitting, therefore meaning that they are receiving credits that they don’t necessarily need and that they have been able to profit from to the tune of some $60 million per annum. This is a direct cost to the Crown, and I definitely support the adjustments that have been made in this space.

This has been a very hard time for New Zealand, and it’s good to see most of this House coming together to take this matter very seriously. I also want to extend my thanks to the Government for taking on board the criticisms that the National Party put forward about the “3 to 1” allocation, the criticisms that also came through in the select committee process—taking those on board and making the necessary adjustments to the “3 to 1” scheme. It’s very good to see progress and bipartisanship taking place, and we will certainly need a lot more of it in the climate change space as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to take this split call on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. The Government declared a climate emergency on 2 December 2020, and this emergency demands a sufficiently ambitious, urgent, and coordinated response across Government to meet the scale and complexity of the challenge. In enabling a just transition to a low-emissions, climate-resilient future is a Government priority, and it’s bills like this that address the emerging challenges that come with climate change. It is for that reason that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my privilege to speak in the House today, the first for the sitting year, on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. My colleagues have spoken to this eloquently, but this is important to get right. We know that the emissions trading scheme is complicated, and this bill will change those industrial allocation settings to address carbon leakage and allow us to align with our climate change response targets. I commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It’s a little task to take a call on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. The reason I mention the name of the bill is because I’m going to now mention the name of another bill. The fact that this bill follows hot on the heels of the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill points out how damn complicated this whole situation that we’ve found ourselves in with respect to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is.

Hon Member: What bill are we talking about?

IAN McKELVIE: Exactly. As I listened to the Minister this afternoon, speaking in the debate in the House, you very quickly realise that when you lose half the room in this country, you’ve really lost the game. And the risk we’ve got with this whole ETS is that if we don’t simplify it and get it to a situation that people will understand it, we’ll lose the game on it. I don’t think I’ll be around when we do, but I’m sure history will be the judge of whether this is right or wrong and whether we’ve taken the right approach to this or the wrong approach to it.

Having said all that, I certainly support the premise of the ETS and, I suppose, the efforts that the Minister has made to get this thing in order so it actually works. I do have some questions for the select committee—much as the Minister did, actually—and I’ll put those to you in a minute. But I just want to very briefly refer to the issues that have affected New Zealand in the last couple of weeks. I suppose this bill’s very relevant to those issues as well. But I suppose when you think about it, the pressure and the intense, I guess, despondency that will set in particularly in the Hawke’s Bay, with respect to horticulture and some of our hill country, and in other parts of New Zealand, with respect to what’s happened in the last few weeks, will become very evident.

But I just want to remind those people affected by this that if you go back to 2004—ironically the very same date, actually: 14 February 2004—the whole of the lower North Island suffered from a very similar event. And if you looked around the lower North Island now, the response and the repairs that took place as a result of that event happened much quicker than you’d imagine. I guess the point I’m raising is that I think that there will be a lot of people under significant stress, particularly in the Hawke’s Bay / Gisborne area and obviously Northland and Auckland, but, actually, things come right and the Government of the day in 2004 made, and the Government of the day now is making, their very best effort to put those things right, and we as an Opposition will support that wherever we need to and hope that it does put things right. But things do come right, and I think that they need to be assured that it will all come right in the end. So while it might seem desperate at the moment—and it will be desperate for many of them—the situation will improve and improve quickly.

So this bill is part of our response to climate change, as I just said a moment ago, and the effect that it has won’t be known for many years to come. We won’t know whether we’re right or wrong with this, as I said earlier as well, but none the less we’ve got to try. Minister Shaw said that the carbon pricing is a simple idea. Well, it is a simple idea, but this bill and the previous bill I mentioned and many other pieces of legislation that have gone through this House prove how inordinately complicated it is. They also prove that there will be winners and losers in the course of this, and the Government itself has admitted in the introduction of this bill that it doesn’t know who the winners and losers are going to be or how much it’s going to amount to. So that’s the game we’re playing in this, and I’m not criticising it; that’s just how it is, but it does show the uncertainty and the potential for us to get this wrong. The Minister also was a little critical of previous Governments in hedging their bets on these pieces of legislation and, in fact, the ETS, and you can see why they did, because the uncertainty of it and the uncertainty it creates is massive.

I guess the issue that I want to raise and think that the select committee needs to consider carefully—and the Minister did talk about two of these points—is that our biggest emitters are, in fact, planting trees all over New Zealand: exotic plantations which will be there for ever whether we like it or not, in a bid to offset some of their emissions and then, in many cases, still passing the costs on to consumers.

So we’re not really winning, and I think the Minister’s point about the carbon price is very relevant to this, but can our economy stand a carbon price two or three times what it is now? I very much doubt it. And certainly the people that struggle to pay the bills now in New Zealand will not be able to handle those costs.

We recently had the privilege of going to South America and looking at many issues in South America. One of the biggest concerns they had was the cost of mitigation of climate change and the cost of pressure on our food supplies—the pressure that was going to put on their poverty levels and the people that live in poverty in those South American countries. And frankly, if we think we’ve got poverty here, you’d want to go and have a look over there. We’ve got nothing compared to the challenges they’ve got. We’ve also got an economy that can subsidise some of those costs. They haven’t got economies that can subsidise those costs, so it’s a massive challenge for the world.

The other issue that I think is interesting—and was raised by the Minister and by Scott Simpson in their speeches—is the potential for emissions leakage in New Zealand. In fact, the ACT speaker raised the same issue, and I think that’s something that the select committee has got to seriously consider as they go through this process, because whilst this bill might seem small and it will affect very few people or very few business entities in New Zealand, it does have a long-term effect of significance on many people in New Zealand. They don’t know it now, and that was my point earlier about, “When you don’t get half the people in the room understanding, you’ve lost the room.” Because if they don’t understand it, they won’t put up with it and eventually will have a reaction to our activities, which will be counterproductive to what we’re trying to achieve.

So I’m certainly joining the National Party in supporting this bill. I think it’ll be very interesting to see where the select committee gets to with some of these issues, because it is a challenging issue. And getting the balance right, as we set these penalties and charges, and the granting of allocations are going to be critical to the future. That’s my lot. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We support the bill.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to be the final speaker on this piece of legislation coming before the House today. As speakers have already indicated on the bill, this is part of the work that the Hon James Shaw has been doing to ensure that our emissions trading scheme is fit for purpose. This particular bill deals with two specific matters. The first is the penalties that are applicable to small forestry participants; those who don’t surrender or don’t pay for their units. And the second matter is around the pre-allocation of units—the wider discussion on that, of course, is around how we better align the carbon credit system to our targets and our net zero commitments.

The select committee, I’m sure, will work diligently to examine a couple of key matters around allocations, the baselines of course, the assessment of eligibility of new activities within industry, and some technical settings.

But just in final comment, I do want to join the other voices across the House in acknowledging the distress that’s been caused to our communities and our country with the recent weather events. There’s no doubt that this piece of legislation and the one we had previously before the House—the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill—go some way to addressing some of the key issues that we have around climate change, and the work that we need to do. I would hope that members across the House, in their discussions with their communities, are also talking about the wider issue of climate change: mitigation, adaptation, and other things that we need to do to ensure that we cut through a lot of the mis- and disinformation that is circulating about these issues at the moment, so that we can honour and acknowledge some of the terrible issues that have happened to our community in recent weeks. And with that final note, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to Environment Committee

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Climate Change: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 July 2023.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister of Internal Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment 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 BARBARA EDMONDS: I move, that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand plays a critical role in keeping communities and people safe across Aotearoa. As a nation, we have felt this deeply in the recent weeks with the devastating impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle. Faced with damage not experienced in a generation, firefighters across the country have worked tirelessly to rescue the lives and the livelihoods of thousands.

Two enormously brave individuals paid the ultimate price during this tragedy, giving their lives to support their beloved Muriwai community. Dave van Zwanenberg, a dedicated husband to Amy and father to Zara and George, volunteered with his brigade on top of being a trusted local veterinarian—a man remembered as caring for others calmly under pressure whatever the weather. Craig Stevens, devoted husband of Lucy and father to Kauri and Tai, remembered as fighting valiantly to the end and described as exceptional at everything. We thank their families for sharing their loved ones with all of New Zealand and we are indebted to them.

The role of Fire and Emergency has continued to evolve over the past two decades and includes more than just fighting fires. Career and volunteer firefighters protect our whānau and communities by responding to a range of emergencies such as motor vehicle accidents, medical emergencies, fires, and search and rescue calls. When these unfortunate events do occur, fire and emergency is there to ensure the safety of our people and limit damage to our property, environment, and whenua. Fire and Emergency also helps to prevent fires from starting in the first place. Through teaching fire safety to our tamariki from an early age and providing important information to all of us, our homes, businesses, and other public and private property are kept safer from damage.

Fire and Emergency relies on a levy on insurance policies for 97 percent of its funding. It is therefore critical that this levy works efficiently and effectively to ensure that Fire and Emergency can continue to deliver those essential services. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 (the FENZ Act) provides the framework for a new levy system. This system will come into effect once this bill has made important changes to the levy framework.

This bill is an outcome of the Government’s review of Fire and Emergency’s funding model in 2019. This legislation will make sure that the new Fire and Emergency levy is simple and efficient to implement, minimising disruption and compliance costs. The changes will help to avoid additional costs for the insurance sector, which would ultimately pass on to New Zealanders taking out insurance. Measures such as the one addressed in this bill are a further example of how we can address the cost of living. It remains the number one issue for New Zealanders and is the number one priority for this Government.

The changes made by this bill will mean that only property insured against the physical loss or damage from fire will pay the levy instead of property insured against any physical loss or damage. The levy will also be calculated on the sum insured and an insurance contract rather than the amount insured as currently used in the FENZ Act. These changes better align with insurance practice, avoiding the need for complex calculations or the risk of property being levied twice.

The bill changes the starting date of the new levy to 1 July 2026. This new commencement date will provide enough time for the insurance sector to implement the system and for remaining work to pass this bill and make associated regulations to be completed. It is another unfortunate impact of COVID-19 that has meant this work could not be completed as quickly as originally intended, making this change to the commencement date necessary.

A lot can change over the summer, as we’ve seen with a new Prime Minister, floods and cyclones, and a new Minister. So I acknowledge the work of the previous Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Jan Tinetti, who brought this bill to the House in the first place. I’d also like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for their consideration of the bill. I appreciate the time the committee’s taken to understand this bill and the views of submitters. I recommend that the House take note of the select committee’s report and adopt the amendments recommended by the committee. Several helpful amendments have been made to the bill to make its provisions easier to interpret. I’d like to acknowledge and thank those who submitted to the committee on the bill. Your suggestions have improved the bill. Submissions will also provide useful information to the Government as we progress regulations to make the new levy operational.

Most submissions were in support of the bill, noting that it would simplify the levy system, reduce its administrative burden, and make previously complicated provisions simpler. This avoids the need for significant system changes for the insurance industry and provides more certainty for levy payers.

In addition to these comments, there were other matters raised by submitters that I’d like to discuss further. Some stakeholders were concerned about the Government’s decision to continue with an insurance-based levy for funding Fire and Emergency. While there are drawbacks to an insurance-based model, alternative models also have significant issues. During the review of the Fire and Emergency funding model, we found that an insurance-based model is fundamentality fit for purpose, providing Fire and Emergency with the funding it needs, as well as being the least-costly system to administer. It remains best option to fund Fire and Emergency in the medium term.

However, the Government notes that stakeholders continue to have concerns with the levy model. That is why we have brought this legislation to the House. It addresses some of the stakeholders’ remaining concerns to ensure that the system we have works better for everyone. We worked closely with those affected by the changes to ensure that the amendments are pragmatic and achieve what is intended.

Other submitters to the select committee were concerned that the changes under the bill would be less equitable than the current approach in the FENZ Act. At the heart of this bill is a trade-off between simplicity and equity. While the levy model in the FENZ Act was well-intentioned, in practice it achieves a marginal equity gain at a significant cost. It is our view that the cost would outweigh the benefits, which is why we’re making those changes: to avoid excessive cost increases for New Zealanders taking out insurance.

Other submitters noted their desire for the levy they pay to reflect the risk profile of their property. This is something that can be considered further when Fire and Emergency undertakes public consultation on the levy soon. Consultation will focus on how Fire and Emergency costs could be allocated amongst different insurance payers. Consultation on levy rates will enable the public to have further input into this new funding model.

I’d also like to acknowledge the submitters from the forestry sector and museums and galleries who presented arguments for why they should be exempt from the levy. While these points cannot be addressed through this bill, this Government will consider them as we make decisions of which properties should be exempt from paying the levy.

Before concluding, I’d like to, once again, extend my thanks to the select committee for their constructive consideration and to those who took the time to submit on the bill. This bill is an important step forward towards a fit for purpose funding model that will ensure Fire and Emergency New Zealand can provide those services so critical to our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As other speakers have noted, we bring to mind, as we begin this parliamentary year, all those New Zealanders who are struggling, suffering as a consequence of these very serious weather events that have hit over a number of weeks. And while I, like any member of the House, could talk a lot about that, I think it’s appropriate, as we stand on this bill, to first acknowledge Minister Edmonds’ words and to echo those as we remember Dave van Zwanenberg and Craig Stevens, two firefighters from a volunteer crew in Muriwai who lost their lives—doing something, we’re told from their families and friends, they loved, which we know is true of pretty much all firefighters in New Zealand. They do it out of passion and out of service for their family and community. But none of them—none of them—wish, of course, for this ultimate sacrifice to happen.

So when remembering them, their family, their friends, their colleagues, I think, too, their deaths are a very poignant reminder—certainly to me, and I’m pretty sure to everyone—of those who continue to serve. So we mourn Dave and Craig, but we are reminded of the service that all their colleagues make every day and the dangers which they face. And it behoves us not only to remember those who have died but to ensure we honour their legacy by doing all we can to support those who support us in the fire service.

Now, of course, those are grand words from a politician, and, you know, it’s a hard thing in this House at times to try and live up to that, and it’s going to be an immense challenge to us. But this bill tonight is just a small—and I really want to stress that, particularly to any of those in the fire service who are listening: this is just a very, very small part of what we can do. I’m very aware, as I’m sure the new Minister is, of a lot of the challenges which are put to us of what the fire service wants—and, I want to quickly signal to the Minister that I’m not here to debate that tonight. But this in a small way is that attempt: an attempt to make the system better, fairer, more equitable, stable, just whatever the right terms are. So, again, we honour and remember Dave and Craig and their service, and, of course, the fire crews, the first responders, and everybody else who’s continuing to work. Because this is the other legacy of what’s happened over recent weeks: it’s not over—won’t be over for a very long time.

Switching to something slightly more positive, can I acknowledge the new Minister. She has big shoes to fill. Jan Tinetti has done, I think, a very good job in her role as internal affairs Minister, guiding this piece of legislation to the place it is now. So to acknowledge the Hon Barbara Edmonds: I hope you’re still enjoying that honorific at the start! Yeah, to acknowledge her there.

National, of course, is continuing to support this bill. As the Minister well outlined, it’s an attempt to make the system a little bit clearer and fairer. I think it was back in about 2017 that this bill was introduced—sorry, not this bill; the law which we operate under, bringing about what’s now known as Fire and Emergency New Zealand. It came about and there was a provision in there that around 2023 there needed to be, in effect, a review and then an implementation of a new levy system. And in terms of the review, it was seen there were a few elements that weren’t working as well as they could. And so the initial element of the bill—and of course we’re at stage two, but the initial element of the bill was really looking at how we levy contracts. And, really importantly—and I don’t intend to go into great detail, partly because I’m not 100 percent up to speed and don’t want to mislead the House, because, as the Speaker knows, that is not a good thing to do.

But at the moment, in many ways, the levy is just charged across, if you will, the entirety of an insurance contract. This gets much more specific, to say it’s on the fire component. As I understand, through the Governance and Administration Committee there’s been some debate about marine-based fires: boats that are on fire on shore, close to shore, and so forth—I think really important to those in the maritime space. This piece of primary legislation is not going to directly address that issue. That issue of exemptions—and the Minister also talked about the likes of museums—is going to be part of ongoing regulatory discussions. So it probably gets a little, I don’t know, academic, but this primary legislation we’re looking at tonight does not feel it needs to be so specific in addressing the likes of fires in the marine space.

But, as I say, one of the first elements is the levy is on insurance policies, very specific into the fire space and not in general. The calculation of the levy based on the sum insured versus the amount insured—again, I will not bore the House. As someone who has been involved in the insurance industry, it is well known, the definitions between those terms, and, again, that’s providing some wider clarity. There’s some discussion around motor vehicles—that’s been part of it as well—and, as we say, around exemptions. Again, particularly to the museum space, if I was to put my arts, culture and heritage hat on, it’s not that I think the Government’s ignoring the need for an exemption there; it just does not want to, and I think rightly, specify this in an absolute particular piece of legislation. Exemptions can be dealt with, I think, rightly and appropriately through regulation.

The select committee worked very hard on it. I don’t think the Government and Admin—[Interruption] Sorry, a compliment came from the Government and it completely threw me—completely threw me. Heckling I’m fine with; a compliment, oh my God, no! No, the Governance and Administration Committee is possibly not seen as the most dynamic of all—

Hon Member: Oh, that’s an insult!

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, no, no, no; you’ve got to allow me to finish my sentence: of all the committees, people think the Finance and Expenditure Committee, for example, is really big, or Health, but, actually, Governance and Admin do an incredible amount of work, as this bill illustrates, so I think it’s one of the underrated committees—and thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to finish my thought.

They’ve done a great job with this; there were 19 submissions. Some people might feel that’s not too many but, actually, that’s some really key interested parties. Twelve people presented orally or verbally to the committee. Look, it would seem, reading through those, that there’s a general consensus that these changes are needed but, importantly, a much wider discussion on how we actually do the levies, and I am pleased to hear the Minister talk about the possible need for this in the medium term, I think she indicated.

I would echo that. I’ve only just taken over the internal affairs role, but I must say that I do have a number of questions already around using insurance policies to levy. But it’s all well and good to say that without, obviously, having the alternatives in place, but I believe New Zealand is one of the few countries that uses an insurance-based system for a service which everyone obtains. I mean that in two ways. First and foremost, those who do not insure their property will still have the fire service turn up to put the fire out, which is not wrong, but there are still questions there. The other, of course—and the Minister alluded to it right from the start—is that the fire service now does a lot more than simply putting out fires. I think of the amazing fire crew we have—or crews—in my electorate of St Heliers. A lot of their call-outs are not putting out fires; it’s paramedical events, it’s car accidents and so forth or, more recently, when I was visiting they had to go and rescue one of my constituents who had locked herself in the bathroom. But out they went, as you do. So there’s an array of activities they undertake which, if you will, are detached from fire and certainly from insurance policies. So I certainly encourage the Minister to look into that much more urgently.

But, as I say, we’re happy to see this report come back. We’re happy with the recommended changes; looking through them, they make sense and, as I commend this bill to the House, it’s once again to remember those two firefighters who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the service, obviously, of the country but I think, really importantly—which I think is the most poignant for me—for their family and friends in that community in Muriwai. May they rest in peace.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. And can I begin just by acknowledging our new Minister, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, and also the former Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti, who introduced this bill before we looked at it at select committee. As other members have done in the House tonight, I do want to begin by acknowledging the loss of two of our firefighters recently and the devastating impact of that on their families, their friends, and their colleagues. I want to place on record my acknowledgment of the loss of Dave van Zwanenberg and Craig Stevens.

On Saturday, I spoke to a friend of mine who is a volunteer firefighter. He and his wife, who is also a volunteer firefighter, joined up to serve following the Pigeon Valley fires in my region of Nelson-Tasman. They were preparing to travel to Hawke’s Bay on Sunday to spend a week assisting with the response. I want to place on record my thanks to our firefighters, both volunteer and career, for the sacrifices they make and the risks they face serving our communities across New Zealand.

It was a privilege to look at this bill—quite small and defined but useful and important. I want to just note, many New Zealanders may not be aware that Fire and Emergency New Zealand is funded primarily through levies, not through direct Government funding. And it’s important, I think, to note that point. The bill makes three main changes. The first is, as others have already mentioned tonight, that the levy will be charged on contracts of insurance for fire damage instead of contracts of insurance for material damage.

Now, most submitters were in support of this change and noted that it makes the process simpler, less complex, and easier to administer, which is an important component of the bill making sure that levies are easy to administer. We do note, however, that there were some concerns raised by Fire and Emergency New Zealand themselves, just given that the work that they cover does include other forms of damage, including floods and weather events. But the departmental report was very good at noting those concerns and, I guess, addressing that in the fact that levies are reviewed every three years, and actually there’s very minimal concern from the department around that particular part of the bill.

Others have also mentioned that there is a main change in terms of referencing the sum insured, and that was an area that the select committee did make some changes as well to the bill, just to add some more clarity to the language there which better aligns with insurance terminology. Others have mentioned the extension of the time frame, and I also just want to finish by acknowledging the museums and galleries who submitted. There were a number of submissions from museums and galleries, and we did ask for information and discovered that in the past, they have been levied for their collections. And we just want to make that clear: it’s about their collections, not their buildings—it’s about the collections. The view of the committee was that the best place for levy exemptions to be placed is actually in regulation, not in the legislation, and that allows the flexibility for the setting of levies themselves.

So it’s an excellent, small, defined bill. It was a pleasure to work on it through the select committee process. I thank everyone who submitted and I commend it to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will join with the Minister and other colleagues in acknowledging and thanking the brave men and women of Fire and Emergency New Zealand for the work that they do to keep Kiwis safe every single day. And no more pertinent a reflection than right now, as they are up and down the North Island, responding to the several major issues that persist in the wake of the floodings in Auckland and the cyclone that hit. That came at a very high cost for two brave volunteer firefighters in Muriwai, and we mourn their loss and thank them and their families for their service and sacrifice.

I also want to join in congratulating the Minister on her promotion in the latest reshuffle. Barbara Edmonds is someone for whom I have a very high regard, for reasons that are traversed. She is intelligent, hard-working, articulate, and I really hope one who will be able to take the department and Fire and Emergency New Zealand to a place where they’re not quite there.

An opportunity has been lost within this bill. The Minister acknowledged the issues with the levy framework. Where she and I differ is the degree to which those issues are being addressed through this bill, because when the new framework was introduced in 2017 by the previous Government and under Minister Dunne, it was acknowledged that there were challenges with the way in which the fire service raised its revenue and the degree to which that matched the work that they did.

Five years down the track, we have kicked the can down the road, because we have not addressed those issues. We have made minor amendments to a levy framework and to a service that deserved a much greater level of reform. I think this is emblematic of a Government that talks big but does little. There was a real opportunity here to create a levy framework that reflected the work that Fire and Emergency New Zealand did, and it was lost. I talked about that at first reading. I sat on the Governance and Administration Committee and listened to the submissions, and it was very, very disappointing that that opportunity was not taken. Not only was it not taken, but the very small changes that we are making won’t come into effect for another four years. That’s nine years since Fire and Emergency New Zealand was put in place before the tinkering that we are doing will even take effect, and that is very disappointing.

It’s disappointing for a few reasons. Firstly, the revenue that is raised has gone from about $450 million to over $661 million, but if you ask any of the brave men and women of the New Zealand fire service whether they have seen the benefit of that increased revenue, the answer would be no. It’s no in most fire stations. It’s certainly no in respect of the appliances, engines, and other assets that they need to do their job. And it’s definitely no in respect of the remuneration that remains below the value that they provide to New Zealanders. So where did the money go? Goodness only knows. A significant increase in the money spent on the fire service, but nobody feels as though the service has improved in the way that it should. These people are working on this literally on the sniff of an oily rag.

If we look at the work that they do, the more than 85,000 incidents that are attended by Fire and Emergency New Zealand every year, a big chunk of that work is not related to the framework where the levy is collected. The biggest example of that is in the 1,400 medical emergencies that they attend, for which there was an opportunity to amend the levy framework to make sure that there was a source of revenue so that Fire and Emergency New Zealand could discharge those obligations, and that opportunity wasn’t taken.

Now, that’s relevant because the levies fall, in the view of the owners of both residential and non-residential properties, in a disproportionate manner. They believe that they’re paying more than they should, and that’s a valid argument—particularly when those 14,500 callouts don’t have any revenue attached to them. So what that does is they engage in behaviours that reduce their liability to pay the revenue—within the framework, I’m sure, but insurance consultants and the property owners themselves do whatever they can to reduce the burden on them that is disproportionate to the risk.

Was that opportunity taken to provide a remedy? No. Five years down the track and we had no answers to those fundamental questions about how to provide a levy framework for the 14,500 medical emergencies and the 14,000—according to the annual report of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—other incidents, whatever they might be, that don’t involve fire or false alarms. That is a huge opportunity lost.

The Minister says that COVID had an impact. Well, we’re in a nine-year hiatus between the establishment of the framework and the changes to the levy, and one cannot—cannot—sheet that unacceptable delay at the feet of COVID. I put it at the feet of a Government that talks big but cannot deliver.

The impact of that is an unhappy fire service with appliances dating back to the 1980s which do not do the job. We had a situation last year—I’m not sure if it persists—where there wasn’t a single ladder appliance for high-rise buildings in a workable condition south of Hamilton. That’s a disgrace. It’s certainly a disgrace when one thinks of the nearly $200 million more that Fire and Emergency is spending but can’t account for, certainly in respect of assets.

Now, Ms Boyack talked about museums and galleries. That was a significant issue, but it wasn’t one that this bill will address; in fact, it makes it worse. The exemption that’s provided, and was provided in the 2017 legislation on the expectation that in answer to the question of how to levy museums and galleries and the several hundred million dollars’ worth of artworks and other historic artefacts—has not been addressed. The can’s been kicked down the road yet again.

So, when supporting this bill, the National Party does so with a great deal of disappointment at an opportunity lost. We have a number of levy frameworks in public policy that are quite complicated—probably the most obvious one is ACC where they collect billions of dollars a year and they are easily able to attribute the risk and levy accordingly. Why can’t we do that with Fire and Emergency? The answer is: there is no good reason why we can’t.

We’ve got a situation here where Fire and Emergency New Zealand themselves don’t support this bill. They don’t support the changes that are being made to the manner in which the assessment of the levy is being made. It’s a slightly ridiculous situation when you think that they’re the apparent beneficiaries of it.

So we do support this bill, but we do place on record our disappointment at a huge opportunity lost and one that will only be remedied by a Government that supports Fire and Emergency in a way that will enable them to collect the revenue according to the work that they do and then spend it on them, not bureaucrats, but the front line—and that will come in October.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great privilege to be speaking on the second reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. I want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their work on this bill. The committee has unanimously recommended that the amendments be made to this bill and for it to be passed.

I want to take this opportunity, also, to acknowledge the amazing work of our Fire and Emergency staff, for what they’re doing right now in our communities affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and the bravery displayed by our firefighters, both professional and voluntary. Many have had to leave their loved ones at home in order to serve their community.

This bill modifies the insurance-based levy system that supports Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). These levies represent 97 percent of FENZ funding. Making sure their levy system was simple and efficient is necessary for the good operation of FENZ services. This bill does that by establishing a methodology for levy collection. It defines the types of insurance contracts that must pay the levy, who is responsible for paying the levy, and the value of the property to be used as the basis for calculating the levy. The levy will be charged on contracts of insurance fire damage and calculated based on the sum insured and contracts for the damage. It also clarifies the levy on motor vehicle insurance. This bill makes sure that the levy collection will be simple and efficient. It is for that reason, Madam Speaker, that I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is my first time rising in the House in 2023 and it’s been quite the year so far. I also want to place on record my aroha for our whānau up on the Tai Rāwhiti, Gizzy—right up the coast—Te Matau-a-Māui, Heretaunga right across the Hawke’s Bay there, and Napier, just the impact on their communities, the impact on our whānau. For me, seeing those images of people stranded on their roofs, Recognised Seasonal Employer workers stranded on their roofs helpless, will be etched in my memory. The floods were so immense that they touched on my community where I live in the rural Manawatū. When I was heading home after we adjourned last week, the road was closed because of floods. Across the river from where I live, bridges were taken out and one of our marae got flooded out as well, but I just knew that the impacts for our whānau right up there across Te Matau-a-Māui and Tai Rāwhiti were just immense.

So e mihi ana ki a koutou katoa te Tai Rāwhiti, otirā Te Matau-a-Māui i tēnei wā. [So I acknowledge you all on the East Coast and in Hawke’s Bay.] I want to acknowledge their community resilience. I want to acknowledge the spirit of mutual aid that when people are toughing it out, our communities pull together. Whānau pull together, we pull together, neighbours connect, and I also want to acknowledge our first responders, the incredible work that they do—the incredible work that they do. When we find ourselves in urgent and emergency situations, our first responders are the people that are there to help us out.

And I want to acknowledge our firefighters, in particular the connection right across the firefighter community. I recall last year when I went out on the strikes—all of our Green MPs went out to tautoko the firefighters and just to learn about the mahi that they were doing and the connections between professional firefighters and our volunteer firefighter force and how they worked together, how they were a community driven to do all those things that keep us safe, but also to acknowledge that the gear that they were working with was substandard. Some of it was so old and falling to pieces—the struggles with pay and conditions and all of those issues that were traversed last year as well. These are the people that are actually at the forefront of helping us across the Tai Rāwhiti and Te Matau-a-Māui.

I also want to extend my aroha to the whānaus of Craig Stevens and his colleague Dave van Zwanenberg up there in Muriwai as well. E mihi ana ki a koutou katoa.

From the time that the first reading happened to the time that the departmental report was written till now, we have had significant weather events. Things have changed. Things have changed dramatically. We supported this bill to select committee, but we had concerns about whether the impact for potential overall funding for Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) as a result of this bill—and I get that there are different situations, which means we need to be specific about fire as opposed to material damage. But in the context of our times, we’re talking about scale here as well. These are not just small isolated floods that you can then claim insurance on. These are national emergency events. These are massive events. And I think it’s important that the Government actually take a pause on this and actually really think about whether this fits in with the overall framework with the weather events that we know are coming down the track.

I find myself agreeing with some of the statements that were made by the previous speaker around tinkering with the levy system. Given that we know what the firefighters were telling us last year and the situation that we have with the massive weather events that we have here now, we do support that call for an independent review of FENZ as well, building on the stuff from the Belinda Clark report, of course, but then actually taking a step back to actually really take a look at it, because we have to ask ourselves whether the tinkering is actually going to be able to do it, particularly if we have more of these events coming down the track.

And I do acknowledge, and I agree with the work of the select committee when they did this work—and the goal of the legislation, which is to reduce the administrative burden: that’s fine, that’s something that’s good. If you’re going to do something, do it efficiently, right? If you’re going to do something, make sure that you do it properly and in a way that actually reduces burden of cost. That’s fine; we agree with that.

But holding multiple material damage insurances on property could possibly result in multiple levies—I get that—and the cost of redesign insurance assistance to avoid this is estimated at $50 million, which would be likely passed on to policy holders via higher premiums—I get that as well, but we’re looking at the scale of cost, what’s happening up there on the coast and the tens of billions and billions of dollars. And so we have to look at that actual cost in the wider context of the larger cost. Although most properties insured against flood damage are also insured against fire, it could be argued that this could mitigate this somewhat, but as I was saying earlier, that scale is nothing that we’ve ever seen before.

And I also want to highlight some of the concerns that FENZ themselves brought up as well, in a nutshell. FENZ noted that the levy payable on contracts of insurance for fire removes the opportunity to broaden the base of levy payers and does not reflect the principles of “universal” and “equitable” that are described in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act.

In their submission, they also say that the Fire and Emergency preference is to have the levy payable on contracts of material damage for the following reasons—and I’ll just read those out—“Fire and Emergency has a broader mandate than the former fire service, with a mandate to provide response services for many non-fire events … maritime incidents, rescues, transport accidents, severe weather-related events, natural hazard events and disasters … material damage aligns closer with the principles of universal and equitable, where costs are shared across a broader group of policyholders who have the potential to benefit from the wider emergency response services that they provide.”

So for me, I agree with the criticisms that were made of FENZ in terms of the way that funding could and should have been allocated. But we also have to think about it in the context of the work that they have to do right now; but also the potential work that they have to do in the future.

So the Greens will not be supporting this at this stage and we would ask that the Government, I think, take a pause. There is some time between a second reading and third reading to actually think about what this means in the wider context of the floods and future climate-related or -impacted events, and then that should give us a clearer picture of how we should be approaching this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. I wish to first give a heartfelt thanks to our Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) staff, particularly our firefighters, who have played a key role in responding to the recent flooding and Cyclone Gabrielle. I also join in with the rest of this House in extending our sympathies to the families, friends, and colleagues of the two volunteer firefighters who tragically lost their lives, Craig Stevens and Dave van Zwanenberg. Our country owes them a great debt.

When the levy settings contained in this bill eventually do come into force, it will have been seven years since the review of the funding model. The justification for the two-year delay—the two-year sort of extension—going back to the Minister’s statement in the first reading, is “an unfortunate but necessary side effect of the disruption that COVID-19 has caused”. It’s not the most thorough explanation, but none the less here we are.

The original levy settings were given a commencement of 2024 to ensure that they were fit for purpose, and this is one of those odd situations where the Government is now changing something that they haven’t even tried yet, but at least it has given stakeholders in the insurance sector time to reflect and give their thoughts. I do wonder, however, if this additional two years that the bill provides will simply result in further change before anything actually happens, but we’ll see.

For this bill to be the outcome of the review into the funding model for FENZ is underwhelming to say the least, especially in light of the nationwide protests in which firefighters expressed their dissatisfaction with not only pay but resourcing, working conditions, mental health services, training, and equipment. And obviously there has been some progress in terms of pay, but a lot of those issues are still very much real and outstanding.

It’s been well canvassed in this House that firefighters do a heck of a lot more than just fighting fires. They are called to a wide variety of situations, most of which are incredibly stressful—for example, family harm and domestic incidents, suicides, and so on—and certainly our greatest respect to them for dealing with all of that. The recent civil defence emergencies have re-emphasised the need to ensure that our emergency services are well funded—adequately funded and resourced—so that they can respond quickly using every tool available.

The specific amendments in this bill are by and large technical and reasonable, therefore we will support it at second reading. But as I said before, in the broader context of the fire and emergency services framework, this legislation is underwhelming.

I acknowledge the select committee for tidying up a few things with this bill, including a sensible change for marine insurance and the calculation of the sum insured and all of those other technical details. Other clarifications, for instance, around specifying fire-related damage as opposed to damage caused by other things is a fairer approach, and the amendments appear to strike a better balance in the levy settings to reduce free-riding, while at the same time seeking to ensure that those who are already paying levies are not being overburdened.

On the whole, however, as I’ve said, this bill does little to address the issues at FENZ, and does not bring with it any provisions for better fiscal oversight and accountability. The levy generates a significant pot for FENZ, but with all the issues raised in break rooms and fire stations around the country, one has to ask what they’re actually doing with it. There are some who believe that an entirely new model for funding for our fire and emergency services could be a step in the right direction if done properly, but as it stands I acknowledge that this will likely be a discussion for a future Parliament, given no such work has been done. This bill is a lost opportunity; nevertheless, I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on James Strange—Jamie Strange.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m often called James, and Jim as well. I don’t mind at all. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, and I am certainly delighted to follow the ACT Party member who has offered the ACT Party’s support for this bill. As I understand it, it looks like we have support from all the parties in this House, which is really great to see tonight as peace and harmony has broken out in the last few minutes of a Tuesday evening.

I’d like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, for her work on this bill and also the Hon Jan Tinetti, a very good friend of mine, for her work on this bill previously. The select committee, the Governance and Administration Committee, of which I am a member, ran the submission process. We had a number of submitters with very useful submissions, and we have made some changes to the bill based on those submissions. And those changes are practical, and they appear to be well received across the House.

I’d like to thank those people who regularly do submit on bills in Parliament. It is a very important part of our democracy, and as I travel around the country talking to people, I always encourage people to make submissions on bills, because it genuinely does make a difference. Sometimes people say, “Well, look, there’s no point in making a submission; the Government’s made up their mind.”, or if it’s a member’s bill, “They’ve put it through; they’ve made their mind up.” Well, that’s not the case. The parliamentary process works in such a way that we have select committees where we hear from members of the public, and that’s their chance to make submissions and for us to consider them, and that’s what’s happened on this bill. We have a collegial committee, which is an enjoyable committee, and it was good to work on this bill. I’d like to thank the staff who supported the submitters through that work.

The bill makes important changes to improve the insurance-based levy framework in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) Act. The changes to the levy framework will ensure the collection of the FENZ levy is simple and easy to administer, and that’s important. Often in our society, we can tend towards becoming too complex at times. It’s important that we continue to check ourselves and go, “Well, have we got the balance right?” in terms of having the correct processes in place but also making sure that the systems we have are workable And it’s important for us as politicians and as officials to continually look at that. If you go back to what some would call the good old days, things were sort of fairly loose and people would do what they wanted to do, and these days we’re moving a little bit tighter for various reasons, but it is important that systems are workable. And I often hear that from the public, so I’m pleased to see that the Minister has focused on the aspect around ensuring the levy is simple and easy to administer. The best systems are always simple.

This bill will reduce extra costs and disruption to the system, which is important in terms of the efficiencies that we have in the system. The changes continue to adhere to the funding principles set out in section 80 of the FENZ Act. So, look, it’s a really good piece of legislation, and, again, it’s really nice to have the support of those across the House. I’ll just close by also echoing the statements that we’ve heard in the House: our genuine thanks as members of Parliament for all of the work that the Fire and Emergency staff do across New Zealand—selfless work; they give freely of themselves to serve all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.