Tuesday, 7 March 2023

TUESDAY, 7 MARCH 2023

TUESDAY, 7 MARCH 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): 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.]

Obituaries

Paul East CNZM, KC

Chester Borrows QSO

Georgina Beyer MNZM

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 27 February 2023 of the Rt Hon Paul East CNZM, KC, who was a National Party member representing the Rotorua electorate from 1978 to 1996 and continued to serve as a list member until 1999. During his membership of this House, he was Attorney-General, Leader of the House, Minister of Defence, and Minister of State Services.

I also regret to inform the House of the death on 27 February 2023 of the Hon Chester Borrows QSO, who represented the Whanganui electorate for the National Party from 2005 to 2017. During his membership of this House, he chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee, and was Minister for Courts, Associate Minister of Justice, and Associate Minister for Social Development. He was the Deputy Speaker of the House from 2014 to 2017.

I further regret to inform the House of the death on 6 March 2023 of Georgina Beyer MNZM, who represented the Wairarapa electorate for the Labour Party from 1999 to 2005 and continued to serve as a list member until 2007. She was New Zealand’s first openly transgender member of Parliament. During her membership of this House, she chaired the Social Services Committee and was a member of a number of other select committees, particularly the Local Government and Environment Committee and the Law and Order Committee.

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

Members stood as a mark of respect.

SPEAKER: Nō reira, tēnā koutou, kua whakaaetia e au kia tuku atu te reo he waiata.

[And so, greetings to you all, I give permission for a song.]

Waiata

Bills

Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

Discharge

SPEAKER: I wish to inform the House that I have received notification from the Rotorua District Council, the promoter of the bill, withdrawing the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill under Standing Order 279. The bill is therefore discharged from further consideration by the House.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Seann Paurini requesting that the House create an Ombudsman empowered to oversee any iwi or corporation activity

petition of Kate Day requesting that the House make public transport permanently half price for everyone

petition of Debbie Port requesting that the House urge the Government to regulate standard user tariffs.

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

CLERK:

Annual reports for the Health Quality and Safety Commission New Zealand and Whakaata Māori, Māori Television Service

Government response to the report of the Education and Workforce Committee, Briefing on the report of undocumented Tuvaluans in Auckland

Framework Agreement on the establishment of the International Solar Alliance, together with National Interest Analysis.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2021-22 annual reviews of New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Ltd, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2023 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2022, and the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2)

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2021-22 annual reviews of the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force

report of the Justice Committee on the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of the Breast Cancer Foundation New Zealand, petition of Catherine Bindon, petition of Natalie Horspool, petition of Sarah Rowland, and the petition of Victor Wellington

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading, the Budget Policy Statement is set down for consideration, and the report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 5 to Minister, 22 February

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question that I gave on Wednesday, 22 February, in answer to question No. 5.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In one of my answers to a supplementary question from David Seymour, in response to the question concerned I said that Government tax revenue as a proportion of GDP had declined under this Government. It hasn’t.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Most of them! Yes—except for the ones that I’ve corrected.

Christopher Luxon: Is it still Government policy to “reduce the reliance on expensive consultants and contractors, saving taxpayers many millions of dollars a year.”, as he promised in 2018?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It remains the Government’s position that the Public Service should be sparing in its use of consultants and contractors. Where there is a justified case for using them, then the Public Service should do that, but I do still continue to believe that there is too much use of consultants and contractors to do work that the core Public Service could do.

Christopher Luxon: Given that answer, when should taxpayers expect to see the “many millions of dollars” in savings, given consultants spend has ballooned to $1.7 billion on his watch?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d encourage the member to have a look at more detail about the nature of that increase. Much of that was one-off and justified in the circumstances. Around a third of that expenditure, for example, is related to IT expenditure which, as the member will know, is a consultant-led industry. A significant proportion of it related to COVID19 - related expenses such as the roll-out of the vaccines, which the member and his party argued we didn’t do fast enough.

Christopher Luxon: When he told media this morning he had sent Government departments a memo on consultant spending “many times over the last five years”, did he ever stop and ask himself why his memos were being so blatantly ignored?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know that one of the reasons that we’ve seen an increase in recent years was to do with the issues that I have just raised and it was justified in the sense that we have had to replace a number of IT legacy systems—that is a consultant-led industry. Another area of significant growth has been in building and construction where we are doing more capital works than the previous Government did, and I absolutely stand by that track record.

Christopher Luxon: Did Michael Wood get the memo when he spent $51 million on consultants for a cancelled bike bridge and $53 million on consultants for a non-existent light rail?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s clear that not everybody got the memo. For example, I’m aware that the chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council spent money employing consultants to write the one substantive report the council managed to come up with.

Christopher Luxon: Did Andrew Little get the memo when, according to Rob Campbell, he had over 200 comms staff but still had to call in expensive PR consultants to sell Government policy?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Health reforms are the biggest set of reforms to the health system in a generation. It is important that we’ve got the right people doing the right work.

Christopher Luxon: Did Chris Hipkins get the memo when he spent $21 million on consultants for the failed polytech reforms?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t regard the polytech reforms as failed, and, in fact, one of the reasons the Opposition might regard them as failed is that we have record numbers of New Zealanders in apprenticeships, which is something that they failed to do; in fact, the number of people in apprenticeships under National went down.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the truth that the Government has hired an extra 14,000 public servants while in office, whose main job appears to be hiring, recruiting, managing, and paying for consultants?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member wants to refer to increased social workers who deal with some our most vulnerable children in that way; if he wants to refer to the extra work people working in Corrections do to ensure that we are doing a better job of rehabilitating prisoners; if he wants to talk about the people who work on the front line at the Ministry of Social Development getting people off benefits and into work in that way, then he could do that. If he wants to talk about the speech and language therapists that work directly with kids to improve their educational outcomes in that way, then of course he can continue to do that.

Question No. 2—Cyclone Recovery

2. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: What actions has the Government undertaken to support the recovery from recent extreme weather events?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Cyclone Recovery): The Government is continuing to take action quickly to provide certainty and assurance for those communities and regions affected by the devastating impact of the cyclone and of flooding. More than $400 million of additional support has been committed so far. Yesterday, we added $26 million to the fund that is successfully helping farmers and growers with post-cyclone clean-up, taking total primary sector support, to date, to $55 million. The full cost of the impact of the recent weather events is still to be determined. We do know that it will be considerable and there will be further significant resources needed to support New Zealanders through the response, recovery, and rebuild phases. The Government is committed to working with local communities to get affected families, farmers, and businesses back on their feet, and their regions moving.

Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on support to assist the primary sector in response to the cyclone and flooding?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, the additional $26 million boost announced yesterday will help farmers and growers re-establish their businesses, particularly in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle. This is on top of the initial package of $25 million and the $4 million for rural community recovery funds that have been available. Some 3,128 applications have been received so far for grants and already more than $18.2 million has been paid out to farmers and growers.

Anna Lorck: How will the Government’s business support package assist small and medium sized businesses in response to the extreme weather events?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is an additional $25 million support package which we announced last week to help businesses meet immediate costs, further assist with the clean-up, and boost business support and advice services. The grants of up to $40,000 per businesses will be delivered by local delivery partners as they know the people on the ground and are best placed to do this. We acknowledge that further allocations to businesses may be needed after this initial funding. The delivery partners are currently receiving applications, and as at this morning that stood at 1,966 applications.

Anna Lorck: What other support is available to businesses to support the recovery?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Along with the grant schemes, funding has been provided to the Employers and Manufacturers Association to extend the reach of their employer helpline. We’ve also provided additional support for the Regional Business Partner Network to increase the amount of business advice that they can offer. And the First Steps programme has been opened up and expanded so that mental health support can be provided to those on the ground who need it. We know that there are also larger businesses who are facing costs that go beyond what this initial emergency funding can support. We’re working directly with them to understand their needs and how we can support them, and we will have more to say on how we will help them get back on their feet soon.

Anna Lorck: How well placed is New Zealand to deal with the consequences of extreme weather events?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is in a strong financial position to support our country through these challenging times. This, in part, is thanks to the careful and prudent management of our books by this Government. We know, however, that the Crown accounts will change significantly in the coming months and years as the impact of the cyclone and flooding becomes clearer and our approach may need to change in response to this. If further resources are required, we are in a good position to manage that. The economy has been resilient in a challenging global environment, with unemployment near record lows and our debt level sits at 18.9 percent of GDP, well below our debt ceiling and among the lowest in the OECD.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Seymour: Can he assure the House that his Government never discussed using fear to scare New Zealanders into complying with COVID19 restrictions, and, if so, would he be comfortable with a journalist having all the former COVID19 Minister’s internal communications, just like journalist Isabel Oakeshott has former British health secretary Matt Hancock’s?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think it’s an absolutely ridiculous question. It was never discussed in any of the ministerial meetings that I was part of, or in any of the conversations that I had around our COVID19 response.

David Seymour: Will he then ask the former COVID19 Minister to publicly release all of his texts, WhatsApp messages, emails, memos, and other internal communications about COVID-19 to ensure New Zealanders that they did not discuss using fear to get New Zealanders to comply with COVID19 restrictions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can assure the member that the former Minister for COVID19 response, like all Government Ministers, will comply with their obligations under the Official Information Act.

David Seymour: Does he agree with the statement in the transport general policy statement that “many New Zealanders will need to adjust their behaviours in a variety of ways.”, and, if so, can he say which New Zealanders need to adjust which behaviours?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is no question that we need to get serious about reducing our carbon emissions, and that is going to involve New Zealanders all thinking about how to reduce their own carbon emissions.

David Seymour: Was his transport Minister Michael Wood’s strongly promoting that general policy statement at 7 a.m. yesterday morning, then jamming it hard into reverse and backing down on the policy by 3 p.m., an example of a “New Zealander adjusting his behaviour in a variety of ways”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government has not, in fact, issued a Government policy statement on transport, nor has Cabinet, in fact, considered one at this stage?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member is absolutely correct.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by the Minister of Education’s statement to Morning Report in September that he would—she would—absolutely not make tests easier to help students pass them, or the new Minister of Education’s statement today, asking “Is testing the best way to find out what our young people know? I would actually argue that not for every young person that is the case … I know that that is not the best way to find out what our young people know.”—which statement does the Prime Minister stand by?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, I think the member is unduly simplifying both of the statements in question. There is no question that the former Minister of Education was absolutely committed to ensuring that we were raising standards when it came to issues around literacy and numeracy—a goal I know the current Minister of Education absolutely shares.

David Seymour: Does he agree with former education Minister Chris Hipkins, who said that the Government’s education policy was to “ensure our young people continue to have access to a world-class education,”; if so, does allowing students to use spellcheck because 66 percent of them failed a writing test fit with this Government’s aspirational vision of a world-class education?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member had listened to my previous answer rather than sticking to his script, he would know the answer to that question.

David Seymour: I don’t think the Prime Minister wants it. Which action does he most stand by: the Human Rights Commission’s campaign Give Nothing to Racism, or Creative New Zealand giving $107,000 to support somebody who says that they want to kill James Cook, his descendants, and “white men like him” with a pig-hunting knife because they too “might be thieves”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a message—that’s a question for Creative New Zealand, who make those decisions independently of Government.

David Seymour: Is he aware that the Government appointed the Creative New Zealand board, who decided to fund that production, and, if he is, why shouldn’t the Government appoint board members committed to giving nothing to racism, too?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am absolutely aware that the Government appointed that board, as all previous Governments did as well. It doesn’t mean that every Government endorses every decision that’s taken in the name of art.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “We have a responsibility as Government to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely”, and does he think all Government expenditure in the past five years has represented good value for money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do stand by that statement. In answer to the second part of the question, I’m proud, as Minister of Finance, to invest in the core public services that New Zealanders depend upon. This includes 10,000 new public housing places, 4,000 more nurses, 2,900 more teachers, while investing in schools and hospitals, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders in response to a once in a century event like COVID19. Our approach has also delivered, for New Zealand, record low unemployment, low public debt compared to countries that we normally compare ourselves with, and a larger economy than before COVID. The Government has also reprioritised and refocused spending as the circumstances require, ensuring we continue to be responsible managers of the Government’s finances. In particular, our decisive response to those affected by Cyclone Gabrielle has meant more than $400 million of funding has already been allocated to those most in need.

Nicola Willis: Did the Minister receive the memo the Prime Minister allegedly issued, urging constraint in public expenditure on consultants and contractors, and, if so, how much has been spent on consultants and contractors to help design the now shelved New Zealand income insurance scheme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of the question, if the member wants to put down a specific question like that, I can get it for her. I think the majority of the spending on the New Zealand income insurance scheme would have been funding to have the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and ACC do the work, but there may well have been some consultancy expenditure. In answer to the first part of the member’s question, as the Prime Minister has already indicated, those expectations are clear.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Minister of Finance not aware that the scheme he specifically urged be designed has so far cost New Zealand taxpayers $10.3 million worth of consultants and contractors; and how can that possibly represent good value for money when one of the first things the new Prime Minister did was to bin it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The work on the New Zealand income insurance scheme, in the words of the Prime Minister, is important to make sure that we fill a gap in our social security system. I get it that the member doesn’t care about people who get made redundant and doesn’t care about people who lose their jobs through health conditions and disability. We will continue to fill that gap, but, as the Prime Minister has indicated, in the current economic environment we have chosen to deprioritise it.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that his own agency, the Treasury, in 2022 spent $8.2 million on consultants and is forecasting that this year—2023—it will up that considerably, to $12 million?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has already been traversed in question time today, our expectation on Government agencies is that they use consultants when they need to and when they have to, and not when they don’t need to and they don’t have to. What I would also say to the member, though, is that it’s very easy for a Government not to spend money; that’s when it doesn’t do anything—that’s when it doesn’t address long-term issues like our water infrastructure; that’s when it doesn’t do the work to improve schools and hospitals; that’s when it doesn’t do the work to look after our transport networks. So, by all means, if the member wants to say that the National Party would never spend any money on consultants and contactors when they’re in office, do that, but that would be a continuation of a do-nothing National Government

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider the Government is getting good value from its spending on consultants and contractors when it seems that one of the markers of failure is just how big the bill for consultants is—for example, the TVNZ-RNZ merger, with a bill of $10 million, or the three waters scheme, fatally flawed, with a bill for $26 million so far?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m pleased the member raises the three waters scheme, because the member will be well aware that the kinds of issues being dealt with when it comes to three waters are ones where it is essential to bring in experts to do that. Again, I know that the member’s approach would be to completely ignore the quality of our water—would be to make sure that New Zealanders’ rates bills go higher than they need to. It’s completely possible to sit on your chuff and do nothing about water infrastructure. This Government is not prepared to do that.

Nicola Willis: Can the Minister see that it is very hard for New Zealanders who are struggling through a cost of living crisis to understand why their money should be spent on consultants for projects that the Government has now shelved, and is it the case, to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, that his party has now become “a consultant-driven industry”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of your question, no. In answer to the first part of the question, we will continue to support New Zealanders through the cost of living crisis, with policies that I know the member opposes but that actually lift people’s incomes and lift people’s wages, and that will continue to be our priority. When we’re in Government for a period of time, from time to time there will be reprioritisation; there will be issues that need to be changed. The member might be familiar with a sheep farm in the Saudi desert! Not every piece of spending a Government does ends up quite the way you want it.

Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document that is an Official Information Act response from ACC, confirming $10.3 million has so far been spent on consultants and contractors—

SPEAKER: And what’s the date on it?

Hon Member: Is it publicly available?

SPEAKER: I’ll deal with this—thank you. What’s the date on it, sorry?

Nicola Willis: The 3rd of March 2023.

SPEAKER: And is it publicly available?

Nicola Willis: I didn’t understand that to be the case, but it could be.

SPEAKER: Can anyone enlighten—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’ve never seen it.

SPEAKER: OK. Well, I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 5—Oceans and Fisheries

5. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Is protecting more of Aotearoa New Zealand’s oceans from overfishing a priority of his; if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Absolutely. Ensuring that New Zealand’s fish stocks are sustainable and our marine environment is healthy are both high priorities of mine.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What actions, if any, is he taking to ensure New Zealand fulfils its commitment to protecting 30 percent of the oceans by 2030 under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework agreed to by Government last December?

Hon STUART NASH: I have no doubt that member is well aware that we currently have about 9.5 percent of our territorial sea in marine reserves, and, in addition to that, we protect over 30 percent under a variety of protection measures.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he believe New Zealand needs to step up efforts on ocean protection in light of the recent international agreement to protect 30 percent of the high seas by 2030; if so, will he stop issuing permits for New Zealand vessels to bottom trawl in international waters in the South Pacific?

Hon STUART NASH: That isn’t a measure that I have considered, but I firmly believe that New Zealand’s global brand is wedded to the way that we fish our fisheries in a sustainable manner—it’s one of the reasons I’m a huge fan of putting cameras on fishing boats. It’s not just about the integrity of the catch; it’s about the brand value that we sell overseas.

Hon Eugenie Sage: In the light of his concern about Aotearoa New Zealand’s global brand, is he concerned that bottom trawling in New Zealand waters creates risks for our seafood exports to overseas markets, in the light of last year’s ban on importing fish caught in Māui dolphin habitat by the United States Court of International Trade, and, if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: The member is also well aware that there is a bottom trawling forum that’s been set up with environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and also representatives from the fishing industry. I have seen the recommendations; needless to say, they all agreed that things need to change, but they’re a little bit far apart in terms of their recommendations. In terms of the Māui dolphin ban, I was quite surprised with regard to that—and, no doubt, the former Minister of Conservation was herself, because I was the Minister of Fisheries and that member was the Minister of Conservation and we put a number of measures in place to protect the Māui dolphin habitat.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he act to protect our oceans for future generations and ban bottom trawling on sea mounts in our waters and, if not, why not, and when can we expect action on the recommendations of the group?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m yet to consider those recommendations. I have read them, but I need to respond. As mentioned, the forum set up did contain ENGOs, did contain the industry, there are a series of recommendations. In the end, they couldn’t agree, but they all agreed that things needed to change. I think that’s a very good start.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Can New Zealanders expect to see any progress before the election to update and replace our 50-year-old marine protected area legislation; if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: I’ll be meeting with the new Minister of Conservation, and we’ll be talking about a number of things. I’ve always been clear that I think it’s a priority to move forward with our marine protected areas, but whether we do that under legislation before the election is something for the Minister—probably the Minister of the House to consider.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many contracting or consulting arrangements has Te Whatu Ora made with contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022, and how many of these arrangements were for public relations or communications advice?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): A number of health services are delivered under contracts, including all aged residential care services, primary care services, most laboratory services, and community health services. In addition, capital works projects engage contractors. However, in terms of Te Whatu Ora’s national functions, I am advised that up to 2 March 2023 it has commenced 343 new contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022. Of those, 26 new contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022 are for communications, engagement, and public relations activity in its national functions. Te Whatu Ora does not have available data on new district-level contracting or consulting arrangements and does not currently have a single payroll system or central register of consulting arrangements yet. I am advised that Te Whatu Ora has established a contractor and consultant workforce review to improve data on this workforce and is focused on decreasing spending on contractors and consultants.

Dr Shane Reti: Which is correct: the answer she has just given that there are 343 new national-level contract arrangements, or her answer to written question No. 43274 from a few weeks ago that there are 626 new national-level contracting arrangements?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I paid attention to the member’s question today and to its reference to arrangements made with contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022 to mean only brand-new contracting or consulting arrangements made by Te Whatu Ora in the time frame. The 343 does not include contracts which were already in place or given an extension.

Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand by her answer to written questions that the Ministry of Health has spent $21 million on consultants in just the first six months of the health reforms, and, if so, so can she name one of her health indicators that have improved for the $21 million?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The purpose of the health reforms was to reorientate our system towards one in which we can make sure that services are available locally, that there is no longer a postcode lottery for services, and where Māori health is elevated and pursued actively through Te Aka Whai Ora. Those are the goals of the reforms. During that time, the Ministry of Health made lots of progress on keeping the country safe from COVID, and on contact tracing monkeypox to eliminate outbreaks. The ongoing work with the reforms will bear fruit over time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That was a very interesting answer, but neither of the two legs of that supplementary question were answered. One was, “Can she confirm $21 million?” and “Can she point to a single health indicator that’s improved?” The long commentary did not address either of those legs.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I disagree—I disagree. I think the overall statement that the Minister did address the overall question. Now, if the member wants a specific answer: one leg.

Dr Shane Reti: How does she justify the $2.2 million within the Māori Health Authority budget this year just for PR consultants, that she stated in answer to written questions?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Te Aka Whai Ora is a new part of our health landscape. It has to make sure that the public understands what its job is to do—

Hon Grant Robertson: Especially with all the misinformation coming from over there.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —and, indeed, with the misinformation that it is subject to. I’ve been pleased to be out with Te Aka Whai Ora in the community, drawing attention to the good work they’re doing.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen regarding the roll-out of emergency Bailey bridges following Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government has deployed and is looking to deploy Bailey bridges across 10 sites in the North Island to reconnect isolated communities impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland floods. Bailey bridges have already been installed at Rangitopuni Stream in Riverhead, Raparapahoe Stream in Te Puke, and Opoti Bridge in Wairoa. Design work and site preparation is under way for Bailey bridges to be installed at Rissington Bridge and Waikare River Bridge in Hastings, and Hikuwai No. 1 on State Highway 35 in Tai Rāwhiti. We’ll continue to work with local councils to identify where Bailey bridges could helpfully restore essential transportation links and are currently assessing the suitability of sites in Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti for further Bailey bridges. The quick roll-out of these Bailey bridges has been enabled by the dedicated work of contractors on the front lines as well as the Government’s $250 million top-up to the National Land Transport Fund. I want to thank all of the road workers, engineers, and support staff, who have been on the ground to get these critical connections restored for our communities.

Shanan Halbert: Are there enough bridges in the country to meet the needs of affected communities?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, there are. We have a number of bridges in reserve and will look to source more from overseas if required. Waka Kotahi are also still working through suitability assessments for potential sites to determine how many additional bridges and equipment may be needed, depending on individual site conditions.

Shanan Halbert: Where Bailey bridges aren’t the right solution for restoring a transport link, what other tools are available to reconnect communities?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Bailey bridges are only one of the tools that we’re using to reconnect communities in the short term. They’re not always the right solution. That’s why Waka Kotahi are working through a range of other options to help restore those connections, including diversion through private property, providing temporary single-lane access, and using speed or weight restrictions on existing bridges as an interim measure. As we work through suitability assessments, we’ll have a clearer idea of what resources are best suited to meet community needs, and at all times we’re working closely with local communities and local councils to prioritise their needs as we restore access.

Shanan Halbert: How does the roll-out of Bailey bridges figure in the Government’s broader plan for repairing transport networks in the response to the cyclone?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The scale of the damage in the rebuild means that it will take some time, so we’re tackling the rebuild in three stages. The first stage, and our very top priority right now, is getting lifeline roads open and reconnecting isolated communities. Once we’re confident all communities are reconnected and lifeline routes are open, we’ll move on to the second stage of the rebuild. This stage will be focused on getting more permanent solutions in place for affected areas. The final stage of the rebuild will be adding resilience into our transport network. We need our infrastructure to endure in an era of dramatic climate change, and after seeing the impact of the last few weeks on our transport network, we know there’s more work to do to ensure that it’s up to that challenge.

Question No. 8—Education

8. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the reported statistical analysis carried out by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research into the NCEA Literacy and Numeracy pilot that found that the assessments performed well, and does she stand by her statement in September that she is “absolutely not” considering making the tests easier?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes, and yes.

Erica Stanford: Why, then, just one month after she said she is “absolutely not” making the tests easier, did the Ministry of Education officials write to New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) requesting that they use easier words, fewer questions, and let students use a spellcheck?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because I consider that—I expect that my officials consider all evidence that’s put in front of them. I also expect experts in their field would disagree on evidence and analysis from time to time. I expect robust discussions to happen between agencies in this area.

Erica Stanford: Is spelling a foundational literacy skill, and does allowing the use of spellcheck to assess basic, foundational literacy make the literacy test easier or harder?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member is referring to some advice that was given through to a document. That is not advice that I have personally read. It may have been sent to my office in a no surprises before the release, but I have not personally seen that, so I cannot comment on it.

Erica Stanford: Given the answer that the Minister just gave to this House, shouldn’t she be aware of her officials’ advice going to NZQA, and who is running the Ministry of Education—is it her or her officials?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said, I expect the experts to work through that information, to have those robust discussions. Final advice hasn’t come through to me at this stage. I await that further advice.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: How is the Government supporting mental wellbeing for people affected by the cyclone?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I announced an additional $3.2 million in reprioritised funding to support the immediate wellbeing needs of people impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle. The personal recovery for those who have lost loved ones, livelihoods, and homes to Cyclone Gabrielle is going to be incredibly tough. This Government will continue to stand alongside those in New Zealand experiencing hardship and they will make sure they’re not doing it alone.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What services will be available to people impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding allows for an expansion of the All Sorts mental wellbeing campaign, which supports communities with tools to look after each other’s wellbeing. We’re bringing in a team of mental health workers to offer local support to those most impacted by the cyclone and Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, is designing a Māori-led response to support Te Ao Māori mental wellbeing solutions.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What specific measures are being taken for isolated communities?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We are supporting isolated communities in a number of ways. As well as free face-to-face services, we’re also supporting a range of free telehealth and digital services for those unable to travel to services. There have been pamphlets hand delivered, along with aid by civil defence in the worst-affected areas. The pamphlets include information on free wellbeing supports that are available, and wellbeing tips for those cut off from all communication. There is also additional mental health staff arriving in Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti to take pressure off local providers and ensure that current and emerging needs are met.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How does this additional funding support the existing mental health programmes?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Over the last five years, we’ve built a primary mental healthcare system from the ground up. Over 2.6 million people are now covered through primary care providers and over 670,000 sessions have already been delivered. In Hawke’s Bay, since Cyclone Gabrielle, those working in the primary-care mental health service have been making proactive calls to people who are isolated or have long-term conditions, checking on welfare and normalising conversations about emotions and mental wellbeing.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Transport: What reports, if any, has he seen on whether New Zealanders supported his draft Government Policy Statement which could have reprioritised annual road maintenance funding towards bus lanes and cycleways, and has he been advised that New Zealanders would prefer to see that money spent on repairing potholes across the State highway network?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In the first instance, I reject the characterisation in the member’s question. The Government has not issued a draft Government policy statement (GPS) on transport, Cabinet has not considered a draft Government policy statement on transport, and nor have officials even completed the exercise of writing a draft Government policy statement on transport for me to finalise and to send to Cabinet. Secondly, the member is wrong that the Government has or will reprioritise road maintenance investment. In fact, our Government has increased road maintenance investment by approximately 50 percent over the levels that were in place under the previous National-ACT Government. And, thirdly, I reject the member’s view that our transport system should not invest in transport choices for New Zealanders, such as the Northwestern Busway Improvements that member has previously expressed support for. In a climate crisis, we need to invest in repairing the network after the devastating storms recently, we need to build a resilient network for the future, but we also have to invest in the choices that will help to reduce carbon emissions in a climate crisis.

Simon Court: Why, then, at 7 a.m. on Monday, did he defend the plan to reprioritise up to $2 billion per year of road maintenance funding into cycleways and bus lanes at the expense of car parks and traffic lanes but then announce at 2 p.m. the plan would instead focus on resilience?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member is entirely mischaracterising my comments. The documents that the member is referring to were guidance which was sent to local government in late 2022, which set out key Government priorities as we move into the Government policy statement period of consideration in 2023. That included a strong focus on maintenance, it included reducing emissions, and it included a focus on resilience. The member is probably aware that in January and February of 2023, large parts of the North Island experienced devastating weather events which have caused huge damage to the transport network. We will invest through the GPS in doing all of the things that are important. We will invest in rebuilding that network, we will continue to increase our maintenance, but we will also invest in those measures which will reduce our emissions. I know for some on that side of the House, taking action on climate change is not something that they support, but it’s something that our Government is committed to.

Simon Court: Was it the effects of Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle that led to the Minister realising that transport network resilience was important enough to do a U-turn on his draft GPS, or was it the overwhelming public rejection of his attempt to force people out of their cars in the hours after his appearance on Mike Hosking’s breakfast show that led to the U-turn?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The rhetoric from the member in his question and some others at this time, as we are committed to rebuilding the transport networks of devastated areas, in which they set up a false choice between supporting the recovery in regional New Zealand and investing in climate-friendly infrastructure is a false choice. It is ignorant of the challenge that we face in respect of reducing our emissions, it is divisive, and it is not one that will find favour from New Zealanders. New Zealanders expect us to invest in restoring the network. That’s why we invested $250 million to make sure that we get road and rail connections restored. But New Zealanders also expect us to look to the future and invest in reducing our emissions so that our kids and grandkids don’t face more devastating events like the ones we’ve just experienced.

Simon Court: Was the Minister aware that Waka Kotahi in 2020 published a document identifying 40 “extreme” and 143 “major” resilience risks to the State highway network, and, if so, why does he prioritise the ideological projects like an Auckland Harbour bike bridge, light rail, and forcing people out of cars and on to cycles and walking?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Once again, the member sets up a false choice between investing in a resilient network and investing in climate-friendly infrastructure. I am certainly aware of that information provided by Waka Kotahi and that is why, as I said, our Government has increased investment in the maintenance of our network by 50 percent. Between 2016, 2017, and 2021, we increased investment in State highway maintenance in the Gisborne area by 90 percent, in the Hawke’s Bay by 62 percent, and in Northland by 117 percent. But at the same time, we’ll take the advice from Waka Kotahi, the independent Climate Change Commission, and others that we urgently need to give people transport choices, to reduce congestion and emissions in our growing urban centres. Again, I note that the member when it suits him supports investments like the Northwestern Busway Improvements, but then for the sake of cheap politics sets up this false choice in this discussion.

Simon Court: Is the Minister aware that ACT has published 15 Urgent Ideas for Recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle, and will he commit to using this guide to come up with some ideas to reprioritise funding towards, rather than away from, resilience in the transport network?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I am certainly aware of that document and some of the ideas within it. One that I am aware of is the proposal to reduce the real wages of minimum wage workers, and if the other ideas are as stupid and callous as that I won’t be paying it any attention at all.

Simon Court: Point of order. The question was quite clear: is the Minister going to commit to reprioritising funding towards, rather than away from, a safe and efficient transport system, as described in this document?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need that. No, you are the master of your own—the answer. You brought in the document and the Minister responded to it.

Question No. 11—Statistics

11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Statistics: What actions has the Government taken to ensure that Census 2023 meets its goals and objectives?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): Today is census day. Our five-yearly census is taking place this month, and we aim to count everyone who is in New Zealand on the night of 7 March 2023. This year, for this census, Government has doubled the number of census collectors, with more assistance to complete the census. Census collectors will be employed for longer, so doing more with more people. Before census day, 44 percent of all dwellings have received paper forms. There is more assistance to complete census forms, with 30 percent of household support at or over the doorstep to complete census forms. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt. Yeah, I wanted to hear the answer to this, so dial it back.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think what some members were pointing it out is that a member was apparently videoing or photographing the Minister giving the answer, which I thought was in contradiction of Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: Well it is, but that’s not the point of order that I just—sorry, the issue that I just dealt with. So what is your point?

David Seymour: I was just trying to be helpful, Mr Speaker. There was a member apparently videoing the answer being given by the Minister, and I think that’s what members were barracking about: trying to draw to your attention to it without disrupting the question and answer.

SPEAKER: OK. Is there a member who was filming during the answer of that question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Photographing.

SPEAKER: Pardon?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Photographing.

SPEAKER: Photographing. And you know the rules, are you going to delete them now?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. And I apologise.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I’m delighted to see the level of engagement with this question, and, in fact, that’s something we’ve done in Census 2023. There is much more engagement with communities to support awareness and participation in the census. And we are focused on working directly with community and Treaty partners to help deliver the census. As my census badge says, “Tātau tātou—All of us count”. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Supplementaries are heard in silence.

Naisi Chen: What is different for Māori in this year’s census?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: This year, in some areas of the country, the collection of census data is being led by iwi. In Te Tai Tokerau, Tai Rāwhiti, and with Te Whānau-ā-Apanui in the Bay of Plenty, data will be collected by iwi and shared with the census team. And it will be easier for all Māori to identify iwi affiliation with a new iwi-affiliation map, and there are twice as many census engagement staff than there were in 2018, with more than half being Māori.

Naisi Chen: What is being done to ensure minority groups are counted?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The census team is holding assisted-completion events, going out into libraries and community halls and attending community events to help people complete their census forms. Special events have been held for particular communities, such as a community event for young disabled people in Takapuna last week and a gathering for the Kiribati community in Auckland.

Naisi Chen: When can people do the census?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: This year’s census has been open since 9 February, and over 1.5 million individual forms have already been submitted. And, of course, there are plenty of people who, rather than doing in advance, like to do the census actually on census day—that is today. So anyone can do the census anytime from now. And the important thing is that when people do the census, they base it on where they are tonight, 7 March.

Naisi Chen: What impacts have the Auckland anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle had on the census?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The extreme weather events have had a significant effect on Census 2023. Census activity has gone ahead as planned in most parts of the country, but in areas that have been deeply affected, dispatching census packs has been delayed until communities are ready to receive them. The post-census collection period has been extended, and extra help is being put into these areas to ensure that people are assisted to complete the census.

Simon Watts: How does Statistics New Zealand plan to reconcile the data from the duplicate census papers sent to over 1.5 million New Zealanders; and does she believe this will affect the census data quality?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Of course, each census pack contains multiple copies of the census form in order that multiple members of a household may complete the census. The member, however, may have been referring to the second letter that was sent to many households to remind them to complete the census. This was done because, in field testing in 2022, it was found there was a much greater response rate from households if a second reminder letter was sent.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his proposal which could divert road maintenance funding to building cycleways; if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government has not, and does not intend to divert road maintenance funding. As I’ve already said in the House this afternoon, our Government has, in fact, increased road maintenance funding by 50 percent after it was frozen for 8 years under the previous National-Act Government. I’ll note again that we’ve increased State highway maintenance funding by 90 percent in Gisborne, 62 percent in Hawke’s Bay, and 117 percent in Northland, and I expect us to continue to increase levels of investment in State highway maintenance over the coming years.

Simeon Brown: What happened yesterday between 7.05 a.m., when he was defending the Government’s plan to use road maintenance funds to build cycleways, and 4 p.m., when he was forced to publicly abandon his plans?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I reject the multiple assertions in the member’s question. What the member is referring to are longstanding requests from local government, and from communities, in fact, but the Government tries to get better bang for its buck out of its transport investment. For example, if a piece of maintenance work is being done on a piece of State highway, but we know that at the same time that piece of State highway should have additional safety infrastructure such as side or median barriers, it makes sense to use that maintenance programme to also invest in the safety infrastructure—something that hasn’t happened to date. The same can apply to, for example, investing in public transport infrastructure in growing areas at the same time as we are doing maintenance work. Most people will just call that “common sense”.

Simeon Brown: Did he receive a memo from the Prime Minister stating that his proposal to divert road maintenance funding to build cycleways and bus lanes was no longer compatible with the Prime Minister’s intention, and, if so, when did he receive it, or is it still in the bike bridge?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, but I have seen a memo from Waka Kotahi warning that the eight years of frozen maintenance funding under the previous National Government was leading to a significant deprivation of the State highway network.

Simeon Brown: Is it correct that the price that the Minister had to pay to get Chris Hipkins to support his $30 billion Auckland Light Rail Project was that he would be kept out of the loop on transport funding in other areas?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: At a time when the country expects us to make long-sighted decisions to build a resilient, low-carbon transport network, I would implore all members to engage in that discussion with seriousness. There are opportunities for debates about relative priorities within the system, but the member’s consistent approach of just playing cheap politics with our transport system does him and his party no favours and does not advance the debate. I also note that that member, when it suits him, supports Government investment in public transport, such as the Eastern Busway we’re building to his electorate, but seems to want to stop it from happening in any other part of the country.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, it appeared—in answer to the second supplementary question—that the Minister was quoting from an official document; if so, under Standing Orders, it would be appropriate to have that document tabled.

SPEAKER: Can the Minister confirm whether or not he was?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Just to seek clarity, is that in the previous supplementary question, where I referred to a memo from Waka Kotahi? Yes, I’m happy to table that in accordance with the usual procedures.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 23 February.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to continue my contribution in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. Before I begin, though, I do want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the passing of the Hon Chester Borrows, former MP for Whanganui between 2005 and 2017. Chester was one of those people, MPs, who is respected and admired by MPs right across this House, and especially by our communities in Whanganui and Taranaki. I also want to acknowledge the passing of Lyndsay Patterson, who was a renowned glass artist in Whanganui. His passing has been keenly felt by our arts communities.

When I started this speech last week before recess, I was talking about the support that our Government has provided our primary producers who’ve been impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle. At that time, our total support amounted to $29 million. Since then, however, I think it’s important to note that the total package is now $55 million to support our primary producers to rebuild and recover. That means that about $17.4 million has already been paid out to the over 2,800 applications that we’ve received for support. We know that more is needed, and MPs on the ground, like my colleagues Anna Lorck, Stu Nash, Meka Whaitiri—they’re all providing feedback from the affected communities.

I also began to talk about the support that we’re providing our families from 1 April. We’ve extended the fuel excise tax and road-user subsidies through to the end of June, and I know that this makes a huge impact on our families in the community. I recently rode The Tide bus, a new bus service in Whanganui, which cost me $1.20, thanks to Government subsidies, to get from the suburb of Gonville all the way into town. It’s initiatives like this that are having a huge impact on our families and individuals—being able to get into town and participate in their communities through challenging times.

We’re also increasing Best Start. At the same time, 54 percent of families with children will become eligible for additional subsidies for early childhood education. We’re increasing superannuation and benefits: 1.2 million adults are going to receive an increase to the winter energy payment, and I’ve heard from many across my electorate how much of an impact that’s going to have on them. So we are here for those people who are finding it tough during these challenging times. Our Government continues to be focused on those bread and butter issues that all Kiwis care about. We are committed to helping everyone through these challenging times and I’m proud of the work that we are doing to support Kiwis.

One more thing I’d like to note is the reinstatement of the Training Incentive Allowance and how that has exceeded expectations—a 600 percent increase in those applying to receive support through the Training Incentive Allowance. And I’ll never forget a young mum I spoke to on the doorstep during 2020, who said to me how much of a difference that that was going to make in her life to be able to build a better future for her and her children. So that is incredible support that people in my electorate are so grateful to receive. We’ve also supported almost 55,000 people through trades training and through the Apprenticeship Boost scheme. Our Mana in Mahi programme has supported over 5,000 job seekers into jobs, which has well exceeded our target and hopes of 4,000.

As I said, these are challenging times, but we are really focused on those bread and butter issues, that we hear time and time again on the doorsteps, that New Zealanders care about; that includes our families and our primary producers. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I too want to begin my contribution today by acknowledging, as the House did earlier on, the passing of three former members: the Rt Hon Paul East, the Hon Chester Borrows, and Georgina Beyer. All three of them made significant contributions both to this Parliament and in their communities.

I do particularly want to acknowledge my friend Georgina Beyer. She was the voice for the voiceless. She always approached every issue that she came across with extraordinary courage and bravery. I stood with her on the steps of Parliament the day that Brian Tamaki’s “Enough is Enough” march arrived here, and I watched with a mixture of awe and genuine fear for her safety as she decided to go down and confront them face to face. Only Georgina could have pulled it off in the way that she did, and I was in awe of her bravery that day, as I was on a number of other occasions. I do remember, during the prostitution law reform campaign, that she began one of her speeches in one of the debates by saying, “I’ll take the liberty of assuming that I’m the only member of Parliament with experience of prostitution.”—and then she paused and she looked across the Chamber, and a few people looked away at that point! Georgina’s life was full of drama—some of it scripted; some of it unscripted. She was a wahine toa. She was a person of activism, of creativity, and of aroha. And I, along with many, many others, will miss her greatly. Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā e te wahine rangatira.

I rise with great pride to speak in the Prime Minister’s statement debate. I am proud of a Government that, through a series of challenging crises and moments in our history that we never thought we would see, has been able to prioritise looking after our people, because that is the fundamental job of a Government. When we come to a time of crisis, people look to the Government to step forward for them, and that is happening again today as we deal with the outcomes of Cyclone Gabrielle and as we deal with the flooding that we saw in Auckland and Northland earlier this year. Those communities have been devastated, and I know members from across the House have been in those communities, have been working alongside those who are doing it tough, and I want to acknowledge all of those MPs.

But I also want to acknowledge the communities themselves, who have stood up for themselves and for their people. I want to put on record again today that, as we have done in the past, as we did with COVID—and as we will no doubt have to do again in the future—we stand with those communities. This will be a locally led response, because that is the right thing to do, and it will be a time when central government works with local government, with iwi, with our communities, with businesses, and with workers to make sure that these regions get back on their feet. This will not be a short journey, but it will be one where the Government will be with New Zealanders all the way—just as we are with those New Zealanders who are dealing with cost of living pressures.

Right around this country, we see communities who have been affected by, for example, the rising cost of food and by the pressures of inflation that are seen right around the world. The Government has consistently put how we support people with their day-to-day expenses at the front of mind. I think about initiatives like our school lunch programme. This was something that, at the time we introduced it, there was criticism of. There was criticism—was this the responsibility of the Government? And we can debate—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Are you going to fix the truancy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Mr Goldsmith, again, I really don’t think you want to be contributing when it comes to a discussion about how much things might cost or where we might get the money from. And I’ll come back to you in a moment, Mr Goldsmith.

But, on school lunches, we know for sure that this is now making a difference in the way in which children learn and the way in which they are able to be at school, not worried about where their food comes from. Time and again, I travel around New Zealand and I hear from school principals and I hear from parents about the importance of that to making sure that not only are we supporting whānau with the cost of living but also that we are making sure students are able to learn.

We’ve done the same thing with the support that we gave through COVID and then through the cost of living payment. I am proud that, on 1 April, we will be able to additionally support people who are on Working for Families, who are on main benefits, who are in receipt of superannuation. If I get one piece of feedback, it’s about the winter energy payment, and that will come into force again from 1 May. That is a payment that makes sure that our older New Zealanders can stay warm through winter and those on low and middle incomes can be supported. I’m proud that the minimum wage has been lifted consistently by this Government, because those who are raising a family on a minimum wage deserve to know that that will increase and they will be able to meet the costs that they are facing.

So, when we see that, when we see things like the Best Start initiative—again, started by this Government, which from 1 April is going to increase to $69 a week—we know that we are doing the right thing. That’s why we’ve extended out the cuts to the fuel excise duty and the road-user charges, because we know that the cost of living is still that pressure. And we’ve got to get on top of the long-term issues that sit behind that. That includes making sure that we do have genuine competition in our supermarket sector, to lower the price of food that people are facing; that we have used the inquiries done by the Commerce Commission to keep an eye on the margins that we have within our fuel sector. These are the things that a Government does when it’s interested in making sure that we support those who are facing pressure from the cost of living.

One of the things that I’ve learnt as Minister of Finance over the last five years is that we have to make sure we know how we’re going to pay for things. While I would welcome—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: None of your 2020 figures were followed up. They’re all wrong.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Goldsmith wants to debate the 2020 figures, as he calls them. Well, Mr Goldsmith, if he’s yet picked up the bit of paper that he dropped that fateful day, will discover that his numbers did not add up. That’s the tragedy: this week, the National Party is making the same mistake again that it made when Mr Goldsmith was in charge of their financial portfolio.

We’re pleased to note that the National Party has seen that early childhood education is a priority—that is a good thing; I welcome the fact that all parties in this Parliament, I hope, would believe in that—but it’s a little late to the party, for the National Party, given that they froze some of the funding rates in there when they were in office. But my bigger concern here is that the National Party, at the weekend, announced a $1 billion policy—$1 billion in our forecast year—yet every single thing they put up as a way to pay for this is something that’s already been expended. Now, I know that the National Party might be looking at changing a few ways that they’re doing things, but going back and getting money from people who’ve already been paid it by the Government probably isn’t in their list, although who knows, when it comes to Mr Goldsmith!

The question that the National Party has got to answer now is: where does the billion dollars come from? Because they haven’t answered that question up to this point. And, unfortunately, there is now a danger that the National Party again will fall into Paul Goldsmith’s fiscal Bermuda Triangle. They always like to tell us that they’ll be able to reduce debt, that they’ll be able to cut tax, that they’ll be able to fund a $1 billion policy somehow whilst doing those two other things. That was the failure of the National Party in 2020, and it’s pretty disturbing to see, over the last few days, that the National Party has decided that once again they’re going to be into that fiscal Bermuda Triangle. So the question for the National Party remains: what gets cut? Because something’s going to get cut along here. There isn’t actually baselined expenditure here that they can pull out; so they’re going to have to find something. Is it going to be the people who help design our roads? Is it going to be the people who look after our water system? Or is it going—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Robertson, we’ve got about a minute, 30 seconds left. I’d like you to spend at least that time—I’m aware you’re responding to comments from across the House, but can we just go back to the Prime Minister’s statement.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With pleasure, Mr Speaker. But I do think it’s important, when members opposite decide that they want to get on their high horse, that they justify themselves. So I look forward to a National Party speaker telling us where the billion dollars will be cut from.

One of the bits of the Prime Minister’s statement that I particularly want to draw people’s attention to is the investment of this Government in infrastructure. One of the things I’m particularly proud of is that, when we came into office, we inherited an infrastructure spend of around about $5 billion a year; we’ve lifted that up to $9 billion a year. It goes up to $12 billion a year, on average, from next year. That is the funding that builds our roads. That is the funding that builds 10,000 public housing places. That’s what builds new schools. That is what builds our health services that were so sadly neglected by the previous Government. That investment in building our nation for the future is something that I’m both proud of and I am looking forward to doing more of over the coming months.

We must look after our people—our people come first, and they always will for a Labour-led Government—but, at the same time, we have to plan and build for our future. That is now in the shadow of climate change, that is now in the shadow of the extreme weather events that we’ve had, and I know, looking at this Prime Minister’s statement, that there is a plan to build back better, build back smarter, and ensure that New Zealanders have a country that they can be proud of.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We heard from the Prime Minister—new Prime Minister—in his first press conference that when he was asked the impertinent question about, having cancelled the Radio New Zealand - TVNZ merger, how much the Government had spent on it, he said, “Oh, I don’t want to look backwards.” I have news for the Prime Minister: I’m sorry, that’s not how it works. When you’re in an election year, a Government is accountable for what it has achieved or what it hasn’t achieved, and people want to know what has happened with the extra $1 billion a week that this Government has been spending since 2017. That’s right: an extra $50 billion a year has been spent by this Government above what the previous National Government did, an extra billion dollars a week. So there’s a very perfectly legitimate question that New Zealanders have: what have we got for it? How have our lives been improved by that extra billion dollars a week? How have our lives been improved by the 14,000-odd extra civil servants and by the $1.7 billion on consultants that this Government has been spending?

Then we look and see, well, how are things better? Well, we’ve got 7 percent inflation, and most New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living. Then, if we look at the education sector, for example, we say, well, we’ve got extra billions of dollars going into education. How’s that working out? The previous speaker, Grant Robertson, spoke of the free lunches at schools. One of the main arguments for that was to make sure that the kids came to school, so they had lunch at school, and yet truancy rates have got worse and worse and worse under this Government. So we’ve got fewer than half of the kids regularly attending. We had the Prime Minister, “Mr Fix-It”—Mr Hipkins—and the Minister of Finance for five years, so the kids don’t go to school. It’s not very reassuring for us. And then the standards of actually learning, what they learn at school, whether they can read or write, have gone backwards as well. So that hasn’t been a good investment in terms of focusing the public sector and the schools on what they really need to do, which is ensure that the kids are at school and that they measure some progress.

If we look at health—what about health? We’ve got extra billions going into health, and what have we got there? We’ve got a very large bureaucracy led by a man who, up until a week ago, was clearly very focused on one issue, which was co-governance, and not much else, because we had much longer waiting times in our prisons. So with all the extra money, you go along—are you going to get your emergency situation dealt with quicker under all these extra resources under this Government? No, you have to wait many more hours in the emergency department on average in order to get seen. So that hasn’t improved things.

If we look at housing, they said they were going to create 100,000 new houses under KiwiBuild, which was Jacinda Ardern’s greatest flop. What’s happened there? Well, they’ve got more and more young families and people living in emergency housing week after week, month after month, and even year after year. We’ve got more than 4,000 young children being raised in emergency motel housing, and the Minister of Housing has no real solution. Part of the reason is that they’ve put up the cost of housing so significantly and had a war on landlords which has seen people retreat from renting out their houses—it’s not compulsory to rent out your houses. That’s added to the pressure on the housing, the housing’s added to the pressure on education, and the housing and education combined have added to the pressure on youth crime—and I’ll come to that later.

What about transport? We’ve spent extra billions of dollars, and so the Minister of Transport stands up and says, “Well, we’ve spent so much more on road maintenance.”, and yet the roads are worse than they’ve ever been. So what’s going on? Why are there so many potholes if we’ve spent all this extra money—50 percent increase on road maintenance? Well, one of the main problems is that so much of the money is spent on road management and cones that very little is spent on actually fixing the roads. That’s something that the Minister might look at. But we’ve seen this incredible increase in spending and we have not seen a single new significant roading project started. They’ve finished two of the National Party’s, one coming north out of Wellington and through the Waikato, which have been transformational for those areas.

They still haven’t opened the one north of Auckland after five years; they’re still fluffing round, and that’s one of the great kind of scandals of the day. What on earth has happened? It’s been finished for up to a year and yet it’s still not opened; they’re still fluffing around. They used to call that the “Holiday Highway”; I remember the Labour Party referring to the “Holiday Highway”. If you think of what’s happened in Northland, what is the most important thing you can do? It’s actually to enable people to reconnect with the rest of the country. This Government hasn’t continued, has been very slow with that motorway project and stopped the next leg of going around the Brynderwyns, and yet we still have some people suggesting we should move the port up to Whangārei—I wonder how that would work if you have no road and the trains are knocked out.

So the basic investment in infrastructure hasn’t been happening. Instead, the money has gone into the endless little road bumps all around Auckland and reducing the speed limit to 30. If that’s the limit of this Government’s ambition, that, in a time of life when cars have never been safer, we have to crawl around at 30 kilometres in our city and go over road bumps—that’s where all the money’s going, and actually investing in road maintenance and helping get people to where they want to go quickly and efficiently is way down the bottom. So billions of dollars extra are being spent, worse outcomes in health, worse outcomes in education, and nothing to see for it in transport apart from a promise of a slow tram going down Dominion Road one day.

Then if we come to justice, what do we see? Well, the only real justice target that this Government has is the 30 percent reduction in prison population, irrespective of what the level of crime is in our community, which is a bizarre target. We’ve seen, actually, a 33 percent increase in violent crime and yet the prison population continues to fall because this Government is soft on crime. It’s also soft on the causes of crime. They’ve managed to double it—soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime—because they haven’t dealt with truancy, they haven’t dealt with emergency housing, they haven’t dealt with any of the things that drive crime in the long term.

So they’ve been soft on the causes of crime, and then when it comes to crime itself, the only thing they’ve done in that area is to repeal the three-strikes legislation. Why? It’s because they’ve looked at the situation, they’ve looked at the increase in violent crime, they’ve looked at the 500 percent increase in ram raids, the sense of disorder on our streets, and they’ve come to the conclusion that the one thing we need to do is reduce prison sentences for our worst repeat offenders and do away with three strikes. What a bizarre outcome.

Hon Member: A joke—it’s a joke.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Total joke. So that’s where they’re at. They spent most of last year focused on that important issue of hate speech legislation, which in December the Minister stood up in the House and introduced and said, “This is great, this is important, this is a priority for us.”, and then, about four weeks later, they withdrew it. So that was a lot of consultants’ work, no doubt, focused on that this year. They still have, on the books, reducing the voting age to 16. So that’s where their priorities are in justice, on those things, rather than reducing violent crime, dealing with the long delays in courts, and doing something effective about youth crime.

So what’s National doing? Everybody wants to have higher wages, of course. Higher incomes should be the focus of all Governments. This Government’s conclusion is that the way to achieve that is to legislate for higher incomes through minimum wages and all sorts of fair pay agreements and all sorts of things like that. Secondly, it’s about reducing immigration, starving off immigration so there’s a shortage of workers, and wages go up. Unfortunately, they’re only short-term solutions. If you want to have sustainably higher incomes, you actually have to have more productive businesses; there’s no other way around it, and there’s nowhere in this PM’s statement about improving productivity.

That’s what the National Party will do: we’ll be focused on the things that actually improve the productivity of New Zealand, which is a better-skilled workforce; it’s improving in quality infrastructure that helps people move their goods to markets; it’s about increasing the flow of investment, because it’s actually investment that drives improvements in productivity. Then we’ve got to fight inflation, because inflation is digging into New Zealand families’ pockets. That’s why, on the weekend, Christopher Luxon announced the Family Boost, which will help young families with young kids by putting $75 extra into their budgets—over $3,000 a year, if they’re in the right category. We in the National Party, under Chris Luxon, are absolutely focused on helping New Zealand families fight inflation. It’s why we’ll have the Reserve Bank focused on its knitting, which is fighting inflation. We won’t waste so much money as the Government has, so that’s not fuelling the fire. We’ll be removing the roadblocks such as shortage of workers, and we’ll be actually doing the things that matter when it comes, finally, to law and order: focusing on reducing violent crime, keeping communities safe, and actually doing something about the increase in youth crime and offering new solutions like, particularly that small group of repeat offenders, sending them off to a military academy, getting their lives sorted out, getting them turned around so that we can live in safety in our communities.

So the Prime Minister mightn’t want to look back, but he needs to, and he needs to justify what has this Government achieved in five years—and I can’t think of very much.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Well, first of all, it’s a delight to be able to come back to this House and give a contribution and a response to the Prime Minister’s statement, but, first of all, I would be remiss if I didn’t just address my friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith and some of his comments. He started out with this incredible picture, where he articulated the billions and the billions and the billions. Now, one should remember that when he was the former finance spokesperson, he loved to talk about the billions and the billions and the billions—in fact, $4.3 billion of a billion-dollar fiscal hole. But it was nice to be, I guess, refreshed and to remember his efforts when it comes to numbers.

It also seems like, I don’t know, maybe it might be a good opportunity for our friend to get out of the little provincial town that is Epsom and come out and see the rest of us in the real world, because what I’d tell you is that all the rest of this country is looking to this Labour Government. They are looking to this Labour Government for what it has delivered for New Zealanders, and we are talking about the bread and butter issues.

We are talking about the action that we have done. We’ve supported parents with health costs by expanding free and low-cost doctors visits to children under 14—real stuff that helps New Zealanders. We’ve introduced mental health support into school, and expanded school-based health services across approximately 300 schools. The winter energy payment—your constituents know about it, my constituents know about, and they all love it. We’ve increased mean benefits, the family tax credit, student allowances, and the accommodation supplement, we’ve extended paid parental leave to 26 weeks, and the list goes on and on and on. This is a Government that delivers big.

I want to just turn my mind to things that have been pressing in our region and across the country generally, and I guess I’ll commence this part of my remarks alongside my friend the Hon Stuart Nash, as Ministers responsible for the recovery of the recent weather event: for myself in Te Tai Rāwhiti, and for my friend Stuart in the Hawke’s Bay region. Currently, in Te Tai Rāwhiti, we have 1,100 people still without access to the rest of the world. They’ve got 58 local roads that are broken and destroyed, as are nine bridges. We have extensive and significant damage all across our farms.

We’re a food bowl. Much like the Hawke’s Bay, we are a food bowl. We are food producers. The events that have started this year have sent ripples—ripples that will etch the earth for generations. When I took up this role as a member of Parliament for the East Coast, something that forms every part of the way that the people think in the Tai Rāwhiti is the remnants of Cyclone Bola. Cyclone Gabrielle and Cyclone Hale will be those markers for our children and their children to come.

I want to particularly acknowledge the range of men and women, and the good people of my region in particular, that I’ve got to see up close and personal. Whether it be the civil defence lead, Frank, over there in Te Karaka, who had to steward 500 people up two hills in Te Karaka as the rivers broke and absolutely decimated that small township, or if it’s the likes of our champions Lilian, Mere, and Hoana up in Tokomaru Bay, who have been providing food and sustenance and providing education and schooling to a township that has been completely disconnected, they have held their hands to the till.

I look down to the township of Tūranga—Gisborne—and I want to acknowledge Mayor Rehette Stoltz. I want to acknowledge Ben Green. I want to acknowledge the tribal leadership: Selwyn Parata and Amohaere Houkamau. I want to acknowledge Rongowhakaata iwi trust: Staci, Tama Waipara, and Teina. I want to look out to Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki: Ronald, Pene, and Willie Te Aho. There have been so many champions throughout the region that have stood up in a time of crisis and we’ll be leaning into their knowledge, their expertise, across the 22 hapori of Te Tai Rāwhiti as we undertake the mammoth task which is the recovery.

The Prime Minister has said and has continued to say that what’s going to be critical to our rebuild will be that these are locally led recoveries, and so, to that end, I am pleased to be able to work alongside and in partnership with the leadership of our region: the growers, the farmers, our iwi, and our council.

I also want to honour, on a somewhat sombre note, the life of John Coates, who was a local Te Karaka man who lost his life in that flood and that breach of the Waipaoa that day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could now return to the Prime Minister’s statement.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well, this is part of our recovery and, indeed, it was the primary starting point for the Prime Minister’s statement for this year—the cyclone recovery.

If I turn to the regional development components, I want to acknowledge the role that Kānoa played, particularly the investment in the flood banks. If I talk to the families in Manutuke but, indeed, all throughout the Hawke’s Bay and, actually, all throughout our regional community, the role and the investment by central government in partnership with local government has been upheld as saving many a township, and it’s those types of partnership that we can engage in and are continuing to engage in and we are committed to doing so. They are locally led projects in partnership with and supported by central government through regional economic development agencies, with Kānoa taking that lead, and I’m pleased to be the regional development Minister to take on some of the legacy work commenced by my friend Stuart Nash.

I turn my mind now just to some of the other issues that have been arising and that are at the forefront of our minds. New Zealanders demand and New Zealanders want a place that is safe that they can call home. Now, for us on this side of the House, when we look at the law and order issues of today and the challenges that we face, at the forefront of our minds is that we are keeping New Zealanders safe for today, but the decisions that we make today must withstand the test of time tomorrow. So, from our side of the House, when we approach this, whether it is youth crime, retail crime, or any of the other law and order issues that every Government must engage in, we have made sure to be tough on the causes of crime.

Our focus is on an evidence-based approach to programmes that work. Most recently, we entered into a partnership in South Auckland where we’re working with young people aged between 14 and 17 years old that have been through the youth justice system. Through our investment in programmes such as that, we have seen an 80 percent reduction in recidivism rates, comparative to the experience we were having prior to it.

These are examples of the evidence-based mechanisms that work, and on our side of the House we’ve said that we will provide every single New Zealander with that chance to succeed, regardless of who you are or where you’ve come from. That side of the House will say a range of things about this Government’s approach to law and order, and it’s not lost on me that we’re coming into an election year and it’s all good to dog-whistle.

But at the forefront of our minds, let’s just look at a few of the facts. First of all, we have invested heavily in our front-line policing mechanisms. Whilst that side of the House were cutting our local police officers and police stations up and down this country, it’s through this side of the House that we have reinvested in building up that regional infrastructure, and, funnily enough, it’s been one of the most critical lifelines in places like Te Tai Rāwhiti as we re-engage with the floods.

We are investing in ensuring that we are rehabilitating our young people that deserve another chance, and that’s something we are proud of on this side of the House.

So there are many, many things that we are doing and we’ll continue to do on this side of the House, but I’ll tell you one thing: we will build back better, we will build back safer, and we are committed to building back smarter. This is an aspirational Government, and we are going to keep cracking on with the work ahead of us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call—five minutes each.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Yes, Mr Speaker, thank you. E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. On 27 January, within just a few hours of heavy rainfall parts of Tāmaki-makau-rau, my home and the homes of many across this House and of our communities were under water. Land slipped away and livelihoods were destroyed. In Grey Lynn, next door to Auckland Central, a whānau escaped from the second-storey window of their house, the first floor entirely overwhelmed by water, with a kayak from their next-door neighbour. Stories like this were not novel or unique; they were found across Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. A fortnight later, Cyclone Gabrielle tore havoc across the North Island, and 11 people are now dead. Auckland Council warns that we are at serious risk of slips for the foreseeable future, and we’re yet to properly count the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

This is climate change. I never anticipated that I would have a hair-trigger response to rain but, speaking to many of my friends in Tāmaki-makau-rau, it is precisely the visceral response that’s been embedded in all of us by virtue of this experience. This environment has been brought about by the fairy tale economic thinking that has been intent on destabilising and transforming—sorry, the economic thinking has destabilised this environment. This is the same climate change we experienced in Tāmaki-makau-rau that’s delivered states of emergency and multiple one-in-100-year weather events across the country every single year. We have seen it on the East Coast, on the West Coast, in the top of the South Island, in Northland, and now on Queen Street in Auckland Central. When that climate crisis unfolded, we saw what really matters. Communities jumped to action. Neighbours looked after neighbours—no questions asked, no means testing, no concern about who deserved it.

Then you step into this place and what really matters couldn’t feel like further from the agenda in a debate like this, and, frankly, I’ve got to say it’s just kind of embarrassing, given what has happened to the North Island over the past few months. A lot of the debate here is fuelled by these fairy tales of economic thinking and what we’ve got to sacrifice to this notion of the economy. So let’s talk about the facts of that economy—that economy, being all of us and the stuff that we create and the rules that we put in place about how that is distributed and the kinds of outcomes that we want to incentivise. We don’t live in a game of Monopoly, which, by the way, was actually invented to teach children about the pitfalls of an economy that is built on land banking and capital accumulation in the hands of a few. The rules can and should change when they don’t work for the majority of us—and they don’t. The rules can and should change when they are destroying the climate necessary for human civilisation and survival—which they do.

Inflation is currently sitting at 7.2 percent, and the major drivers of inflation are housing—namely, rents—transport, and household utilities. Statistics New Zealand make it clear that this inflation is hurting lower-income New Zealanders disproportionately hard, because they spend the majority of their income on essentials. This inflation comes on a backdrop of pre-existing inequality—in fact, the highest rates of wealth inequality that we have had in this country since records began. To lay this out once again, that disparity sees—based on the estimations of Max Rashbrooke, an economist based at Victoria University of Wellington—that the bottom half of New Zealanders, 2.5 million New Zealanders, hold just 2 percent of the wealth; the top 10 percent hold 60 percent of that wealth; and the top 1 percent hold 25 percent of the wealth.

If we want to address mythologies, let’s address the mythology that there somehow, apparently, isn’t enough to go around, because clearly and evidentially there is. It is a matter of what we value and what we prioritise, and we saw in that climate crisis which struck us in Tāmaki-makau-rau that the values out there on the streets, in homes, and among whānau and communities are values of humanity, looking after each other, responding when that crisis strikes. And the job of this place is to respond to those slower-moving crises which we can see on the horizon. They are those slower-moving crises of deeply entrenched wealth inequality, and the climate crisis, which only exacerbates that wealth inequality. If I can say anything in closing, it’s that we have an opportunity for transformation here in these next few months of this Parliament.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to join with members in the House, reflecting on the floods. As I was coming home through rural Manawatū, and the waters were coming down on our side of the Ruahines, the waters were up around about 3 foot and I’d heard word that, actually, the marae up in Feilding had been flooded out as well. And I knew that, on the other side of the mountain range, our friends and families and communities were doing it even tougher. So I would like to acknowledge those communities. I would like to acknowledge those marae. I would like to acknowledge friends and family who, during these really tough times, turned to each other, because that’s what we do during tough times: we turn to each other. And, of course, the incredible work of our first responders, what they did to sort of come together and to connect.

These events exacerbate the events of the previous years as well, and I’m talking about the COVID crisis. We’ve had these weather-intensive climate catastrophe events on top of what’s been happening with COVID, and we saw a significant transfer of wealth to the richest New Zealanders during 2020 and 2021 as asset prices exploded. The rise in inflation from late 2001, particularly in fuel, housing, and food costs, has hit those on the lowest incomes the hardest. But right now, banks, supermarkets, and fossil fuel companies are creaming it while thousands of families struggle to put food on the table, keep the lights on, and, for many around Aotearoa, across Te Matau-a-Māui, up north, Auckland, rebuilding their lives from the ground up.

The cost of the clean-up is going to run into the billions of dollars. But instead of using the levers that it has, the Government has partnered with Westpac and Lotto to launch a fund-raising appeal. And just to be clear: the levers of power are in that corner; that is where the levers of power are. And to put this in context: Westpac has lent $2.4 billion to fossil fuel companies; $2.4 billion profiting from the destruction of the planet. Consider, then, asking Westpac to set up an appeal fund for a cyclone super-powered by climate change. This doesn’t make sense. Westpac is also among a group of Australian-owned banks making a record $6 billion dollars—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Tuiono, we are here to discuss the Prime Minister’s statement. Could you at least make some passing reference to it.

TEANAU TUIONO: Yes, and I’m talking about how we’re going to fund the flood recovery. Money has to come from somewhere, and if the Government doesn’t use the levers that it has to get that money, and instead of using just Lotto or other kinds of schemes, then we need to actually ask some serious questions. So what I’m talking about here is an excess tax on banks, supermarkets, and fossil fuel companies. And let’s remember, in the case of fossil fuel companies, if there is any group of companies that are directly responsible for the climate catastrophe that we find ourselves in today, it is them. When I think back to as we’ve moved through the COVID crisis as well, there was a report that came out of the Commerce Commission which pointed that, actually, supermarkets were making an excess of $1 million a day—$1 million a day. Now, we all love Lotto, you know, but I don’t think and we shouldn’t try to plan ourselves to jackpot ourselves out of the situation that we’ve found ourselves in. What we need to do—the Government needs to do—is to use those levers and to exercise an excess tax on fossil fuel companies, banks, and supermarkets.

An excess profit tax is usually a one-off levy imposed on a company or group of companies by the Government. They target businesses that have unreasonably high profits, normally due to unusually favourable markets—for example, a COVID crisis. In Europe, the EU is now implementing an excess profit tax on the energy sector. Spain has its own excess profit tax on both the energy sector and on banks. This has been done before. A 10 percent levy on the banking sector’s record profit would raise over half a billion dollars, which could be used to support people. It is morally wrong that our economic system is rewarding corporations that are causing climate chaos. It’s a case of privatising the profit and socialising the losses. Instead of playing Lotto, we should be taxing the corporations. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Hon Stuart Nash—and just before you start, for the members present, this is not a general debate; this is a reference to or a debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. At least some reference to that during your speech will ensure you don’t get interrupted, and not just make a general debate speech. So I’ll start the timer again, the Hon Stuart Nash.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. One of the first things the Prime Minister mentioned in his Prime Minister’s statement was about the floods and the rain events that have happened up and down our country this year. On 10 December last year, I turned the sod on a major stopbank behind the Pettigrew Green Arena in Napier. The then CEO of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, a guy called James Palmer, who is now head of the Ministry for the Environment, was also part of the sod-turning ceremony. As we dug our spades into the rock-hard Hawke’s Bay soil, I said to James, “No way. This is massive.” And he said, “It’s designed for a one-in-500-year flood. It’s a metre higher than the engineers recommended.” Well, when the river was at peak because of Cyclone Gabrielle, it was a foot below the top of that stopbank. And if that stopbank had broken and flooded the whole of Taradale, then the conversations we would be having would be completely different than the ones we’re having now.

That stopbank was funded by this Government and COVID funds. But it is an example of what we are facing in this country now and some of the very, very hard conversations we are going to have to have as we move forward and as we rebuild. To the north of my electorate—Whirinaki; Bayview; the Esk Valley, which the Prime Minister’s visited; the Napier-Taupō Road; Wairoa—again, some very important conversations are now going to have to be had about what we do, how we rebuild back, and the sort of places we are going to allow people to build on. And they’re hard conversations, because they’re also expensive conversations, but they’re ones that we need to start having as a country because they are very, very real. But there is one undeniable fact: climate change has significantly impacted the weather patterns across our country, and the East Coast is bearing the brunt—two cyclones in the Tai Rāwhiti district this year.

We now need to drive forward an agenda for our high-wage, low-emissions economy. In terms of driving transformational change across our economy, the Prime Minister talked about the industry transformation plans. What these are plans in certain areas of the economy where we believe we could have, we should have, or we already do have some form of global competitive advantage, but where we need to really drive productivity in a way that creates a sustainable global competitiveness in areas of advanced manufacturing, agritech, forestry and wood manufacturing, construction, tourism, forestry, digital technologies, and fisheries.

The great thing about these is we’ve actually gathered in unionists, we’ve gathered in business people, iwi Māori, the Government—all working together for a common cause. I have read all the drafts that have been presented to me. After the drafts have been collated, then they go out for consultation and the final documents come back. And goodness me, they are great bits of work that cover the whole economy and where people agree on the work programme that needs to be done.

Why are we doing this? It’s because this Government believes that it’s incredibly important that the Government has a role to play in driving the sort of economic outcomes that we want to see in this country. We’ve supported business, we’ve supported ventures, we’ve supported the private sector, and we’ve supported the regions because we believe that the role of the Government is not just to intervene when there’s market failure. We believe that if we work together, we can actually create market outcomes that lead to high jobs, productivity, capital investment, sustainability, engaged outcomes—all the things that we want to see as a country and all the things that I believe the vast majority of politicians in this House actually believe in. It is a forward-thinking and a transformational agenda and is something that I am incredibly proud of in the work that we have done in this space.

Another area that we’ve invested significantly in is our regions. For the last 2½ years, I was the Minister for Regional Development. I’ve handed that portfolio over to the very capable Kiri Allan—my great friend the Hon Kiritapu Allan. But the thing about this is that in the last term of the National Government, there were a couple of economists, and one came out and said, “We need to be planning for managed retreat from our regions because the reason—for a lot of these small provincial towns—for being no longer exists.” Another one called these towns “zombie towns”, and one of them in my electorate—Wairoa was called a zombie town. Ōpōtiki was called a zombie town, and a number of these other small—which I believe are thriving communities. I mean, I call Wairoa the outdoor capital of New Zealand. There’s your hunting, your fishing, your camping, your tramping, your beautiful beaches, your hot pools, your water-skiing—you name it. It’s going through tough times at the moment because of Cyclone Gabrielle, but it is a wonderful little town. And I personally found it quite offensive to be told by an academic that this was going to be a zombie town or that we needed to manage retreat from provincial New Zealand.

Now, the thing about this is we looked at this and said, “Is this our vision for rural and provincial New Zealand?” And the emphatic answer was no. It’s the reason why we have spent over $4 billion, as outlined by the Prime Minister in his statement—$4 billion across the regions. I saw a report recently that did an audit of the Provincial Growth Fund. It was a big report. But the one thing I took out of it is that it said that this has created a hope and an environment where people are willing to invest in, whereas in the past they weren’t. So places like Ōpōtiki, which was going to be a zombie town, is now thriving. We’ve invested a lot of money up and down the country.

Hon David Bennett: Winston invested it.

Hon STUART NASH: And I know that member over there, his electorate has benefited greatly from the Provincial Growth Fund, as have a number of other National electorates. But this wasn’t political—this wasn’t political. This was about doing the right thing for New Zealand.

Another area that I’d like to speak about that the Prime Minister highlighted in his statement was about law and order. Now, it’s great to be once again the Minister of Police. It’s a portfolio that I’m very proud to hold, but the first thing I would like to do is I would like to say thank you to the men and women in blue who have come into my damaged region, Tai Rāwhiti, in a way that has helped in providing reassurance and security to damaged communities. Some of the tales of heroism that these police undertook when the floods were raging are outstanding. But as a long-serving police officer yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that police don’t stand back and ask questions “Should I do it?”; they just go and they do it, and they often put their lives at risk. In fact, I heard of one story in Muriwai where two officers went in, grabbed out the couple, pulled them out of the house, and, about five minutes later, the house slipped down the cliff. Now, that is what our police—men and women—do, and I think they are absolutely fantastic at stepping up when we ask them to.

The reason why I’m so proud to be the Minister of Police is that last week I attended, I think, either my 39th or 40th police graduation. It’s something I have always prioritised as Minister of Police and, in my first term of three years and now as I’ve taken it on again, I think I’ve missed two out of 40. I love going to these graduations because you see the delight and the pride of these men and women who started out with a dream and they’ve now realised that dream as they head into our communities to keep our communities safe. But the thing is, we are about to deliver on one of our major promises. We promised that there would be 1,800 officers over and above where we were when we started in 2017. We’re up to 1,600. Well over 3,000 men and women have passed through Police College. It’s an astounding number, it’s an astounding achievement, and the police service has grown faster than at any other time in its history. But it’s needed to step up, because we are now asking police to do so much more than we did in the old days.

The approach that police take is actually outstandingly good. I had a conversation with Ray Smith when I took over the portfolio. He was then the CEO of Corrections, and he said to me “With more police, you’re going to need more prisons.” I said, “Ray, you don’t understand the police model. It’s about crime prevention. It’s about working with communities. It’s not about locking people up, throwing away the key, and then asking questions.” And he said, “We’ll see.” When he took over the role of the Ministry for Primary Industries, he came to see me when I was Minister of fisheries and he said, “Stuart, you were right.” We need less prisons because the police operating model doesn’t mean they’re soft on crime. It doesn’t mean they let people go; they still go really, really hard when it’s necessary—and Operation Cobalt is evidence of that. There were 26,000 prosecutions charges laid—26,000 charges laid against gang members—since June last year. But when it’s not appropriate to put someone in front of a judge, they work with that person, with the community to come up with better outcomes. Let’s face the reality: when you put someone in prison, not only do you take away their freedom; you often take away their future. So we’ve got to think long and hard about how we do this, and I think we’ve got it about right; there’s no doubt about that.

As mentioned, I am very, very proud to be a Minister, to be part of a Government that’s putting New Zealanders first, that’s looking at the big issues and is not afraid to come up with audacious solutions to the really big issues that are facing our country today. This is a Government with a vision, it’s a Government with a plan, and I believe it’s a Government that delivers for all Kiwis. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, very interesting with that last speaker, the Minister of Police, who talked about having big solutions, big visions for the issues—how about the issue today in Canterbury with our police attending 55 percent of their business they deem as non-core business? They’re turning up to mental health; they’re turning up to domestic violence.

What was visionary was the last National Government in 2017, who announced the mental health co-response service to pair up mental health professionals with police to go out to those mental health crisis call-outs that police are turning up to and not wanting to be there. And what was the first thing this Labour Government did in the start of 2018? They cancelled that service. So much for a Government that promised to transform the mental health system! They came in and their first action was cutting the co-response mental health service. Five years of inaction, and that’s why we have in Canterbury today 55 percent of police work they’re deeming as non-core business. No wonder they don’t have time to go and catch the criminals, because they haven’t been resourced. The Labour Government can go on about 1,600 new police officers. Well, a senior police officer told me recently—he said, “Matt, if I’d heard about the 1,800 new police officer policy by Labour, I would have said to them, ‘Don’t give us 1,800 new police. Give us the co-response service, because that would have given us more and time and resources.’”

Isn’t it interesting with the Prime Minister’s statement, the Prime Minister finished with the comment, “let’s get cracking.”? “Let’s get cracking.”, after six years—remember what the statement from the Labour Prime Minister was six years ago: “Let’s do this.” So, in six years they’ve moved from “Let’s do this.” to now “let’s get cracking.” What is the meaning of “let’s get cracking”? It means to do something quickly. Finally, after six years, they’ve accepted they’ve done nothing and they need to move quickly. Incompetence—this is a failed socialist experiment that has failed New Zealanders.

Not only will I be looking at what the Prime Minister said in his statement today, but let’s think about what he didn’t say in that statement. Did we hear about KiwiBuild? No. What a failure. Did we hear the words “three waters” mentioned once in the Prime Minister’s statement? No. What an abject failure three waters has been. Did we hear about the $1.9 billion for mental health in the Prime Minister’s statement? No. Remember they used to parade the $1.9 billion around like a trophy, and now it’s like a millstone around their neck. Even the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission came out with its first damning report and said that despite the $1.9 billion they’d made no material improvement. How can you spend $1.9 billion and make no difference? Labour can; that’s exactly what they do.

Think about that mental health inquiry six years ago. A lot of New Zealanders came out and told their heartfelt, personal, and traumatic stories. That inquiry made a report of 40 recommendations. Does Labour ever speak of those 40 recommendations today? No. Zip. De nada. Quietly shelved away in a back office somewhere. Forty recommendations, $1.9 billion for mental health, and nothing talked about. What they did talk about in mental health, though—a direct quote: “Students can either go to a health professional in their school, … be referred to youth health services”—or, wait for it—“[go to] child youth [and] mental health services”. What a kick in the guts for parents today whose kids are stuck in waiting lists trying to go to child and youth and adolescent mental health services. Very interesting with a Ministry of Health annual review at the end of last year.

The biggest barrier to timely mental health in New Zealand is a mental health workforce crisis that has occurred under Labour’s watch. From June 2021 to June 2022, psychologist vacancy rates have increased by over 50 percent, mental health nurse vacancy rates from June 2021 to June 2022 by a hundred percent, and psychiatry vacancy rates in our health system a 125 percent increase in one year. That’s on these guys’ watch. We’ve got a mental health workforce crisis.

What about the statement by the Prime Minister, “We will continue to rebuild our health system with the Christchurch relocation of mental health services”? Tell that Prime Minister what happened last year in Hillmorton—an in-patient facility was closed for good. It had an over 50 percent vacancy rate that it could not service its patients. It was warned at the time that if that inpatient facility closed, the beds would be lost for good. Let’s not forget, written parliamentary question data revealed that for the $1.9 billion, we have no extra mental health inpatient beds. Now, we lost 10 last year that are lost for good. Telling about the relocation of mental health services in Christchurch—we’ve lost services under Labour. Let’s look at the in-patient occupancy rate of our mental health facilities, operating at over a hundred percent occupancy. Clinical guidance is 85 percent occupancy for patient safety—we operate at over a hundred percent. This is all under Labour’s watch. So I’m not surprised the Prime Minister didn’t talk about the $1.9 billion.

How about the 13 new mental health facilities that were announced by Labour in 2019? The Prime Minister quoted, “Nearly a dozen large projects are expected to begin this year, including mental health facilities in Waikato, Lakes and Tairāwhiti”. In 2019—how many years ago is that? Four years—I tell you what: in 2019, Lakes was announced at $26.9 million. You know how much the Government has spent of that to date? Zero dollars. In four years, they’ve spent none of that money. Tairāwhiti—a new facility was announced for $23.7 million. Four years later, they haven’t spent any money of that $23.7 million. Waikato, which the Prime Minister refers to in his statement—$155 million was announced in 2019. How much has been spent to date, four years later, on that new inpatient facility? Zero—zero dollars four years later. He’s got the nerve to come to the House and say, “Let’s get cracking.” Let’s look at those 13 projects announced four years ago: over $500 million of investment announced; they’ve spent $10 million of that four years later. Two percent that’s been spent, with our inpatient facilities operating at over a hundred percent capacity.

Then, the Prime Minister didn’t stop, he couldn’t help himself—he went on to say, “We will continue to build a primary mental health support system from scratch. 2.66 million New Zealanders now have access to free mental health services through primary care organisations such as GPs.” All those New Zealanders have access, but how many have used it? That’s where we can see the consultancy spend going into the spin doctors, because the reality is that programme has stalled. That four-year programme is struggling to be operated out of 50 percent of our GPs. Those workers in the GP practices are, at the moment, delivering less than three sessions per worker, per day.

Everything this Government has touched on mental health has failed. Remember the hope—remember the hope six years ago that they were going to transform the mental health system; $1.9 billion and here we are. The Prime Minister comes out after saying “Let’s do this.” six years ago. Now, it’s “Let’s get cracking.” The problem is, you’ve spent $1.9 billion and you’ve absolutely done nothing. That’s why the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission came out and said that despite the $1.9 billion, there’s been no difference. What was even more damning is a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that said there was no clear plan to execute change to make a difference, and that’s why this Government is an absolute failed socialist experiment.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take my first call for the year on the Prime Minister’s statement. As has been alluded to by colleagues around the House this afternoon, the Prime Minister identified in his statement—right from the get-go—the situation in terms of the recovery for those in Northland, for those in Te Tai Rāwhiti but also in the Hawke’s Bay and of course Auckland, and my neighbouring electorate, or nearby, of the Tararua District. I want to just acknowledge the devastation that those communities have faced; the local community groups, marae, local members of Parliament who have been on the ground supporting their communities in an absolute desperate and dire time of need. We know that the Prime Minister, in his statement, confirmed the commitment to those communities in terms of the ongoing support that the Government will provide to them. This utter devastation is one that is heavily felt by folks on the ground and the relentless nature within which our communities have responded—and I use the word “communities” in a very broad sense—is obviously something that is desirable and supported as well.

In terms of the reference to the Auckland floods, I want to acknowledge those emergency personnel, also, who have been involved. On the morning of the January Auckland floods, I was visiting Mount Wellington—visiting the St John’s 111 emergency operations centre, that morning. Little was anyone to know that they would be very busy in the evening, so I do want to acknowledge the work that they’ve put into supporting their communities.

I also want to acknowledge the many community groups and schools around the motu who have pitched in to support nearby neighbours. I know that many of the schools in my own electorate of Palmerston North have been fund-raising—because that’s what the call is about; providing some pūtea—by having mufti days in black and white, the colours of the bay, with sister schools, so I want to acknowledge the work that they have been doing in that space.

But this is a Government, as referenced in the Prime Minister’s statement, that has focused on tackling the infrastructure needs of our country and is also keen to ensure that it continues to provide the strong leadership, responsible leadership to support the resilience that is evident in our communities around Aotearoa New Zealand. It was, in my assessment, a cracking statement from the new Prime Minister and his new administration in terms of outlining the plans for New Zealand in the year ahead. There are opportunities that were addressed in terms of identifying the response that he and his Government intend to take to relieve the pressures around the cost of living that we all know about. And we have, in terms of referring to the track record of the Government in the lead-up to that, taken a range of actions across many areas actually—groceries, transport, housing, health, and education, just to name five.

I want to use my opportunity in the House this afternoon to canvass those five areas. When we look at groceries, yes, seeking to address the increasing price of food. The new administration has a new Minister in the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who is going to lead out on that, to address the duopoly, to tackle that issue which is facing many whānau in the pocket. So that’s something that the Government is very keen to ensure it continues. But also ensuring that it continues to tackle the excess of $1 million profit per day currently that those in that particular game are receiving in their own back pocket. So groceries is something that the Government is seeking to address.

The second one is transport and, in terms of referencing the track record that the Government has already taken in terms of the continuation this year of half-price fares—and I notice that my colleague Steph Lewis cited this in terms of her trip recently. I know previously in the House I have referred to the Bee Card, which is something that is used in many regional authorities—that will continue to address some of that subsidy for the public transport needs of our community. The road-user charges reduction—which is something that the House is familiar with in terms of legislation through the House recently—is another; a continuation of cutting the duty or excise tax on petrols will continue to alleviate some of the pressures that families and households are facing around New Zealand.

The upgrade and investment—continual upgrade. This year, we will see new carriages for the Capital Connection service between Palmerston North and Wellington, a very, very dear-to-my-heart service that meets an absolute need. That is something that has existed by way of Government funding. It is something that we will see halfway through this year rolled out alongside some other infrastructure adjustments to some of the platforms along the way. I have to say I was pleased to see that many of the products, actually, that were used in the upgrade were sourced locally, including fibreglass from the Manawatū district as well.

Moving on to housing. Housing is something that the Prime Minister has confirmed is going to be a continued area of focus for this Government. I am proud to be part of a Government that is for the first time in decades delivering public housing opportunities for the people of Palmerston North. It’s something that I make no apology for in this House because, as the local member, it is something that I keep a keen interest in. I am keen to ensure that progress continues to be made and that is certainly the case as we have our target of delivering 18,000 additional public and transitional houses or homes by 2024. Kāinga Ora are continuing to deliver in my community and in many communities and that certainly will be something that the Government is expecting, moving forward—that Kāinga Ora would continue to meet those needs, that they would continue to acquire land where possible, and they would continue to engage with stakeholders in their community.

Area number three is health, and much has already been said around health. We will see a continuation of the roll-out of the National Health Service, known as Te Whatu Ora, and the particular investment, the significant investment that this Labour Government has made in health in over a generation—if not generations, plural—that would continue to support the work of community organisations on the ground who were attuned with the COVID response, that have continued to roll out their support for our communities. Just within the last few weeks, I was delighted that there was central government investment of $9.8 million for our local hospital that will see shorter stays in the emergency department—the emergency department observation area extension—but also the medical assessment and planning unit, which will allow for GPs to effectively make direct referrals to the hospital, and it will see an increase in bed capacity in Palmerston North for the first time in many years. But alongside that, the Surgical Procedural Interventional Recovery Expansion project that will see stents and catheterisation lab opportunities being delivered in Palmerston North rather than people having to travel regionally or beyond.

In the area of education: just within, again, the last couple of weeks, an ongoing investment of this Government through the Universal College of Learning and Te Pūkenga of $10 million for Te Whai Oranga, which is just across the road from my electorate office. So I’ve been able to see the progress of this health and community service facility being developed over recent months, and the Prime Minister has signalled a continuation in this statement of ensuring that the investment in public service that New Zealanders rely on continues. This is yet one example again of this Government delivering for people of Palmerston North but also in our communities.

Much has been said around health—the change in terms of the equity index, the move to ensure that attendance is a real focus. I acknowledge the work that our Minister of Education is doing in that space. As a former teacher, I know the importance of students being at school and I also know that, under National, there were opportunities to remove attendance as a focus and it was actually landed on other school staffing provisions to ensure. So a change in that direction is something that is absolutely going to be welcomed by the community.

I also wanted to acknowledge the support that the Government has signalled a continuation for, for our Pasifika community. I want to acknowledge my colleague and friend the Hon Barbara Edmonds, who has recently taken up a new role in the new administration as the Minister for Pacific Peoples. When we talk about ongoing opportunities for STEM academies—that focus around science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—where our Pasifika communities, our Pasifika ākonga, are able to focus in that space, that is really, really important. So it was a delight to see that Government ministries such as the Ministry for Pacific Peoples were able to continue to support communities on the ground. We had a fantastic festival in Palmerston North over the weekend, the Vaka Festival, and it was great to see that the ongoing focus of this Government in terms of ensuring that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is supporting communities on the ground, is an ongoing focus, alongside Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Corrections, the local council, health community providers, and much, much more.

I am proud to support a Prime Minister who has outlined a very clear line of sight and direction for our Government and for the community of Aotearoa New Zealand. We on this side of the House are determined to support him and his new administration in delivering on that focus, because it will ensure that resilient communities are able to go about their business, knowing that they have a Government in Labour that will continue to support their needs, to provide for them in their time of need, and that is a good thing that all members of this House should be acknowledging and celebrating.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Toni Severin. This is a split call—five minutes.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to the Prime Minister’s statement, my thoughts go out to those who have been affected by the cyclones with flooding and slips. I can relate to some of these feelings that you are having—from someone who went through the Christchurch earthquakes, from the east side of Christchurch—and not knowing how to get in contact with one’s loved ones is very, very difficult.

When there’s cyclones, we have a large number of businesses affected, farms, small businesses, our horticulture centre, and many lost homes around Northland, Auckland, and the East Coast of the North Island, which will need to be replaced.

As someone who has seen how the recovery for Christchurch earthquake has gone, my suggestion to this Government is to listen to the locals, as they know what their needs are and what needs to be done to rebuild their communities better.

Some of these locals will be part of our disabilities community, who have had extra requirements to be notified re conditions for their safety. Currently in the House, we have an accessibility bill for our disability communities. However, this does not seem to have been listened to by this Government—to make accessibility easy for our disabilities community.

This Government talks about building more housing and infrastructure. Well, they promised with Kāinga Ora a 15 percent for disabled people, universal design—wow! Have we just seen the news recently? Well, I hope—when you look, and if we build these houses—that we look at the future with universal design because, I have been informed, we are all temporarily able. At some stage, we may all become temporarily disabled or permanently disabled. These communities need to be listened to. They know what is required for them to have a better life. And also the cost of living is affecting them more so than some other parts of our communities.

You know, the other thing is this Government says that they want to keep our communities safe. Well, we all want to keep our communities safe. And one area this Government didn’t quite put in here, but it’s very important, is around the rehabilitation of prisoners. Now, how can we release prisoners if they do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills to come back into our communities and be part of those communities and to be offered jobs? We need people on the ground. These people—we know they have done wrong, but let’s give them the opportunity to come out and have a fresh start. But if they don’t have the skills, then how can they part of our communities?

The other thing is electronic monitoring is a possible solution that has been used to keep an eye on some of our prisoners instead of being in prison. But, however, we have a slight problem that, when the power goes out—yes, the electronic bracelets monitor where these people are, but in a big crisis that we have just seen, you know, there is a shortage of people and manpower on the ground to check on these high risk electronic monitored people, and it is putting more pressure on those staff. Again, we have a shortage of corrections staff. How can we also allow prisoners to see their families if we do not have enough staff to be able to allow that? And that is part of their rehabilitation.

Now, also, for these prisoners that have been moved around the country, how can family visit them in a cost of living crisis when things are so expensive? Families can’t fly to visit them; people cannot drive to visit them. So there are so many areas that are still yet to be done, and so much money that needs to be spent. But let’s make sure that the money is spent correctly in the right areas and not just thrown out to consultants. Let’s make sure the money is on the ground, where the infrastructure is needed. And this way, we can have better communities, and better communities for all. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Christmas holidays seem a long way off now, with so much happening all around the country, and our thoughts and support go out to those affected by Cyclone Gabrielle. But as one Napier business owner said to me, “If it’s not the Government trying to ruin your businesses, it’s Mother Nature.” I read about MPs’ holidays overseas, the books they were reading, the family gatherings they were having, and it looked fantastic. But not everyone enjoyed that luxury. I spent a lot of time talking to business owners who don’t know what it’s like to have a holiday. They haven’t had one for years, working every day, often paying themselves a minimum wage—or less—but making sure their staff are paid and looked after. Many of the business owners I spoke to had nothing left in the tank. But they haven’t got the luxury of running away, they have debt and responsibilities.

This Government has made it too difficult to run a business. I spoke to a hospitality business owner who had a kitchenhand walk out on New Year’s Eve, walked out because another kitchenhand called in sick and he didn’t want to work too hard that night. So he just walked out, didn’t answer emails or texts for more than three days. Of course, there are absolutely no consequences for abandoning his employment because it’s just not worth going through the personal grievance process. The business would lose.

I spoke to another business owner who had a senior staff member resign just before Christmas, giving two weeks’ notice. It was pointed out that in his contract it actually says four weeks’ notice must be given, and he just got a smug, “Oh well, I’ll be sick for the other two weeks and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Then there was the cafe owner who made the decision to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Baillie, this is relating to the Prime Minister’s statement how?

CHRIS BAILLIE: Talking about business, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well let’s do that then, shall we?

CHRIS BAILLIE: OK. Another business owner example, who had seen criticism from experts who had never owned or run a business. She opened, with encouragement, anyway, knowing that on one of the stat holidays it was going to cost her a lot more, and she ended up making $1,400 dollars. Wages—time-and-a-half, day in lieu, etc.—cost her $2,400.

I also spoke to many business owners who were being harassed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: While you were speaking, were you listening to the Prime Minister’s statement? Could you just relate this to the Prime Minister’s statement please, Mr Baillie?

CHRIS BAILLIE: Sure. I’m talking about the business owners, the IRD, the small business loans that Mr Robertson talks about all the time. And—

Hon Scott Simpson: It’s all related to the economy, isn’t it?

CHRIS BAILLIE: Oh absolutely; well, that’s what I’m assuming, everything is related to the economy and how the—what it is, is the small business loan is a loan and it has to be paid back. But I was really pleased that over the holidays I got a lot of examples of good workers, and, as Mr Hipkins was talking about, there’s so much support of the young people, and the encouragement they need to do work.

I met a man, a young fella called Axle—we’ll call him Axle anyway—he’s 18 years old and he’s heading to university, which we’re all really pleased about. Started in hospitality in November, wanting to save some money he worked as many hours as he could; actually, he had to be restricted in the number of hours because the firm cared about his welfare. Great worker, and he got a pay rise after two weeks. He got a pay rise not because Minister Wood said he deserved one, but because he did deserve one. He was productive and he helped the business make a profit. The Greens need oxygen when they hear the profit root word, but that is actually how business works.

There was another young 15-year-old girl, who was exactly the same, got on with staff, used her initiative, and was an asset to the business. She earned much more than the minimum wage that Mr Hipkins talks about all the time.

The common denominator was that they both had parents who instilled in them a work ethic. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and the harder you work, the luckier you get. The sad thing is that if this Government’s union-driven agenda is allowed to continue, there will be fewer and fewer Axles and Lucys, and more and more entitled victims who think the world owes them a living.

ACT will reinstate the 90-day trial for all businesses, giving employees a chance and employers the confidence to take a gamble. We will pause all the minimum wage for three years so that the Axles and the Lucys can get a pay rise if they deserve it, and we’ll scrap so-called “fair pay agreements” because they’re not. ACT will ensure business owners get enough support so they can also have holidays.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare hei tēnei ahiahi. Ko tēnei taku tū tuatahi i tēnei tau hou o te nohanga o te Whare Pāremata.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings to everyone in the House this afternoon. This my first time to stand in this new year and new sitting of the House of Parliament.]

Mr Speaker—or, shortly, Madam Speaker—it is an honour and a privilege to take my first stand in Parliament this sitting year. It feels strange, because we are into early March and this is in fact my first time back, sitting here in this House. What a start to the year it has been.

I want to start my contribution in the way that the Prime Minister started his statement, and it was about acknowledging the difficult time for our country. In fact, I wasn’t present for the Prime Minister’s statement, because I am from one of those regions that was impacted by Cyclone Hale but also Cyclone Gabrielle. I was fortunate enough to be given leave by the Prime Minister to stay in Te Tai Tokerau alongside my ministerial colleague and MP for Te Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis, so that we could support our communities in the immediate response to the impact that the cyclone had had. I want to join with the Prime Minister in acknowledging the many, many people who, while their families were also impacted by the cyclone, were out there supporting their communities. That is our civil defence, that is our Fire and Emergency, that is our police, that is our Whānau Ora providers, who were getting care packages out to our communities as soon as it was safe to get back on those roads. And it is our road workers who have been fixing our many, many broken roads, some of which are still impassable.

So I want to start my contribution on the Prime Minister’s statement talking about the work that we have ahead of us to respond to the cyclone and to recover, because as I went across Te Tai Tokerau over the last couple of weeks, that is what people are still experiencing and still talking about. I know that there are areas across the motu that weren’t impacted by this event but are looking on and sending their thoughts to those of us in those regions that have been. I listened to the earlier contributions of the Hon Kiritapu Allan from Te Tai Rāwhiti, the Hon Stuart Nash from the Hawke’s Bay, and there’ll be other contributions, I’m sure, this evening from those also impacted. We have a huge piece of work in front of us to recover from this weather event and to prepare and be resilient for future extreme weather events, which we know are becoming more and more common.

In Te Tai Tokerau, we had 28 red stickered houses, 27 yellow, 15 white. In the Kaipara, we had nine red stickered, eight yellow, 30 white. In Whangārei, we have five red stickered, 22 yellow and 17. That’s many whānau severely impacted by this. As we’ve heard over the last couple of weeks, hundreds of local roads were impacted in Te Tai Tokerau from this weather event and also that event at the end of January. Our State Highway 1 Brynderwyns has been opened and, unfortunately, closed again due to further slips. We also had after Cyclone Gabrielle a huge downpour last Friday, which impacted Mangawhai—many people stranded there; again, more houses, families, and businesses impacted. Just to note, though, we are now able to have northbound traffic coming through the Brynderwyns, but further work continues on that to have that reopened. I also think about the Mangamuka, which was impacted last year and we had only just reopened it after the 2020 event.

So part of my absence for the Prime Minister’s speech is that in his speech he says that the solutions to this and the response to this are going to be locally driven. So we have been out in our communities, from Te Kao to Mitimiti, Rāwhiti, Mangawhai, Dargaville, and communities in between, talking about what we need to do together to respond, to recover, and to prepare for a more resilient Te Tai Tokerau in the future. We have started that work. We convened a meeting with leaders. We are looking to put together a plan in coming months to submit to the new Minister and the committee in terms of what the needs are for Te Tai Tokerau. It’s going to be a tough year for Te Tai Tokerau and for Aotearoa.

I want to turn to, though—apart from the cyclone—the other major challenge that we had before the cyclone, and I think has been compounded by the cyclone, is the cost of living challenge for our whānau. I’m really proud of the work that our Government has been doing to support our whānau. There is no silver bullet, as the Prime Minister said, to the high cost of living, and we are providing targeted support for working families, lifting incomes so that those that work hard can get ahead.

If I can share some of those initiatives, as the Prime Minister referred to: we have consistently put whānau first. From the very first day I came in in 2017, within the first 100 days we delivered a package to support whānau, and we have continued to build on that. We’ve supported parents with health costs by expanding free and low-cost doctors visits to children under 14. We’ve introduced mental health support into schools and expanded school-based health services across approximately 300 schools. We’ve introduced the winter energy payment, and we’ve increased main benefits, superannuation, and the family tax credit, student allowances, and the accommodation supplement. We’ve extended paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Low-income New Zealanders have access to increased support for dental costs. We’ve reduced the cost to send our tamariki to school by removing NCEA fees, by removing the school donations for more than 1,600 schools. We’ve served more than 63 million free lunches—free, healthy lunches—in schools, feeding more than 220,000 tamariki through Ka Ora, Ka Ako. And we’ve rolled out—something I’m quite proud of—free period products in more than 2,000 primary, intermediate, kura, and secondary schools. And, as the Prime Minister mentioned, from April this year we will roll out the next phase of the cost of living support. That is in terms of childcare support, and those come into effect in April.

But we’re also supporting families in terms of reduced costs for petrol, for road-user charges, for public transport—and, in fact, the half-price fares for public transport will be made permanent for community service and Total Mobility cardholders. Those are the bread and butter issues in my community in Te Tai Tokerau—cost of living, number one. The region I come from, unfortunately, has some of the lowest average incomes in the country, so this targeted support is making a real and meaningful difference for our communities in Te Tai Tokerau.

I just wanted to highlight a couple of other things. I am very proud to be the Associate Minister of Health, particularly for women and for rural communities. This year we will be developing and delivering, on 1 July, our health strategies, which include a women’s health strategy and a rural health strategy. I was pleased to see the Prime Minister make specific mention that we will be rolling out the HPV primary screening for cervical screening, including the option of self-testing, from July 2023 as well. Also, as the Minister for Youth, I am very proud of the work that we are doing to support our rangatahi and their mental health through direct access to the services in schools, and by the end of 2023 more than 3 million New Zealanders will have had access to free primary mental health and addiction support; 12,100 youth-focused sessions were delivered, and 15,700 kaupapa Māori sessions have also been delivered. We will continue to do this work for youth mental health services.

I see that my time has expired. While I have much more to contribute on the Prime Minister’s statement, that is my speech this afternoon. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In this offering I want to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement and the outlining of his view of the world: where New Zealand is, where it could be, and especially where he said that his statement was focused, amongst other things, on health. He described what his Government would look like, the prevailing economic conditions, and the cyclone impact. In response I will address these areas.

The PM described the Government that he leads. Well, I’ve decided that the current Government could be best described as the “Jipkinson” Government—that is, the Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson Government. And the way I think about what the leader described as this unholy trinity is when I think of “Jipkinson” I think of gypsum, which is a flaky material used as filler and fertiliser. It’s also turned out that gypsum is used as a retardant in Portland cement. Now, Portland cement is in my electorate and I can absolutely confirm to this House that this Government has been a retardant on Portland cement. It’s been a retardant on managing the cost of living. It’s been a retardant on producing enough houses. It’s been a retardant on law and order. And it’s been a retardant on transport especially—the single biggest economic driver for Northland.

State Highway 1 through the Brynderwyns—how many times has it been down during this cyclone season? More times than I care to remember. And when the Brynderwyns goes down, what happens? Well, there’s roughly two roads to the east and the west that then become the proxy, the poor cousin proxy, for State Highway 1. To the east they go through Waipu Cove, Langs Beach, Mangawhai and what happens is the road slowly starts to fall in towards the sea. Out towards the west, they go through Paparoa/Oakley, and, again, the wear and tear of that very poor proxy for State Highway 1 causes significant damage.

What we have is a number of views on part of the solution to this, the four lanes, and I well recall standing with Simon Bridges around about 17 May 2017 and announcing the four lanes as part of the resilience for highways, part of the resilience to cyclones like this, from Toi Road to Marsden, it was, and at that point in time it had a cost-benefit ratio higher than the Waterview Tunnel. In 2018 when the police announced police hotspots—that is, deaths per kilometre—that section of road between Toi Toi Road and Marsden was the number one police hotspot. So on a safety perspective, it ticked a lot of boxes. And was any progress made? No, because, as we all recall, Phil Twyford and his band of very merry people decided that it was a “Holiday Highway”. Those who remember know that this critical infrastructure for Northland was a “Holiday Highway”. And when every single mayor, every single mayor in Northland—and it’s kind of unusual to get that sort of local government support—and the chair of the regional council urgently came down to meet with Phil Twyford to discuss the four lanes, what did he say? Very dramatically, in front of them, he reached behind his desk, grasped a sheet of paper and tore it up, saying, “I will not be implementing National Party policy.” That was how Phil Twyford led out this Government’s progression, if you like, of radical failure to progress roading in Northland. And now we pay the consequence.

We’ve been isolated several times, and I totally get that other areas have too. Hawke’s Bay certainly has as well. But let’s remember the cyclone hovered over Northland for two days before it moved south, and there’s been times when we’ve had almost as many cell towers down as some of the other cyclone areas. So Northland particularly, I think, has some redress and I particularly point to roading. I particularly point to the Brynderwyns, State Highway 1, and the four lanes that were clearly required.

I want to, for a moment, rephrase, because the Prime Minister talked a lot about the economy. And I want to rephrase—I want to redefine, actually, an economic phrase: the OCR—the official cash rate? No, it’s not. It actually stands for “Open Chequebook Robertson”. Whenever we hear “OCR” again, that’s what we should think of: “Open Chequebook Robertson.” And I actually have some dots that I can join to bring all of this together. Now, Brian Roche is well respected by all of us. I respect him, we respect him, you respect him. And, in fact, Grant Robertson in November appointed him as a director of Kiwi Group Ltd. No questions there. But what happened was that during COVID, in 2020 I think this was, there was a COVID19 independent continuous review improvement group that was formed to look at the Valentine’s Day outbreak to review it. And Brian Roche was appointed to that committee. In their review, here’s what they formally wrote: “The ministry has indicated that the ‘chequebook is open’, at least with respect to COVID-19.” Let me just read that again: “The ministry has indicated that the ‘chequebook is open’ at least with respect to COVID19.” That is the Grant Robertson chequebook. OCR: official cash rate? No, “Open Chequebook. Robertson.” That’s what that actually stands for.

The Prime Minister’s statement talked a lot about health and about how he was going to focus this Government back on health. Well, let’s look at some of those things. Let’s look at maternity and where the midwives are at the moment. And let’s also reflect that maternity was a delegation to the current Minister of Health. She owned everything to do with maternity over the past two years. That is part of her baggage. And how has that gone for our midwives? Midwives have some of the biggest shortages in the health sector. How did that go under Minister Ayesha Verrall? Well, I can tell you. What happened under Ayesha Verrall is that she refused to say that there was a crisis in midwifery, and then she had the audacity to write in answers to parliamentary questions that midwives are coping in the regions. I don’t think so. Show me one—anyone who is coping. And yet this is now the new Minister of Health who has done such a poor job in maternity.

It actually gets worse. There was $180 million of maternity action plan through Budget 2020, and, would you believe, $60 million of that really important maternity action plan funding went to health reforms, and we know that from written question No. 30042 where the Minister replies that $60 million over four years was committed to support the health and disability review reforms—money taken from maternity and pushed towards the Government ideology. So that’s where the current Minister stands on maternity. Good luck with midwives making any progress there.

If Prime Minister Hipkins is so interested in health, let’s talk about emergency department (ED) wait times. This is what really worries me, because I think ED is sort of the canary in the mine. And I say that because when primary care fails, ED backs up. When the hospital sector fails, ED backs up. It’s not a bad measure. And what have we seen? Well, first of all, Andrew Little hit them a year ago, no longer reported them until he was shamed through written parliamentary questions to suddenly put them up and report them quarterly. Absolutely shamed. And so the last reporting was through to 30 June last year, and then this Government decided to stop reporting them quarterly as well. And so what we know is that in June last year, the last ED wait time target was 76 percent. Remember, you want the number to be high because it shows how close we’re actually getting to target. Then, mysteriously, about two weeks ago, Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand’s first performance report suddenly, magically, produces the ED wait times. Surprise, surprise, they’ve gone down 71 percent. Why would you do that? Because you know they’re bad. Why would not bring out the December quarter results for ED wait times? Because you know they’re bad.

How bad? Well, let’s have a look at some of those figures. I have a lot of angst, and it was interesting hearing the member for Palmerston North trumpet up his ED. I have a lot of worry for MidCentral and have done for a while. I know some of that team quite well, but, unfortunately, their ED is tail-end Charlie. They bring up the worst figures. They started at the beginning of the year on 55 percent to target, and at the last report they’re down to 36 percent—the biggest difference across any of the previous district health board sector.

I then worry about Capital and Coast. They’ve had a 15 percent reduction—the second biggest, from 67.6 to 49.6, and nationally, over the year, ED wait times have gone down from 78 percent to 71 percent. What we know is that Minister Verrall said that there were supposed improvements to Middlemore, one of our hotspot EDs, that would make it resilient before winter, and on that very same afternoon, the ex-chair of Health New Zealand, Rob Campbell, said that Middlemore Hospital would not be ready in time for the winter flu season—a clear difference between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. I worry about EDs. I worry a lot. I worry about the workforce. They are tired. They are fatigued. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister has the gall to stand here and say he is focused on health. He has not been. His team has not been, and the sector is tired and exhausted. We need to give some assurance to New Zealanders that in their time of most urgent need ED will be there for them. I do believe that. I do believe that, but my goodness, there is a lot of work to do. There’s a lot of planning. There’s a lot of trust, and I don’t believe this Government or a Government that Prime Minister Hipkins will lead will be successful in any of those areas. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te Whare, tēnā koutou i te āwhā nui i pā ki a Aotearoa i ngā wiki tata nei. E mihi ana ki te hunga e noho ana i te Tairāwhiti, te puku o te whenua, Tāmaki Makaurau, te Tairāwhiti me ō rātou pakeketanga i tēnei wā.

Haere e ngā mate, haere ki te kāinga tūturu o te tangata. Ka hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pae nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to everyone in the House, and greetings to all those in the big storms that have impacted Aotearoa in the last few weeks. I acknowledge those living in the East Coast, the centre of the North Island, Auckland, and the East Coast with their associated trials at this time.

To the dead, return to the original home of people. To return us all, the living who sit here, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

I’m delighted to speak in support—wholehearted tautoko—of our Prime Minister’s statement that was delivered in very challenging times at the start of this year. But I’m really delighted to be on the team of Prime Minister Hipkins. I’m really thrilled to have extra responsibilities—elevated to the Ministers ranks—and, look, we are a new team. We have got a new Prime Minister, we’ve got a new focus, and this is a new direction. It’s a wonderful statement that we’ve giving, outlining the mahi that we want to continue with, the ongoing mahi—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The other way was no good?

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: Taihoa, Mr Brownlee, taihoa—taihoa. Your chance might come later. We are committed to the mahi that we have ahead, and there is a lot of mahi that we have under way, which has been outlined very clearly by our Prime Minister. It’s about getting back to the basics. It is about those bread and butter issues: the cost of living, strengthening our communities, and our infrastructure.

A case in point: as I mentioned in my mihi at the start, I want to acknowledge the terrible devastation that has been inflicted on the communities in the North, particularly the Hawke’s Bay, Te Tai Rāwhiti, and also up into Tai Tokerau and Tāmaki-makau-rau, from Cyclone Hale and Cyclone Gabrielle. In Te Wai Pounamu, we’ve been fortunate—we’ve been spared by Tāwhirimātea—but we have lots of whānau connections. They’re all our whanaunga up in the North, and I want to just acknowledge all of the first responders, everyone, the communities, New Zealanders at large, Aotearoa whānui, who have been rallying and providing their awhi and support and hard work—just boots on the ground—that is needed. I particularly want to acknowledge our marae, many of which I grew up around, when I was young. I think of Ōmahu. I think of Mōteo. I think, just going around, up the way to Waiōhiki. I think of Mōhaka, which has been cut off. I think of all of those communities and I want to acknowledge the work that our marae have done and are continuing to play in the recovery. I want to acknowledge our tuāhine and all local members that have been rallying and giving so much on-the-ground support for our families.

Not only that, we as a Government have been right there backing up our affected regions and, as has been stated by the Prime Minister, we will continue to stand by these communities as well. I’m delighted that we have given $55 million to our farmers and growers for the immediate clean up and recovery, $17 million of which has been drawn down. I’m delighted that we’ve had $15 million go directly into our Māori marae and across our Māori communities, specifically focused on the big job that they have ahead. We have been working very closely with our affected communities, and that is the hallmark of what we do as a Government. We are a caring Government, and we care about those communities and we stand by them, and we have followed it up. There will be many more announcements to come and much more mahi to do over the coming weeks and months as we help them rebuild.

I’m so excited, really, because our Prime Minister’s statement outlined so many wonderful things that we’re doing as a Government. I’m now really proud that in my role—I want to talk about the importance of trade, which is a bread and butter issue, which our Prime Minister has as a key area of focus in our job ahead and in the months to follow. Trade is so important for Aotearoa. It’s important for the Māori economy. Our wealth as a nation is built upon us trading, and that has always been the case and it will continue to be the case. It’s so important that we connect with the outside world—that we have free-trade agreements (FTA) in place—that we can sell our wonderful goods and services and products to the markets of the world, so we can earn foreign exchange dollars and increase our wealth and standard of living. I’m delighted, as the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth—associate trade role—to be working with Minister O’Connor on deepening and growing our trade architecture and strengthening it so that we can get greater goods market access, make more money through having reduced or no tariffs, so we get more returns back to our hard-working exporters.

In addition to that, it’s about positioning Aotearoa in the global community and in regional groups. That is so important for us as a relatively small nation here in the South Pacific. I’m delighted we’ve made some significant trade policy outcomes that have been achieved just in the last year alone. We have completed and signed the UK FTA, which is a significant agreement. It opens up a massive market into the UK. We also followed that up with the EU FTA. These are massive markets which offer great potential but also immediate benefit: 99.5 percent of our goods that go into the UK market will immediately benefit from having no tariffs upon the entering of that agreement. We’re just waiting on the UK Parliament to finish off their formalities, and then those benefits will immediately accrue to the New Zealand export sector. Likewise, with the EU FTA, 91 percent of tariffs will be removed immediately upon that agreement coming into force.

These free-trade agreements are not only important commercially for goods access but, as I’ve said, they’re very important to progress and to position Aotearoa on really important global and regional issues: trade and sustainability development provisions. Case in point: yesterday, Aotearoa hosted the first ever French Pacific Business Forum, up in Auckland, and we had the French Minister delegate Becht attend that with French Polynesia, Tahiti, Wallis and Futuna, and also New Caledonia. There is great, I guess, excitement and anticipation from major nations such as France at the work that we are doing in the Pacific around the creation of these trade and sustainable development provisions through the FTA. The EU has agreed to climate change targets, recognition of compliance with the Paris Agreement, environmental provisions, provisions around small business, around women, around Māori, through our Māori trade and economic chapters. These are real, fantastic innovations that we are doing to ensure that not only are we getting greater goods access for Aotearoa but we are also having those wider benefits of ensuring that our Trade For All agenda is actually being fulfilled. Trade For All is all about ensuring that the trade that we do as a nation reaches out to all communities and all who rely on trade, because it is such a vital earner for our nation.

I’m very proud of the work that we are doing as a Government. I’m only on the first portfolio and I don’t really have much time left! So I’ll go back to trade—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s amazing how much you’ve done in three weeks!

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: A lot of work, Mr Brownlee. A lot of mahi—a lot of mahi. In fact, we are hosting the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministers this year—a major, major trade bloc. We have the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—that is 30 percent of the world’s trade that is captured, and we are at the heart of that trade architecture. These are really significant trade agreements. New Zealand is leading the way. I want to acknowledge our officials and our fantastic teams in te Manatū Aorere for the work that they do, because the benefits are flowing thanks to a Government that really supports and backs trade, backs our exporters, and backs our communities to ensure that we can raise our living standards and have a brighter future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou. I tautoko the Prime Minister’s statement. Kia ora.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What a privilege to rise and speak in full support of our Prime Minister’s statement. There’s a saying that goes, “Crises don’t create heroes, they simply reveal character.” So I’d like to begin my statement recognising our first responders who have been on the ground with every weather event, putting themselves at risk to be there for our communities. Even post each one of those events, they have been on the ground despite often facing personal circumstances that have affected their homes and their whānau. I particularly want to recognise the loss of Dave van Zwanenberg and Craig Stevens, our firefighters out at Muriwai who lost their lives when they headed out to help their community members.

These last several weeks I think a lot about how much we have lost and how many people have been affected. I think about those we lost on the North Shore, Daniel Miller and Daniel Newth. I think about the businesses—a huge number—who were affected in Wairau Valley side of my electorate. A few days ago, I spoke to a community member from Massey who talked to me about how his home in Massey had been flooded four times over the last two years, three of those times just in the recent flooding events. He showed me pictures of his home over the course of a few hours where the water rose to two metres high, running all through his home, taking out his fence, through his garage and into his garden. He spoke about his wife and his two children and told me that none of his family members could swim and the trauma they felt when they had to evacuate themselves, but also the subsequent trauma they feel whenever it rains stays with them. I think about those who are affected in Greenhithe, with the severe rain that occurred on 24 February. I drove through Greenhithe the next morning to see the slips on the main road through Greenhithe as well as on the hills.

I think about the community at Muriwai, the fire and emergency team led by Phelan, their chief. The Prime Minister and I visited the fire and emergency team a while ago, and while the grown-ups spoke I met a little boy who’d lost his dad and he stood in his father’s boots while he spoke to some of us. Some people have lost everything. Others have lost that which is simply never going to be replaceable. I’ve been back to Muriwai several times over the last few weeks and the exhaustion is palpable. These are people who need to be listened to. These are people who need support. And that is exactly why the Government has put in support systems. The calling of a national state of emergency made a huge difference, and that allowed the allocation of national resources to assist those on the ground.

In the days after the cyclone, I visited the Trusts Stadium and spoke to a British couple who were visiting New Zealand and staying in the lodge at Muriwai. I drove them out to recover some of their essential items and they spoke about our defence force turning up in the middle of the night and them being very quickly loaded into the back of those defence vehicles. That sense of a swift response was so important.

The civil defence payment has been important to so many who can’t access their insurance payments. The temporary accommodation scheme set up through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has been fundamentally crucial for so many who’ve been displaced, matching them with accommodation needs. And the business supports that have been stood up; the $3 million for flood recovery payments to help those who’ve been significantly affected, the $1 million worth of support for mental wellbeing through the First Steps programme, and the $1 million for small business advice focused on business continuity and resilience. This isn’t just money. This means a lot to our small to medium sized enterprises, in particular, who’ve been affected in Wairau Valley.

We’re also a Government who’ve identified that there will be a mid-term need to support impacted people through the insurance process. I understand that just in relation to the first flooding events, insurers received 47,936 claims. Many more would have followed through the subsequent cyclone and other weather events, which is why the Government has put in place the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service to support homeowners with insurance claims following these natural events. This service will be there to provide a number of different aspects like legal support, technical, as well as wellbeing, and this will ensure that for those that can, they can settle their claims early.

In addition to the direct support and response in the short term, ours is a Government who gets it. We understand the reason why what were one-in-100-year events are turning into more frequent events. We understand the scale of the climate crisis we face. Possibly about 15 years ago, I was interviewed on the Rainbow Warrior II for a job as a climate campaigner which I was blessed to have been offered and then took up. I spent so much time in my role with Greenpeace just sharing information to ensure that people understood that climate change has been and continues to be caused as a result of human action, and actually, now, also human inaction. We are so well beyond the view that persuasion is needed. Now we are well into a period of action, and our Government is a Government that has taken this climate challenge very seriously. We have done more in the last five years on climate change than any previous Government, but we still do need to do more.

In May last year we released the emissions reduction plan, which is preparing for what is to come and, indeed, some may say what has already arrived, and it ensures that the country is on track to meet our first emissions budget. Every sector is playing a part, and our plan is achievable because it includes a role for Government as well as every community and sector in the economy. Ours is a Government who understands that protecting the environment must be a priority. We’ve done this through other ways as well: we banned new offshore drilling for fossil fuels; we’re decarbonising the industrial sector so more processed heat is from renewable sources not just fossil fuels; we’ve co-funded over 1,300 electric vehicle charges across New Zealand, as well as trials for new low-emissions transport options; and we’ve made 100,000 homes warmer, drier, and more energy efficient through our Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. We are decarbonising the public sector to achieve carbon-neutrality by 2025. We get it—we get it. It’s not just about responding now; it is also about planning for the future.

I’ll end where I began; acknowledging the community members who have been so deeply affected. But I also want to acknowledge those in the community who’ve actively supported, actively followed up, who haven’t waited a heartbeat to get out there with food support, with clothes support, anything that the community needed. I also actually want to acknowledge a few colleagues from other parties who have put people before politics. I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour, who came to a clinic in Unsworth Heights with me to talk to those affected. I want to acknowledge Chris Penk, who has been sharing information with Marja Lubeck and I about those affected in the north-west. People come first. People must come first, and that is entirely what this Government is about. I also want to acknowledge the leadership in my electorate, in the Upper Harbour electorate, who were part of a very stand up group of principals, community centre managers, community leaders, local board members, all of whom said, “Whatever you need stood up, at any time, you just tell us, we will do it.” It is a powerful story about who New Zealand is and New Zealanders are.

To the affected communities: kia kaha. We stand alongside you through this recovery process, but we also stand alongside you as we plan ahead to minimise any future damage from weather events. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, especially given the fact that there was a glaring omission from his statement and that was around how this Government are going to turn around the decline in educational standards of our kids.

In the last five years, I would argue that this Government has had an education Minister who has been distracted. We’ve had an education Minister who has focused his efforts on things like banning fizzy drinks in our schools and investigating getting rid of international students and then backing down. Meanwhile, the achievement levels of our kids have been declining.

We expected—or the country should expect of an education Minister—to work towards solving the declining achievement of the last 20 years that saw us go from the top of the OECD in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores to amongst the bottom. If you take math, we went from third in the OECD to 19th. The horrifying statistic—to put that in context—is that our kids have lost 1½ years of schooling by going from third in the world to 19th in the world. The equivalent is a loss of 1.5 years. What’s worse is that when Christopher Hipkins was the Minister of Education, he said in select committee around the Programme for International Student Assessment results, “Well, it’s OK if other countries do better than us.”—true story. “It’s OK if other countries overtake us. That’s no problem. Good for them.”

Let’s just set that aside for a moment and look at our own data: less than half of our kids are at curriculum by the time they finish intermediate—less than half; 45 percent are at curriculum for math; writing, 35 percent; reading, 56 percent; and science, a very dismal 20 percent. And it doesn’t get any better, because the numeracy and literacy assessment that was piloted last year showed very similar results. Things have not got any better. Reading, a 64 percent pass; writing, a 34 percent; and math, 56 percent—and much, much worse if you are in a high-equity or low-decile school. The system, for 20 years, has let down teachers and it’s let down kids.

The numeracy and literacy results of last year should have been a massive wake-up call. And what did we get? We saw, over the last few months, we’ve had a quibble between the Minister of Education via the ministry and New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) over the level of the test. And what we saw was the ministry trying to tell NZQA to use easier words, to have less questions, and to allow kids to use spellcheck in their literacy tests.

A month after, Jan Tinetti, the Associate Minister of Education, said that she committed that she would not reduce the quality of those tests, the standard of those tests. A month after that, Ministry of Education officials were telling NZQA to use simpler words, to have less questions, and to let kids use spell check. The education system, I would argue, should be teaching our kids to analyse text to infer meaning from context to understand unfamiliar words. But here we have the Ministry of Education as directed by the Minister telling NZQA to use simpler words.

Ironically, one of the words that was brought up in the briefing by the ministry was one of the words that shouldn’t be used—an example of that—the word “ambitious”. Make no mistake: the Minister might need it to use a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word ambitious, but for our kids, this Minister has absolutely no ambition. She is actively working with the Ministry of Education to dumb down these tests to make the results look better, to get more kids across the line, when what we need to actually be doing is going, “What is the cause of this?” We are flying completely blind. These poor 15-year-olds. We have no idea where they’re at through the curriculum, we’ve got no progression monitoring, we don’t know if they’re hitting milestones along the way. Even the Education Review Office, in all of their reports for the last 20 years, have said that the level of variance of our assessment of progression through the curriculum is highly variable. And we’ve had five years of a Government that have done absolutely nothing about this. At the point now—we’re staring down the barrel of 15-year-olds next year, having to sit a literacy and numeracy test that, the results are showing, they will most likely fail and will not get their NCEA.

When the Minister’s officials were asked, “Have you done any analysis on the number of kids who leave after gaining NCEA level 1 or NCEA level 2 who are likely not to pass this test and not to get their qualifications?”—“Oh, no, we haven’t done that analysis.” So we’ve got thousands of kids who are potentially at risk of not getting an NCEA qualification. And there’s been no analysis done by any of the officials to work out how many kids are going to be affected.

And, as I said, we can quibble about the test, but the real question has to be: how are we preparing our kids through primary and intermediate and lower high school to be prepared for that test? Because after five years, all we’ve had is an action plan at the end of last year that we might start thinking about how we’re going to monitor progression through the curriculum in a few years. Meanwhile, we have failed generations of kids—absolutely no ambition for those kids.

And as I said, we’re flying completely blind. The number of parents that say to us, “I have no idea where my kid is at in the curriculum. I don’t know until they’re three years behind.” And here’s a fact that lots of people don’t know that principals tell me all the time: unless a child is more than three years behind the curriculum, they cannot access any support.

Hon Member: That is completely incorrect.

ERICA STANFORD: Well, that’s what principals tell me, and if you want to argue with them, be my guest—but three years. And here’s the thing, the curriculum that we have hides kids who are falling through the cracks. Two-yearly bands and three-yearly bands now in the new curriculum—it’s hiding the fact that kids are falling further and further behind. We are building into the curriculum an allowance for kids to fail because of huge bands. And that is something that this Government have not looked at in the last couple of years—in the last five years, even.

I want to turn now to attendance, because what we’ve heard from this Government over the last few years is that “It’s complex, it’s multifactorial, it needs a tailored solution, that there are so many drivers to this problem.” And then what we had this month was an announcement to this complex, multi-factored problem that needs a tailored solution. We got 82 attendance officers—82—for a complex problem. Now, what was interesting on the weekend, when Jan Tinetti did The Nation, is we found out that those 82 officers weren’t for the chronically truant kids—the 100,000 chronically truant kids going to school less than 70 percent of the time. It wasn’t for the unenrolled kids, who we have 8,000 of now—which is more than more than doubled under this Government’s watch. It’s not for them; it’s for the moderately truant kids.

What’s even worse is they’re not actually for the kids. As it turns out, on the weekend, we find out that the truancy officers are just for the schools to give them advice. It’s another level of bureaucracy. They’re not officers to actually go into houses and help get kids to school. “Oh, maybe in some circumstances”, the Minister said. But, actually, what we really need is a tailored solution and to trust schools to know what to do. Instead we got 82 officers; not for the 100,000 kids, not for the 8,000, but for a handful of schools, because that’s all they’re going to be able to cover.

This Government, under both Chris Hipkins as Minister and now Jan Tinetti, have, firstly, not acknowledged the problem, they’ve not taken responsibility, and what’s worse is all we have now is a culture of excuses and a lack of ambition for our kids. I can guarantee you, Madam Speaker—

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

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to acknowledge the traumatic events of the last few weeks, and we have had so much about the initial response, the bravery, the sacrifices, how communities have wrapped around, and the loss and the trauma suffered.

I want to take a moment, as we continue to support the response and prepare for the recovery and rebuild, to consider the very important role and positive and significant role—that you haven’t heard about from the other side—that our schools and educators are playing, and will continue to play, as we rebuild and rebound strongly. Schools, alongside our marae and churches, have been a safe place for people to gather, to share food, to share tears and stories, to find a bed and clean clothes. In the middle of all of that, we’ve heard about the incredible damage to our campuses, to our kura, and to the institute, the Eastern Institute of Technology campus over on the coast. And we heard from our honourable Minister McAnulty about how desperate those schools were to reopen. We’re down to less than a dozen—it is amazing—despite the damage to their schools, and despite the significant personal loss and trauma of the adults in those schools as well.

We know that they’re doing this because they know that they play such a vital role in this recovery. Schools are a place where students turn up and they support each other and they find support, they share their stories, and they gather strength—and somehow they’re still working on their learning. This Government understands the importance of a strong, high quality public education system—and we back it; we invest in it—the role that it plays in building a workforce, an economy, but also engaged and able citizens, and a healthy society. We’ve walked the talk. We’ve heard the Prime Minister talk about the extended childcare support that is going to enable 10,000 children—10,000 children; not a win-win, but a win-win-win, all right? Not just for households who have reduced costs and increased incomes but for employers because they have got more parents able to enter the workforce and attend to some of those shortages, but, most importantly, for our tamariki, because we all know how life changing access to early childhood is for them.

At the other end of the learning journey, we have heard about the 600 percent—just in six months last year—increase in the training incentive allowance. And we heard again today about the individual lives, and their whānau, who are impacted for the rest of their lives by access to education that way: 215 trades training positions, 54,000 apprentices. How are we going to rebuild this country? By rebuilding our workforce, and we’ve done it. And we continue to do it. We have built 32,000 additional classroom spaces. We have provided access to school-based health services for 115,000 secondary students. We’ve delivered 33,000 hours of free counselling to primary, intermediate, and secondary school students.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we have heard of an even greater investment in our attendance network: $74 million in addition to the 88 already committed. That will put dozens of attendance officers into schools to contribute to all of the other services that are going on. You asked schools and teachers what they need, and we’ve delivered it.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

ANGELA ROBERTS: I’m glad to see that you’re pleased that that’s happening.

This Government has proven it has the leadership to attend to what is important to New Zealanders. We are not scared to acknowledge and rise to the challenges—and we do have them in education. But rather than fall back lazily on old and failed ideologies, we are curious; we investigate; we gather the data; we talk to the professionals, the academics, with iwi, with whānau and their kids; and we come up with change that is effective—we invest, better start being a great example. Our educators will play a critical role in our recovery and rebuild. It will be a long, hard road, but we’ve learnt, through earthquakes and through COVID, that teachers and schools step up and they respond. And this is especially important as we’re supporting families who’ve got no washing machine for the school uniform, no books, and no bed, and are still doing their best to get their students to school. Teachers, educators, schools will do it creatively, nimbly, and with expertise and humanity for years to come, and for that we are incredibly grateful. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Lemauga Lydia Sosene for five minutes.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): I am delighted to be able to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement and thank you for the opportunity—fa‘afetai tele lava.

I want to begin my short contribution to acknowledge the many people around Aotearoa who have been affected by the Auckland floods at the end of January and only two weeks later Cyclone Gabrielle. In my home town in South Auckland, in Māngere, in Tāmaki-makau-rau—[Interruption] All good. Many of the families who were flooded out were affected, and I want to acknowledge the lives of the 11 New Zealanders who went through trauma, losing their family members, and so I want to acknowledge their loved ones.

It is very important that at this time I have got the opportunity to acknowledge the first responders and those first responders who came to help and boots on the ground, communities like ours just jumped into action. And following that, we were able to set up the Māngere evacuation community centre, which had help not only for our local people but people right across the motu. We were very fortunate that in the couple of days that the Prime Minister was appointed, he rocked up with the Deputy Prime Minister and they visited with other Ministers to inform our community that this Government was helping and would be continuing to build back better and help our communities become resilient.

As I don’t have much time, I quickly want to reflect on the Prime Minister’s statement that the families across Aotearoa, that businesses who have lost all their wares—there is no silver bullet. The Labour Government continues to respond and I am proud of the work that this Government is doing. It consistently puts families first. The cost of living pressures, the Government has announced the lifting of incomes; the supermarket sector, the competition to make groceries and everyday needs affordable at this time. And one of the most important programmes that we have is the winter energy payment that many of our mātuas will be accessing in May of this year—that will help single adults get an extra $21 and couples with dependent children an extra $31 a week.

In terms of the low unemployment at 3.4 percent, there are 2.9 million New Zealanders now in work and the Government recognises the staff shortages in some of the sectors and we welcome the announcement by the Minister of Immigration that assistance is given to employers to assist with recruitment. The rebuilding of our communities to be resilient is being locally led. You’ve heard our Prime Minister make those comments.

I want to end off my contribution. Last week, in the recess, we had a select committee every single day in Auckland and it was a welcoming select committee to be part of, to hear all the committee come together, the Environment Committee. And so I thought I would catch the bus, I would catch public transport and test out how good the half-price public fare is. So 6.15 a.m., on the bus, in Māngere—Māngere town centre—and to my pleasant surprise, when I caught that bus, that bus was full with students and workers and parents who actually got their tamariki up really early. That trip costs me under $3 from Māngere to Auckland Town Hall.

And I thought I’d test it even further, so I jumped on the train from the CBD, Queen Street, all the way back through Sylvia Park, back to Ōtahuhu, back to Māngere. Again, that shows you that this Government is listening to Kiwis across Aotearoa. The fact that we have extended the programme of public transport fares is amazing, and I would challenge all of our colleagues to catch public transport where you don’t have to pay $30 at the fuel pump.

Lastly, infrastructure’s really important and the Government has invested $9 billion and will be increasing to $12 billion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member’s time is up, thank you. I call on Stuart Smith for five minutes.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I will address the Prime Minister’s statement shortly, but I also want to acknowledge all of the people who have been badly affected by the cyclone and the heavy rainfall event in Auckland. But I particularly want to focus on the wine industry, which is where I came from before entering into Parliament, and acknowledge all of those people who have lost their vineyards—all that work that they put in—or lost their crops. They’ve gone right throughout the year just to get to harvest and then have it all taken from them. That’s a very tough and bitter pill to swallow, and just kia kaha to all of those people.

I have to also say hats off to the Restaurant Association and New Zealand Winegrowers, who have put a programme together where you all—Madam Speaker and everyone else—can do something to help, by going to a restaurant in Cooking up a Storm on 20 March. The proceeds from you dining with a two-course meal goes to the cyclone relief and to those in the hospitality sector in those affected areas. I think that’s something tangible that we can all do—we all have to eat and you might as well spend your money when it’s going to such a good cause. And well done to those wineries that have supported by giving wine, and other suppliers who have given their supplies to those restaurants to be able to run that programme. I think it’s a fantastic programme and please, let’s all get in behind that and do something tangible to help them.

That said, vintage is getting under way in Marlborough now and the fruit coming in is pretty good, so things are starting to move. But, despite what the Prime Minister said in his statement, there are significant issues out there. A lot of them are really self-inflicted by really slow policy adjustments to a changing situation. Any of the tourism businesses I go into in my electorate—and there are many—are struggling. They’re not struggling because they haven’t got customers; they’ve got plenty of customers—they don’t have staff. This has been talked about for months. My colleague Erica Stanford has been coming up with a really good policy: what could and should have been done months ago, and it hasn’t been. We’re paying a very dear price for that now, with restaurants not opening at night or not opening during the day or having a day off when they would normally be open because they simply don’t have the staff; they don’t want to exhaust the staff they do have and not give the level of service that they would like to give. So that is a really simple solution that could and should have been put in place very early on but wasn’t. These things have to be acted on quickly and ahead of the game, not afterwards. Unfortunately, we have a history of that.

Another issue that’s causing significant problems in my electorate, and for a lot of people around New Zealand, is the ferries are not running at the moment reliably. I spoke to KiwiRail this morning and I’ve got a fantastic contact there who very generously gave me a rundown on what’s happening. We have got old ferries in the Interislander fleet which have had a significant run of breakdowns that have, effectively, helped Michael Wood out with his pothole programme that he’s got, rolling them out all over the country. Now we have Cook Strait as the biggest pothole on State Highway 1. We can’t get trucks across there. We can’t get passengers across there. We have got a significant issue there which is holding up our economy. I think it’s just one of those other things that could have been got in front of years ago and hasn’t been.

Bluebridge have also, unfortunately, had the same run of issues, or different issues, of their ferries also not being able to run reliably. It has caused a significant issue, and I think that we should acknowledge that it’s been a massive impost on our economic activity. Those costs are going to really come home to roost for a lot of companies around New Zealand, and they’ve slowed up a whole lot of other activity.

So just to finish off, I’d like to please remind everyone again, Cooking up a Storm on 20 March. Have a good night out and put your hands in your pocket to help—

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, can I just add my voice and pass on my deepest condolences for the loss of our two firefighters that were caught in the Muriwai slip, Craig Stevens and Dave van Zwanenberg. I have to say that everyone remembers where they were when they got the news. I was at the Silverdale fire station in my own electorate when the news came through. Obviously there was a very sombre mood, but our firefighters kept on turning out and they kept on responding to the communities that needed them. So I just want to acknowledge them and their families.

It’s very easy for politicians to stand up in this House and for us to acknowledge our first responders and the amazing work that they do in supporting us, and it’s important that we do that. But part of the problem that we have in this country—and certainly there was a megaphone put around it on the 27th in Auckland when we were hit with an event that we were hours late in having a state of emergency declaration put in place. That’s been well litigated through the media. It’s something that we have to have a look at in the review. Certainly, in my electorate, there was no excuse for it. I rang my own acting police district commander and said, “Why is there not a state of emergency in place?” He said, “We’ve been asking for that for four hours.”

We had people trapped, we had roads going down, we had power going out, and we realised very quickly that a centralised response was not able to prioritise, was not able to triage, which meant that we weren’t getting the right people in the right place at the right time. And that’s something that we actually have to look at in this review and make sure that we get it right, because a centralised model doesn’t always work. And I think that the one thing that has been shown very clearly with Cyclone Gabrielle is that the local response is what’s actually worked for the local communities.

I want to thank and acknowledge my own police Area Commander Roger Small; my Chief Fire Officer, Don McErlich; our senior manager for St John’s, Andy Everiss; and Faron Turner from our surf clubs—just four of our leaders. There were many more, but they all came together and we clearly identified that we had to take a local response back for the second round that we had come through Auckland. We made sure that we positioned our surf lifesaving assets at the fire station. That became a local command and control centre. St John’s had their mobile unit there, police operated out of there, and it meant that second time around, without using the centralised model, we were able to get the right people in the right place at the right time.

I visited the Hawke’s Bay. I went to Wairoa, where I met with the deputy mayor, because the mayor was actually down with COVID. Denise Eaglesome-Karekare, by the way, has provided outstanding leadership at a time when she lost her own house and they had three families trying to live in a four-bedroom home while she was still responding to the needs of her community. I want to acknowledge Juanita Savage. She was the incident controller in Wairoa. When she turned up, there was no power and there were no comms. She lit a candle and she tried to work out how they were going to deal with it. The farmers were actually the heroes on the night. They figured out what was happening in town. They got their tractors out, they hooked on the trailers, and they rolled into town and they started taking people off house roofs to save them from the floodwaters.

I went to Puketapu in Hawke’s Bay, where Kirsten Thompson, a young mum with some civil defence experience, had stood up to actually fill the gap that was left by civil defence and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in terms of no response for her community. She turned her house into an emergency centre. She did that for 12 days. On the 13th day, she called a public meeting and she begged for help and said, “I cannot do this any more. I need the Government to step in and take over.” That’s what they need. All these communities now, especially the ones that are isolated—Wairoa’s still cut off from Napier, Ruatōria is still cut off from Gisborne. They had their first public meeting in Ruatōria only about three days ago.

These are their major concerns: number one, that they’ve been forgotten; number two, that there’s no decisions been made. They’re not getting decision makers in front of them. They’ve stepped up through the worst of it when they had the adrenaline running, when they realised and they understood what they had to do to support and protect their communities. They are the true heroes. And the thing about our first responders in this country is that they’re so good. They go above and beyond. They often plaster over the cracks that have been created by the faceless bureaucrats that are sitting around computer terminals more interested in entering data than actually making sure they get the right people to the right place.

You might look in horror over the other side, but this is fact. This is coming from the people in the communities that are actually doing the job. So let’s step up and make sure that, number one, they aren’t forgotten; number two, they get the decision makers in front of them; and, number three—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. I understand this is a split call. I call Marja Lubeck—five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know I only have five minutes, but I want to say a couple of things, starting off with a big thankyou to our Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, who has basically had everything thrown at him from the very first moment he started off in his new role, a mere six weeks ago. So I stand here in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and the vision that he laid out in the House.

As this is my first contribution for the year, I also would like to pay my respects to Jacinda Ardern for the role that she has played in navigating New Zealand and New Zealanders through the many challenges that we’ve faced over the last five years. I was part of a New Zealand delegation in 2019, in April, to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the global organisation of national parliaments, and it was really moving to have every delegate from every country that attended come up to us and express their admiration and gratitude to New Zealand for its leadership in the response to the 15 March attack. Jacinda Ardern, of course, also earned the world’s respect for keeping New Zealanders safe during the worldwide COVID pandemic, and we had the lowest death rate in the OECD.

So I am proud to now stand here with a team that was united and showed unanimous support for Chris Hipkins to take on the role of Prime Minister six weeks ago. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has dealt with the challenges that immediately upon him taking on the role were thrown on him, and I am extremely proud to be part of a team with such amazing leadership.

The challenge the Prime Minister has had to deal with is now described as the worst weather event of this century. The effects of the weather events in late January, followed by the cyclone and more rain again, are absolutely devastating, and I do join my colleagues from around the House who have given us the comment that they wanted to express their thoughts to all of the emergency services, who have been working so hard all around the country to keep people safe. I also want to put on the record my condolences to those who have lost family and lost friends and who have suffered damage and losses that will be felt for a very long time to come.

The Prime Minister and colleagues like Minister Barbara Edmonds, and several other of my colleagues like the absolutely amazing Vanushi Walters, have visited the community of Muriwai after the tragedy. They met with the fire brigade members at the station, who are grieving the loss of two of their colleagues—their brothers—and my condolences go out to the family, friends, and colleagues of volunteer firefighters Craig Stevens and Dave van Zwanenberg.

On the other side of Kaipara ki Mahurangi, the communities were hard hit too when the cyclone hit and the flooding started. In the North, we were cut off for days from going north or south, as the roads had all closed due to slips and the floods. There was no power. For many on tank water, it also means that they have no flushing toilets. No water, no internet, and no phone coverage, and it lasted for many days.

It was great to see how the communities get together in times of adversity, and it was a privilege last week to host Ministers Sepuloni and Edmonds up in Wellsford and to host a morning tea for our many volunteers who kept the Wellsford emergency centre going all through those three weather events.

So a shout-out goes to Deejay, Justine, Leeanne, Jolene, Melissa, Tanya, JK, and to Ant the police officer and Christine. I want to express, as many of my colleagues have, my thanks and gratitude to all those many volunteers who were showing everyone who came to the centres their manaaki. People who were stranded, whānau ordered to leave their homes because they were not safe, strangers and neighbours—and everybody was safe.

But, as the Prime Minister has said, the scale of the task ahead of us is significant. We’re up for it, and our commitment to rebuild the network of devastated areas means that we’re standing with those communities and making sure that this will be a locally led response.

The recovery will cost billions, but we are in a strong financial position, with some of the lowest debt in the world on a per capita basis. Our Government is committed to doing what they can to get people back on their feet, and that’s why we’ve rolled out immediate support like the $50 million to businesses to deliver locally led, interim emergency business and primary sector support. To support farmers and growers as they rebuild from the cyclone, we’re providing further funding to help them get back on their feet, taking our total primary sector package to $55 million so far.

At the same time as we respond to the immediate challenges around homes, roads, power, and communications, we also look to the future, building resilience to respond to unexpected events and to ensure our communities are safe. We’ve made a start on addressing the cost of living pressures by extending fuel excise restrictions and half-price public transport, and we heard from my colleague previously that it’s a really good deal to take advantage of those half-price deals. I recently took the bus from Wellsford to Warkworth—

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: This debate is adjourned and is set down for resumption next sitting day. Members, I will indicate now that at the conclusion of Tama Potaka’s maiden statement, the House will suspend for the dinner break and resume for Government orders of the day at 7 p.m. I call on Tama Potaka to make his maiden statement.

Maiden Statement

Maiden Statement

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): E te Kaiārahi, Adrian, te reo o Ngā Wairiki, Ngāti Apa me Rangitīkei, tēnā koe.

Karanga ki a Ranginui, ki a Papatūānuku: ihi, wehi, wana, mana. Georgina Beyer, Chester Borrows, Paul East mā, ko te pō te kaihari i te rā, ko te mate te kaihari i te oranga. Ahumairangi, Tangitekeo, Te Whanganui-a-Tara me ōku ake o Taranaki Whānui me Ngāti Toa Rangatira, whakatau mai.

Kei te Kīngi ki Ingarihi, kei te Kīngi ki te riu o Waikato, e oati ana au ki te nuku me te rangi, ngā māreikura, whatukura, pōhutukawa, kahikatea o ia rohe, rarau mai.

He uri au nā Te Puku o te Ika, Te Kāhui Maunga me te Tai Hauāuru. Āna, he ūnahi nā Pohokura ki Aorangi, he rau huia nā Whitikaupeka nā Ohuake ki Ruahine ki Owhaoko.

He mōmona tūī nā Tamakōpiri ki Ōruamatua ki Rangipō Waiū.He Hinemanu he waewae hape nā Paratūae ki Te Awarua Te Riu o Puanga.He manawa piharau nā Te Awa Tupua he tātarakihi nā te Rere o Kāpuni. He kākano hoki ahua i ruia mai i Rangiātea. Aku hononga kei wawā kei Ingarihi, kei Wīwī hoki. He Māori ahau, he whakapapa Pākehā hoki ōku, he hua nā te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Nōku te maringanui ki te tō mai i ngā wawata a Ngā Kōpū Mānia, Kirikiriroa ki te Uru, ngā uaratanga o ōku rua tupua me ngā moemoeā a ōku rua kōiwi. [Gestures to portraits of ancestors set on easels on the floor of the House]

[Mr Speaker, Adrian, who hails from Ngā Wairiki, Ngāti Apa, and Rangitīkei, thank you.

Hearken the Sky Father, hearken the Earth Mother. I call upon our spiritual connections to bless us with vitality, passion, and awesomeness. Georgina Beyer, Chester Borrows, Paul East, and others, night brings day, and death brings life, those who have passed are released and set free. Tinakori Hill, Mt Victoria, the great harbour of Tara, and my kinspeople from Taranaki and Ngāti Toarangatira, I heed your welcome.

King Charles in England, King Tūheitia in Waikato, like my ancestors, I pledge an oath of allegiance for New Zealand. Superwomen, supermen, seaward peoples, and inland peoples who coalesce here as representatives of New Zealand, take root, and gather.

I am descendant from the central North Island, from the mountain cluster, and the West Coast. Yes, indeed, I am a scale from Pohokura at Aorangi, I am a huia feather from Whitikaupeka from Ohuake at Ruahine and Owhaoko. I am a well-fed pigeon from Ngāti Tamakōpiri at Ōruamatua and Rangipo Waiū. I am a Hinemanu and clubbed foot from Paratuae to Awarua and Te Riu o Puanga. I am an enduring lamprey eel from the Whanganui River and a cacophonous cicada from Victoria Falls. I am a seed sown from Rangiātea, with relations near and far. I am Māori, and I also have English and French lineage, hence an offspring of the Treaty of Waitangi. 

It is my honour to present the yearnings of the hard-working people of the fertile lands of Hamilton West, the desires of my ancient guardians, and the dreams of my recent forebears.] [Gestures to portraits of ancestors set on easels on the floor of the House]

E tā, a brief aroha moment for those who have suffered in the recent climatic events—kia kaha. And an ūkaipō [sustenance] moment for winners Te Kapa Haka o Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and the Ōrākei hosts of Te Matatini—kia ita [be firm].

For 30 years, people alive and dead have counselled me for this kōrero, and the latter group were very instructive. My kōrero covers acknowledgments, my formal experiences, and thoughts for New Zealand’s future success. Friends, New Zealanders, countrywomen and -men, we are joined here and online by National Party aunties and uncles like Edgar Wilson, Lindsay Butler, and Andrew King, who worked diligently to reawaken my service to Hamilton West and possibly the Parliamentary Rugby Team, whose selectors, I hear, are very persuasive! My constituents from places like St Andrews, Nawton, Grandview, Dinsdale, Frankton, Melville, the Lake, and Tuhikaramea have instructed me to reinstate our distinct parliamentary voice and help make it the best place to grow up and old in Aotearoa.

Whānau, if you haven’t been to The Base shopping centre in Hamilton West, now is your time. Hamilton West is bellwether, agrarian, entrepreneurial, youthful, and brown—35 percent of us are Māori and Pasifika. And you may have heard of our iconic Kiwi businesses: Gallagher’s, Porter’s, Perry’s, APL, Modern Transport Engineers, Montana, and Tainui Group Holdings, and local champions like K’aute Pasifika, Manning St, and CrossFit Waikato. Hard-working people and competitive enterprise built our place.

I acknowledge the nine people who have held the parliamentary torch for Hamilton West, particularly Tim Macindoe, a servant of this House, this Whare, for 12 years.

Mā kahurangi, mā mangumangu, mā pango, mā whero, mā kākāriki, mā kōwhai mā pāpura e oti ai te mahi.

[Through blue, the dark, the black, the red, the green, the yellow, and purple the work will be done.]

He ihu hūpē au. I’m a snotty-nosed apprentice. To the National Party leadership, Chris Luxon, Nicola Willis, Sylvia Wood, fellow MPs, and tireless supporters such as the SuperBlues, Pacific Island Blues, and the Young Nats, thank you for the privilege to serve in this Whare, the highest court and marae ātea in the land.

Kei ngā raiona me ngā tupua o tēnei Whare, kia ora.

[To the lions and titans in this den, greetings.]

My formative years reflect our party’s values. I was raised in rural New Zealand. Rata, Makaranui, Ākitio, Ōpunake—on “Surf Highway 45”, Whaea Debbie—and Pukehou, are not urban yet, but they enable cities like Hamilton and Auckland to function, whether through the supply of water, gravel, food, energy, or people. My bones lie in those places and on the far-flung battlefields of the Pioneer and Māori Battalions. Kia mau ki tō ūkaipō—don’t forget your roots.

My parents initially sculpted my life. Paddy and Joe dedicated themselves to getting things done in Rata—like land consolidation to ensure not one more acre of family land was lost from whānau ownership. They sought to reincarnate collective Mōkai Pātea enterprise of the late 19th century, only to be crushed through relentless land alienation and prejudice. Rangi-takuku Mete-Kingi, Morvin Simon, and Whatarangi Winiata inspired our community restoration, but mum and dad and extended whānau convened capital-raising initiatives like Calcutta’s, Crown and Anchor nights, and meat raffles to take the community and our marae forward. Village aunties Bo Rangi and Gwen Manunui gave me regular unsolicited guidance, reminding me that I was brought up, not dragged up, and that respect was at the launch pad of anything that mattered. “Mana whenua” was a verb, not a position nor a judicially determined status. “Utu” was reciprocity, not revenge. And our village instilled two things: work hard to get the rewards, and look after the land; it’ll look after you. Their legacy continues and will be strengthened in due course, Minister Little, through this House ultimately settling the Mōkai Pātea and Rangitīkei River Treaty claims. Kai makariri, kai raumati i te hinu o te whenua—in the summer and winter, we will live on the fat of the land.

On teacher salaries, mum and dad fertilised my education through Huntley School and, like my brother Pēhi, Te Aute College, preparing me for life and this role. Te Aute hard-wired me into Māori male success: Te Rangi Hīroa; Māui Pōmare; Eddie, Mason, Rā—anyone with the last name—Durie; Pita Sharples; and our most notable and formidable old boy, and National Party co-founder, Tā Apirana Ngata. They ignited a mental fortitude to survive and thrive as brothers in any conditions.

Foreign relations training—that was bussing past Pakipaki to St Stephen’s School and Whanganui Collegiate, Mr Bayly, and, if we were really well-behaved, St Joseph’s Māori Girls College and Church College. People like Anaru Takurua, Fred Jackson, and Jenny Senior guided us to acquit ourselves and be strong—“Whakatangata kia kaha”.

Through taking personal responsibility, with collective support, I berthed at Victoria University to pursue law, politics, and Māori studies. A simple life ensued between Kelburn Parade, Old Government Buildings, Te Herenga Waka Marae, the home of Neil and Tiahuia Gray, and various Malaysian and kebab restaurants. I was in the first electoral systems course run by Nigel Roberts and Stephen Levine, saw the protest against Mururoa nuclear testing, and the red socks celebration for Team New Zealand, and I experienced the contrasting legal academic styles of people like John Miller, Sir Geoffrey and Matthew Palmer, Mai Chen, Geoff McLay, and Caren Fox. The Victoria University Foundation, Fletcher Challenge, the District Law Society here, PKW Incorporation, Dave Turner, and others aided me to complete my degrees, pursue an LLM at Columbia Law School, and be exposed to Lou Henkin, Jack Greenberg, and Jane Ginsburg, daughter of the notorious “RBG”. I passed the New York Bar exam and became an attorney at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—and the Minister of Finance will attest that I genuinely engaged in learning in and out of the class. Kia ora.

Those collated experiences left an indelible impression upon me that any young New Zealander raised with village values and community support can go from throwing hay-bales, mowing the marae lawns in Whakatupuranga Rua Mano [Generation 2000], all the way to an august Ivy League institution and practising attorney for some of the biggest clients in the world. During my travels, and more recently, the excitement and exuberance of the Black Ferns and my brethren Cliff Curtis’ mega-movie appearances, it is trite that Māori people and Māori culture have global reach and meaning and are fundamental but should not be fundamentalist, whānau, to New Zealand’s renewal.

Returning home, I became the deputy sexton of the whānau urupā—a big job—launched software at Creative HQ, and rejoined Te Puni Kōkiri, Minister Jackson. Service for others followed at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, Bell Gully, Tainui Group Holdings, the Superannuation Fund, and finally the mighty Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki nation whilst learning governance on Anglican, tribal, and Māori boards. If you want to learn governance, go to an Anglican board. I was privileged to tautoko the Pacific Islands Investment Forum and the collective Māori investment fund Te Pūia Tāpapa. Thanks to all those people, the many people who gave me a chance to serve all New Zealanders.

I was lucky to help my wife deliver Whānau Ora festivals called TriMāori, rangatahi programmes Young Engineers and Squiggle, and publish Shakespeare plays translated into the Māori language by my wife’s great-grandfather and a National Party man, Pei Te Hurinui Jones. Meitaki maata and fa‘afetai to the community and voluntary sector and small to medium sized enterprises for the mahi they do to make New Zealand a better place.

The upshot of all these humbling experiences, whānau, was that when I was recently sworn in, I was absolutely stunned by the enormity of the work that each and every one of you do here in this Whare, and the Parliamentary Service team. Ngā mihi matakoakoa ki koutou. [Hearty appreciation to you all.] Thank you all for your prodigious commitment and mahi for Aotearoa.

Two matters resonate for me as the key foundations for the country’s future: education and law. E hoa mā, in my view, we must foster a world-class parenting education and learning environment, which all New Zealanders have an equal opportunity to access and succeed in. One size does not fit all, and the bird eats more than miro berries in the forest, and that forest has many diverse kaitiaki, including those with mental wellbeing challenges.

My own learning deepened through action under people like Wira Gardiner, Moana Jackson—the lawyer, Ngāti Kahungunu guy; not the other Moana Jackson—Gina Rudland, John and Ben Paki, Vapi Kupenga, Rongo and Koro Wetere, Bentham Ohia, Bill Russell, Chet Kronenberg, Anake Goodall, Temuera Hall, Haydn Wong, John Spencer, Matthew Cockram, Mike Pohio, Tumanako Wereta, Adrian Orr, Matt Whineray, and James Brown.

My sister Raina and my cousins and peers schooled me through marae and kitchen feedback. Action-based experiences like Te Tira Hoe o Wanganui—as the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows—or defence training, can be as useful for life as any formal course inside an institution, and our educational success rests on many players: learners, parents, teachers, volunteers, officials, investors, and icons, like Nathan and Yvette Durie. We can catalyse more success through less open classrooms and better activate values-based schools, partnership schools like Te Kōpuku High or Hamilton West, or Waatea School, as Matua Minister Jackson knows, and online learning like Crimson Global Academy. Enrol the whānau; not just the tamariki. Compliance should not overrun education or unreasonably reduce resources from and proper mentoring for teachers. Without relevant multidisciplinary learning and engagement of young people, we will contribute more to crime and poverty. All New Zealanders must have an equal opportunity to transform themselves, their whānau, and our country through education and learning.

I didn’t study brain surgery; I studied law, its power and influence and generally well-founded construction. House-made law should be guided by social, cultural mores; domestic and international obligations; and global influence where suitable, not just copy-and-paste jobs from Canada. Judicial interpretation of legislation—that’s a second pathway to create law, like the Baigent case and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

A third pathway is common law, and there’s been significant judicial inquiry to recognise tikanga through common law. I applaud this mahi—kia kaha—but caution that that process remains rational, transparent, relevant, and not guided by narrow ideology and provincial inclinations. What happens in Whakatāne may be different to Waitaki, Wharekauri, Westport, and Ngāti Wairere. Autochthonous efforts should continue, albeit with relevant balancing of our indigenous, Treaty, and, indeed, international rights heritage. Like rights set out in the Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, we should be curious around tikanga and consider how to best foster an environment where it suitably empowers all New Zealanders.

Before I finish my kōrero, I honour my wahine and best friend, Ariana. He whenua, he wāhine mate ai te tangata—for land and women, we will lay down our lives. Like many New Zealand women, she has an unbending commitment to cultivate the potential of young people, families, and the community. With me, she has traded happiness and peace for massive risks and a thin chance of satisfaction. As Kahlil Gibran, the Persian poet, poetically intimates, Ariana awakens with a winged heart and a gratitude for loving. I’m internally indebted to her and our innovative tamariki, Tiaria Te Ikaroa, Te Awarua Tamatereka, and Aorangi Te Āionuku. Like my mother, Ariana hangs on to every word of our children, and they hang on to her heart.

Finally, I salute my many tūpuna, iwi, and uri whakaheke—my ancestors, my peoples, and my descendants—with reference to my father’s ancestors Utiku Potaka and Rora Te Oiroa Goffe. Utiku fought alongside Colonel Whitmore and acted on the instructions of John Bryce at Parihaka against my mother’s ancestors. With his cousins, they formally sought co-investment with the Government in rail infrastructure through the Awarua and Motukawa land blocks near Taihape. They advocated for better governance and low-cost finance to accelerate primary sector enterprise and were occasional pen pals with “King Dick” Seddon. Utiku and Rora left all New Zealanders with a vision of the present and future for our nation.

Kia mau ki te oha ō tūpuna, ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ki te ture tangata me te ture atua i puta ai tātou ki te whai ao ki te ao marama—heed the revelations of your ancestors, the Treaty of Waitangi 1840, the law of humanity and the spiritual realms from whence we emerge into the light and understanding.

It is with this vision in mind that I’ve reflected on a need to reinforce my loyalty to and help to re-splice unity across Aotearoa, our country, based on whakapapa, or genealogical foundations, and embracing multicultural demographic realities evident in my electorate. It’s a privilege, and now my responsibility, to serve Hamilton West in this fine House, and, indeed, to serve all New Zealanders.

Mōkai te ngārara, mangumangu tāipo nei au e mihi ana ki te tuituinga, ki te huihuinga, ki aku nui ki aku rahi tēnā koutou, tātou katoa.

[My kaitiaki are now calling. I acknowledge you all gathered, the wise and resourceful. Greetings to you and all of us.]

Applause, hongi, and harirū

Waiata—Au e Ihu

Haka—Te Aute College Haka

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

Bills

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) 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 DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill makes several amendments to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act of 2009. While our civil forfeiture regime is highly effective, these changes will further improve our success and efficiency at confiscating property derived from organised and transnational criminal activity. At a high level, the four amendments provide, firstly, new restraint in forfeiture orders where a person is associated with an organised criminal group and their known legitimate property was not enough to acquire their assets; secondly, a new disclosure of source order requiring overseas respondents to provide information on the origin of restrained property within two months or else face losing those assets; thirdly, express permission for funds in KiwiSaver schemes to be subject to civil forfeiture orders just like any other managed funds; and, fourthly, authorisation for the official assignee to hold seized property beyond 28 days if an application for a restraining order has been made to the court, as is the case with applications for forfeiture.

I’d like to thank all the submitters for their input, as well as thorough scrutiny from the Justice Committee. The matters highlighted by the committee show the trade-off at the heart of this issue between firstly upholding the rule of law by enabling forfeiture of illicit assets, and protecting people’s rights with safeguards against unjust seizure. Part of the bill that received the most scrutiny was the new type 2 assets forfeiture orders. These target the leaders and facilitators of organised crime who try to keep a distance from the offending from which they profit. I was pleased—and I’m speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice; she was indeed pleased—to see the committee unanimously recommend the bill pass with the $30,000 threshold and the definition of “associate”. To be clear, the threshold is the minimum value of assets that can’t legitimately be explained, and an “associate” means a person who is more than a mere acquaintance of any member of an organised criminal group. The careful consideration by the committee gives me confidence that the provisions work together to strike the right balance.

There were thoughtful submissions on this matter, and I understand where both sides were coming from. To those concerned about the $30,000 threshold, I note that the cases involving the leaders and facilitators of organised crime targeted by these orders have been in the millions of dollars, far above the $30,000, and the existing forfeiture orders can still be used to seize assets below $30,000 if there’s proof those assets were derived from significant criminal activity.

To those concerned about legitimate property being unjustly taken from people associated with members of organised criminal groups, I note that the bill includes provisions to exclude people who are only a mere acquaintance of a member of an organised criminal group or have less than $30,000 in unexplained property and are therefore less likely to be leaders or facilitators. Also, the courts must not order forfeiture if it would be in the interests of justice to do so, if—must not order forfeiture, sorry, just to be clear, if it would not be in the interests of justice to do so, which protects against seizures that would be unreasonable even if someone is associated.

The committee also recommended some technical amendments to better give effect to the policy. These include, for example, making it clear that new orders should take account of the cumulative value of multiple assets that can’t legitimately be explained, and that a formal valuation is not required at the restraint stage when it might tip off a person and give them a chance to dispose of their illicit assets. We all agree that people should not be able to profit from breaking the law. The changes recommended by the committee help the bill achieve the intended effect of ensuring crime does not pay and deterring anyone from participating in organised criminal groups.

The committee also made several technical recommendations on the disclosure of source orders. These orders respond to cases where police have reasonable grounds to believe that assets have been derived from significant criminal activity but the property owner is overseas. If the owner were in New Zealand, it would be an offence to fail to comply with court orders investigating the source of the property; however, these existing orders can’t be enforced when the person is overseas. In short, the new disclosure of source orders instead incentivise compliance by allowing assets to potentially be forfeited if the owner fails to respond within two months.

I appreciate the technical amendments that the committee recommended to ensure the bill is legally clear and achieves its intended purpose. For example, the bill is now explicit that a conviction for failing to comply with a disclosure of source order is not required before the presumption in favour of forfeiture can apply.

I note that there were no substantive changes to the other two amendments, concerning funds and KiwiSaver and adjusting the official assignee’s authority to hold seized property.

These reforms also complement the law enforcement tools in the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, both of which will help deter offending and enable the seizure of illicit profits.

I look forward, and I’m sure the Minister will look forward, to the bill passing through the remaining parliamentary stages, and I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. National is supporting this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, which the person standing in for the Minister of Justice just outlined, and thank you very much for that speech.

Look, I think all New Zealanders are rightly concerned about the rise in gang activity that we’ve seen across the country over the past few years. New Zealanders have had an issue with gangs for many decades, of course, but we have, all of us—whether driving around streets of our cities and towns, or reading the media—been made aware of the increased visibility of gangs on our streets, and also the ongoing huge profits that they continue to reap from the illegal drug trade in particular. So this bill is one step forward by the Government to try and make it easier to make sure that crime doesn’t pay and that some of the ill-gotten gains will be taken.

Now, as a general rule, I think it’s fair to say that we on this side of the House tend to be fairly critical of this Government’s approach to law and order and justice. We are frustrated, like many New Zealanders, that the Government, frankly, has been soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. When I say “soft on the causes of crime”, we think of the long-term drivers such as kids not being at school, children growing up in motels, and much broader social issues that haven’t been effectively addressed, and we’re concerned about that. But, of course, when it comes to the actual day-to-day dealing with what’s in front of police officers, and the sense of criminality in our communities, then they’ve also fallen short. We have only one clear target, which is a reduction in the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what’s happening on the ground. And that, of course, doesn’t make any sense to anybody who’s concerned about ensuring that we are kept safe. And the prison population—yes, we want that to be low, but it has to be based on a genuine lowering of violent crime. Instead, what we’ve seen has been an increase in violent crime, and a big part of that story has been an increase in gang activity.

So this bill is one step forward. We support it. We just wish there was so much more to back it up because, unfortunately, what we’ve seen from this Government is a mixed message when it comes to the gangs. We have this legislation, for example, which makes it easier for Government to take the proceeds of crime from organised gang activity—organised crime. Yet, at the same time, other wings of the Government give succour to the gangs, gives them money to run programmes, and sends a very mixed message. And so I think that’s part of the broader problem.

But when it comes to the detail of this bill—I was on the Justice Committee with our colleagues, and I want to thank the chairman of that committee for most of the proceedings, Ginny Andersen—

Simon O’Connor: Chair individual.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Pardon?

Simon O’Connor: Chair individual or chairwoman.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Chairwoman. And so I think we worked very constructively on this bill.

Now, of course, there involve some significant trade-offs, obviously, between wanting to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions, and this legislation definitely crimps those rights—in particular, in relation to allowing new restraining orders against properties owned by associates of somebody involved in crime. And that is, of course, a difficult area, and one which has potential for things to go awry. And so that, quite naturally, has been a cause of concern for many, but, ultimately, there needs to be a way to defeat the ease with which some organisers of organised crime have been able to divert funds into the hands of associates in order to keep them from the law enforcement agencies.

Then, we also had a debate about the $30,000 threshold. We were worried that was too high and that not just the metaphorical but the actual Harley-Davidsons might come below that threshold and not be caught by this legislation. I am pleased that, during the course of the select committee process, we did make the suggested amendment that the value of specific property would apply cumulatively, so clauses 15 and 21 insert new sections to that affect. So it would “allow the restraint and forfeiture of ‘specific property’ that an individual, associated with an organised crime group, had insufficient legitimate property to acquire.” And the bill as it was introduced didn’t make it clear whether that comprised a specific property—like one Harley-Davidson, if it was worth $27,000, might not meet the threshold. It wasn’t clear, so we are making it abundantly clear that if you happen to have two Harley-Davidsons that were worth $27,000 each, you would be losing both of them if you were captured by this bill. So I think that’s a useful step forward.

Now, we do take seriously the impact this has from a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act perspective. But we, of course, also have to weigh the rights of ordinary citizens to live their lives free of the marauding activities of organised crime, and the safety of the community and the need for justice—not just to be done but to be seen to be done, and to give the police the powers that they need to hold the perpetrators to account. And we believe the balance is fair and right in respect to this matter.

We hope to be in Government by October. And like all pieces of legislation, this is one where its impact does need to be monitored carefully. This is what we intend to do. We want to ensure that we capture the associates of members in organised crime—not just casual acquaintances but genuine associates. Now, only time will tell how that works in practice, and so, come five years’ time, we’ll be wanting to have a look at that and make sure that it has achieved what it set out to achieve, as indeed we do in all pieces of legislation.

In respect to any other matters of detail, I do want to thank the rest of the select committee and those who did make a submission. There weren’t an enormous number of submissions, frankly—only five, and we heard oral submissions from three. And I think that reflects a widespread recognition of the need for legislation of this type in order to help with them. Another small element was the inclusion of KiwiSaver schemes. Obviously, the KiwiSaver legislation was reasonably robust in its defence of those savings for retirement, but it’s not appropriate for that to be a perfect vehicle for sending funds to be kept from the authorities in this situation. And so changes in that space, we think, are appropriate, and we support that as well.

So, overall, this is a Government that we have many concerns about in the broader law and order and justice space, but they are capable of producing legislation that does take things forward from time to time. This is one of those occasions. On account of that, we are happy to support this bill.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make some brief remarks in relation to this bill. I must say I was a little disappointed at some of the rhetoric and catchphrases on that side of the House. However, I do appreciate that the Opposition are supporting this bill, and Mr Goldsmith is correct that the committee worked really well on this bill. It isn’t always easy to strike the right balance in terms of any incursion into rights but also providing police with the tools that they need to keep communities safe. And this bill is certainly in that space, as is the next bill that will be before the House that’s responding to a changed space in the criminal justice world.

The select committee report is a really robust one—so for those interested in the committee’s work, I would recommend reading it. But just pointing to two changes that the committee made, and Mr Goldsmith did speak briefly to one: the fact that the value of the specific property would apply cumulatively. So while restraint and forfeiture is permitted for specific property, clauses 15 and 21 weren’t clear whether that was cumulative or not. So that wasn’t so much a change we made, as opposed to ensuring that that was clear in the bill.

The second one which I thought was of significance was amending clause 15 to allow the Commissioner of Police to provide estimates rather than a formal valuation, and that isn’t the end of the process, of course, because, once a property is restrained, it is possible to undertake a formal valuation at that stage. So, again, it just demonstrates the balancing act that the committee was looking to achieve in terms of ensuring fairness but also community safety, and, again, providing police with the tools they need. So it’s a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on the second reading of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. To say that the Justice Committee as a whole navigated its way through and thought that we’d come up with a good compromise around the cumulative value on goods is complete and utter nonsense. If they want to get serious about this bill, they have to drop the threshold, and we made that point time and time and time again—not just to $10,000. Actually, you don’t even need a threshold in this bill. If you want it to be effective—if you actually want to start hitting the gangs—remove the threshold. It’s a massive loophole there for them.

This is the problem: with all the legislation that this Government—this soft on crime Labour Government—brings to this House, it’s always doing as little as possible. It’s always sitting on the fringes, whether it be a firearms prohibition order—which, by the way, I don’t even think has been used; that’s got no new warrantless search power—or whether it be this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, which has got a $30,000 threshold. What did the police say? I’d invite the next Government speaker to actually tell us what the police told the committee. The police were very clear. The police Minister at the time—now the Prime Minister—wanted the threshold dropped. The police didn’t want the threshold at $30,000. Why is the threshold still at $30,000?

They were very clear that, if you want this legislation to be effective, if you really want us to clamp down on the gangs—and this is the real rub. This is the real rub: you read the report and they say that, in 2020, the incoming Labour Government were very serious about clamping down on gangs. Then you had Iain Lees-Galloway sitting over there squawking like a raptor when we said that we wanted to introduce a taskforce that would be effective and start to deal to the gangs. We’ve seen over a 50 percent increase in them. We’re seeing violent gang crime every day. I read in the media today that there was a mother with her badly injured son in the critical care unit in Christchurch that was taken over by the gangs. They blocked off their own parking. Every week, we see them taking over public spaces and public roads. We see them intimidating and abusing members of the public.

This problem has got out of control under a soft on crime Labour Government. What is their answer to it? Well, the first answer was this: every—

Anna Lorck: Stop saying that.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Stop saying what? Soft on crime? Own it—own it. You get up and take a call and tell us why the rest of the country, when they’re asked, see you as soft on crime. I’ll tell you why: they’ve watched, for the last five or six years, a massive increase in gang numbers, a massive increase in gang violence, a massive increase in youth and juvenile offending. That didn’t just suddenly happen. You might sit in the ivory tower down here—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Speaker. The member might sit in the ivory tower down in Wellington. Go back into your own electorate and talk to the people there and ask them whether they feel safe. They’ll tell you that they don’t feel safe. I’ll tell you why they don’t feel safe: it’s because the Mongrel Mob think that they run the town. The Mongrel Mob are out there carrying firearms, and the Mongrel Mob are out there assaulting, looting, and intimidating people in your town. That’s how the people feel. I don’t know if you were at the public meeting on Tuesday last week. I don’t think you were. I don’t think the member was there.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. Order! The member is an experienced member. I’d ask him to come back to the bill. He has talked around organised crime, but I want him to be a bit closer to the second reading part of this bill. I ask the member not to bring the Speaker into the debate. It’s difficult; I know the House is passionate, and that’s great.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Speaker. So what’s one of the best things that the member could do to actually start to have an impact on the Mongrel Mob in the Hawke’s Bay that are terrorising the community up there?

Hon David Bennett: Lock ’em up!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, yeah, lock them up. That’s right. David Bennett is 100 percent right. Lock them up. Have some consequences. That’s the first thing. But do you know what you could do? You could actually get rid of the threshold in this bill. You could make it much easier for your local police officers to go out and actually start to seize some of these assets. The member could make it much easier for her local police to go out there and start seizing assets from these gangs. So why not put the energy into actually supporting that—speaking to her colleagues and actually getting support inside the select committee to make the change that this bill needs?

They don’t like being referred to as “soft on crime”, but I’m sorry, the reason why this bill is in front of the select committee, the reason why this bill is in the House, is because it’s some weak, vacuous attempt by this Government to try and make up and to try and fix a problem that they know they’ve created over the last five or six years. It’s exactly the same as the last weak bill that they brought into this House, which was the firearms prohibition orders bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Stick to the bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’d like to know how many times that’s been used. And, by the way, while the member was talking about bills being brought into this House, how many bills has this Labour Government voted down that National members have brought into the House in the last six years?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Let’s stick to this bill. The member has strayed wide enough and far enough, and I need him to speak, in the second reading, on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it’s very hard to draw this bill out, and I’ll tell you why: because it’s useless. Unless they drop that threshold from $30,000 to nothing—and we’ll be working very hard to do that—this is a useless bill. It’s not going to get used. It’s like the other legislation they’ve brought through here; it’s vacuous. It’s on the fringes. It really doesn’t do much.

So, although we’re in this situation where, actually, we are going to support anything that comes through that may make a difference—and maybe there’s an outside chance that the odd asset might be seized or something might be done with this—and we will support it, for me, personally, unless we drop the threshold on this bill, it’s not even worth the paper that it’s actually written on. I think that history will show that it’s not just this bill; it’s previous bills. We will continue to work to try and get the threshold lowered in this bill. I’d encourage my colleagues on the select committee—and the member from Hawke’s Bay to continue to try and lobby her colleagues to get the threshold lowered on this bill and to give her local police the tools that they really need to start dealing to the gangs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Let’s now return a little bit of logic over the somewhat unfocused emotion we’ve heard this evening. For those watching in the House—and there are some people who do watch the House—this is one of two bills that we’re bringing forward tonight which gives the police and the authorities more power to sort organised crime. So the one we’re going to do next is around things like boy racers and bad behaviour by gangs on the road.

But the first one that we’re talking about now, which is the pigeon pair with that, is about taking the money from the gangs, controlling gang activity by taking away their profits. What it does is three things: it gives new powers to target associates of organised criminal gangs so that when they try to keep their profits safe by giving them to a friend or a family member, we can go after that money and if that associate cannot show where it came from, we get it; we have a part of the bill also that allows us to chase those people when they try to run overseas; and we also have—and I think this is quite useful—one which stops them hiding it in their KiwiSaver account.

Now, very briefly, the member opposite—Mark Mitchell—has been arguing that we should reduce the threshold for chasing assets below $30,000. What I’d point out to the House is that that $30,000 threshold is in line with the original legislation, which put it in, which—guess what!—was passed by the National Government.

Hon Andrew Little: Who put it in?

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Oh, it would be the National Government, Mr Little. It would be the National Government. My goodness. But apparently that wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, Mr Mitchell.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Jan Logie.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to oppose the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill.

Hon David Bennett: Oh, seriously?

JAN LOGIE: Yeah, definitely. We’ve heard certain takes on what this bill will do—another way of looking at it. We’ve heard some respect for that alternative view expressed by Labour members—or a Labour member—so I want to outline that here. So what it does is it reverses the onus of proof from the police to show that someone has committed a crime and that the proceeds being seized are connected to that crime, on to the person targeted to show their money or assets are not proceeds of crime. Generally, this is a concept of law that’s frowned upon, for obvious reasons, about the effort that’s required to prove that you purchased something and you didn’t commit a crime—that’s quite a tough thing to go through. It also takes away the requirement to have a specific crime alleged at all. So what is being alleged is mere association or that the assets are tainted by gang involvement, and that is pretty much a pretty incredible derivation away from our criminal law standards that protect people against unfair State or police sanction without proof.

We’ve heard that, through the Justice Committee, the definition of “associate” has been tightened so that it can be more than a mere acquaintance. As somebody who lives in a street with a lot of Mongrel Mob members, I guess I should be grateful that that’s been tightened. But the fact is that family and friends of these gang members—which will include members in this House—will still be potential targets of this legislation because there will be people in this House who have family members who are involved in gangs, because they are in our communities right across this country and have been for a long time.

I want to mention, too, just in terms of the reflection and some of the rhetoric, particularly from the previous National member, Mark Mitchell, around gangs, is just—I can’t put aside the conversation I was hearing from the gangs at the royal commission over the last few weeks about what brought them into the gangs.

Hon David Bennett: Oh gosh—drug dealing and prostitution.

JAN LOGIE: What brought them into the gangs was their experience of abuse in State institutions—of being alienated from their families and abused sexually, physically, and emotionally in the supposed care of the State. So they got to a point where they did not trust the State or have any interest in society, because they had been so deeply hurt from it. Now, we look at this piece of legislation that will target the friends and family who will now potentially be open to having their goods taken away from them because of their association and their family membership with somebody in a gang. The proof will be on them to prove that they got that property through legitimate means, and that will impose significant burdens, including attendance at court, the costs of legal representation, the risks of cost orders and inquiries into their finances, and being the subject of search and examination orders because they have a family member or a friend who is in a gang.

This is right throughout our country—there will be members in the House who that could happen to. Except, we all think we’re protected from it because we’ve got status. And that’s actually probably right because, as I think the section 7 report stated, “Given the prominence of gangs within some Māori communities, there is a more than fanciful risk that community, work, iwi, or whānau-based associations in which gang members also participate, may be used to establish an association with a member of an organised criminal group for the purposes of starting investigations. Whanaungatanga obligations mean that Māori may be particularly likely to engage in association with whānau who have gang affiliations. This may place them at greater risk of being subject to these orders unjustifiably, or because of police bias.” That police bias—they’re working on it but it’s well established, and we are creating more grounds for the extension of that bias. The Green Party will not support that.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. I note that there were five submissions received, three that gave oral evidence. There was plenty of time for the gangs to put submissions in and appear in front of the Justice Committee. We received advice from the Ministry of Justice, and that was great advice as well, because this is actually quite a complex bill that we worked our way through—trying to understand it, how it affected different people and their families were very well nutted out through the select committee process.

I’d like to take this opportunity to actually point out and thank Vanushi Walters, Arena Williams, and also Chris Penk, who asked a whole lot of questions on matters that I wasn’t sure if I was even understanding the answers, but they managed to pull it all together so that as a select committee we could move forward and support this bill, even though I do support National’s stance in that it does not go far enough.

The bill amends the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, and, at the introduction of our select committee report, there is a paragraph which I found I had to keep going back to when the scenarios that we were bandying about were being played out within the committee. It reads, in the introduction: “It seeks to prevent individuals from profiting from significant criminal activity by improving New Zealand’s civil forfeiture regime. In particular … by targeting the illicit profits of leaders and facilitators of organised crime and transnational offending.” I will keep coming back to aspects of that statement throughout this speech. The purpose of this bill is to legislatively allow the creation of new restraining and forfeiture orders by way of expanding when these orders can be applied for and granted. This is in response to the influx of profiteering from significant criminal activity.

We break the regime for the creation of these assets forfeiture orders into two types; they are defined as type 1 and type 2 assets forfeiture orders. Type 1 will relate to organised criminal groups who structure their affairs to avoid the existing restraining and asset forfeiture orders. The court will be able to make a restraining order against specific property if it’s satisfied that (1) the person who has the order against them is an associate of a member of an organised criminal group, like a gang, or is a participant in that group; (2) that the person has property but can’t explain how they could afford that property—for example, for valuation purposes, we discussed how the value of that property would be achieved and whether it will be at reasonable market value rather than current market value. This is because what was potentially legitimately purchased 20 years ago may have a different value now, but the respondent will still need to prove that they purchased it 20 years ago and could afford to do so when they did.

The third one is that at the time the application for the assets forfeiture is made, the value of the questionably obtained property exceeds the current threshold of $30,000. The specific property can be presumed to be tainted if the respondent does not comply with the disclosure of source order, or lies about how it is obtained. There is an onus of proof here. The courts need to be shown that the above criteria have been met; the respondent will need to prove that the purchase was valid and not because of ill-gotten gains from significant criminal activity. It is also outlined that when making an order is not in the interests of justice, they must not. An example of this, which we discussed at select committee, is where essential items like beds, fridges, washing machines, ovens—they can’t be forfeited. The key here is that, firstly, the accumulated value must reach $30,000, and, secondly, it must have come about from partaking in significant criminal activity.

This would mean that being raided and found with a tinny of marijuana would not mean that the assets in the house are forfeited, but being raided and being found with a couple of pounds of marijuana, a new Harley-Davidson outside, and the latest Chev Corvette in the garage, while on the dole, happens to hang out with the local organised crime group, and hasn’t complied with the disclosure of source order—well, they are likely to have asset seizure forfeiture orders placed upon them.

I would like to point out at this stage that my bill which went through the House looking to change the threshold, meaning that finding an illegally held firearm was the new threshold to seize these assets, was turned down by the Labour Government. It could have actually helped in the scenario of asset seizure and stopping significant criminal activity. So I just would like to put that in there.

Type 2 asset forfeiture orders must have the same criteria met as type 1. That is, that a person is a member or an associate of an organised criminal group, they can’t explain their assets based on their income, and that the value of questionably obtained property exceeds $30,000. If this criteria is also met, then the forfeiture order must be made on specific property, excluding the value that can be explained by the respondent’s legitimate property.

The same conditions apply as for type 1, whereby if the respondent can prove the ownership is legit, then an order must not be made, nor should it be made where it is not in the interests of justice to do so—an example is: taking the run-down 1980s car off a single mum of four. A scenario for specific property and convertible property and amounts for forfeiture is, say, where a home is legitimately owned and sold for $600,000, and that $600,000 profit is used to purchase a $1 million home. The house is now paid in full. Now, the $600,000 of the $1 million price can be accounted for, but the other $400,000 cannot. The asset forfeiture order can take the $400,000, but must ensure that the $600,000 remains with the respondent. In clause 5, we’ve inserted new section 5B(2A) to more clearly define what is “convertible property”, and we inserted new section 5B(3) to better explain the exempt proportion of that specific property forfeiture.

To restrain the property, the Commissioner of Police would need to satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property is tainted, and, once forfeited, the presumption of police needs to be proven either for or against them for the assets seizure order to be made. It is important that presumption is used only at the forfeiture stage, not during the restraint stage, because to do so could prematurely taint the illegitimate and legitimate purchases before all evidence can be acquired. The committee wanted to change the bill to reflect this and have done so by amending the presumption requirements at section 24A. Because of these changes we have made, we no longer believe that the due diligence clauses are required in section 24A, because presumption removed from the restraint stage has removed it from that clause.

The bill will also make a requirement that will allow the courts to presume the property is tainted, which means it’s derived from significant criminal activity. If a person who lives overseas but has property here in New Zealand cannot provide information about how that asset was legitimately purchased, they have two months in which to disclose that information. We make it clear that non-compliance causes a presumption of tainted property and therefore it can be seized.

It will also allow for KiwiSaver schemes to be able to be forfeited just like other superannuation schemes are able to. Currently, our KiwiSaver legislation says that no one can withdraw their KiwiSaver unless they’ve reached retirement age. However, the changes that we have made will allow where money has been hidden in KiwiSaver accounts to be forfeited by the Government upon seizure application or seizure orders by police. It won’t be the entire KiwiSaver amount; it will be the amount that cannot be justified as being in there.

There’s a whole lot of things that we’ve changed in here that we’ve spoken to that ACT will support, but we could have gone further. We most certainly could have introduced a firearms piece in there where we could have forfeiture based on that illegal possession. Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I could not have given the House a better summation of the consideration that the Justice Committee gave to this bill and the operation of this bill than the member Nicole McKee just did. I think that reflects, around the committee table, just how invested every single member of that committee was in the goal to make sure that people cannot and should not profit from crime, and that when they do, there are serious consequences. This is a Government that is invested in that goal, that is giving itself new tools to crack down on organised crime and to be able to target what is going on in gangs.

I just wanted to touch on how the committee process has arrived at so many technical changes. This was the most technical consideration of a bill that I have ever had to do in my parliamentary career, and, along with the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill—which this House will consider next—it required the most delicate balancing of rights with this goal that everyone in the committee room shared to make sure that this crime was going to be punished and was restricting people from engaging in this kind of profiteering off the backs of misery in people’s lives that organised crime causes. We were all united in that goal.

My reflection on the committee process was that we needed every member in that room to engage in the discussion. I thank the Green member for her very thoughtful contribution tonight. Jan Logie, I listened to your speech really carefully, and I think you have highlighted what was just so difficult about the values proposition in this bill, and it’s something that the committee’s really spent time to engage on and discuss around the room. Select committees work best when we are able to do that. These were issues that we could all grapple with, and we all have values that we come to the committee room about. I thank those members who, no matter what colour, engaged in those values.

I was disappointed and I was heckling Mr Mitchell during his speech because in committee he did not introduce the concerns that he spoke to the House tonight. It’s in committee that we need to have those debates. The police did not submit to the Justice Committee. They did not make the arguments that Mr Mitchell said the police made. He recited from the Police Association submission to the Justice Committee, which I know well and which I considered myself.

And so that is why, on this side of the House, we are comfortable with the values position. In the select committee report, we said that we recommend all amendments unanimously, and I can say to the House that we did agree that unanimously.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I feel like I’m going to get in the way of a debate between two colleagues, so let me start positively and end with a couple of quick thoughts and critiques. First and foremost, as has been noted, this has been unanimously agreed by the House, but I think it would also be wrong—sorry, apologies; it has been unanimously agreed by the members of the Justice Committee that it should proceed here to second reading, and we’ll see tonight where the vote goes. But unanimity on the select committee doesn’t mean that we all agree with it 100 percent, and, look, I don’t want to presume for other members in the House, but certainly on this side, there’s a feeling that we could have done better. But it’s also really important to put on the record that we’re not going to get in the way of what this is doing.

I think this will do some good. This will go some way to addressing the problems we are facing, particularly, but not exclusively, around gangs and their activities. If you’re in the likes of my electorate, you see these gang members parading down the streets, unabashed, unashamed, often riding exceptionally loud motorcycles—that look very nice, I might add. But they’re exceptionally loud, and there’s, basically, no way in God’s good creation that they could afford this—they or their associates—and that is a presumption on my part; it’s a stereotype on my part, and I’m happy to admit that. But the great thing about this bill, and what’s positive, is that where there are gang connections, gang associations, or any criminal association, actually, the police are able, through court processes, to not just take a presumption, like someone like myself has, but to actually prove that these are, effectively, ill-gotten gains.

Yes, it does change the presumption of proof. That’s quite a significant move for this House; our legal tradition is relatively clear that the Crown has to make a solid case. You’re sort of innocent till proven guilty, and this does begin to change that a bit. I’ll defer to lawyers. I’m not one myself, as I keep telling the House—

Sam Uffindell: That’s good!

SIMON O’CONNOR: —but it is changing. It is a good thing, not—well, actually, that could put me into further trouble—thank you, Mr Uffindell—than I’m probably already in.

The presumption of innocence is fairly important, but on the balance of probabilities—and it’s what Arena Williams and others have touched on. The committee worked exceptionally hard on this, and some of the public may not believe it, but, actually, it was a lot of discussion and a lot of debate, trying to get into the technicalities to make sure there are enough checks and balances. But I think most Kiwis, regardless of their political colours, do know that we have a major problem with crime, an ongoing problem with crime, and one that you could argue is getting worse. Gangs in particular—again, not exclusively—are flaunting their wealth, and we do need mechanisms to address this.

I want to take up one point that Jan Logie, I think, kindly brought to the discussion here, and that’s the nature of those in gangs. I think many of them are—to use a very trite phrase—victims, but I would just make the appeal in this House that there’s always a difference between reasons and excuses. There are reasons people join gangs and there are reasons why people commit terrible behaviours. But to me, personally, that’s not an excuse for those behaviours, and it would be a longer discussion—you know, we also have to address their needs. But this, tonight, says that if you are, effectively, getting ill-gotten gains, you’re going to have to try and prove that, and, as I say, to most Kiwis, I think that makes sense. If someone is living in an exceptionally beautiful house with multiple motorcycles and cars and all this, and it doesn’t fit the rest of their profile, we should be able to look into that.

But for my last two points, one is to echo what Nicole McKee said about the place of firearms. If they are to be found—and I’m simplifying—it should automatically trigger this. The other point is to pick up on Mark Mitchell’s point around the thresholds. Personally, I do think it should be lower, and it’s my hope that as we progress as a Parliament, we might see fit to amend this amendment bill in the future to make sure no one can slip through the gaps. That’s one of my small concerns: that ways around this will be found with a $30,000 threshold. But, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. It pleases me to take a short call on the second reading of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill.

It is critical that we keep our communities safe and break the cycle of offending, including addressing the root cause of crime. I want to reiterate what the bill does. Fundamentally—and I’m emphasising “fundamentally”—it is to improve the law’s effectiveness at restraining and forfeiting property derived from significant criminal activity. At a local level, we can see what this does—like, for example, property belonging to criminals when one sees the name of a gang entity plastered on the fence or on a building. Simply put, it allows targeting of associates of original criminal groups and restraining property; it means criminals living overseas will lose those assets through court orders; it means amending technical gaps; it means eliminating a potential for criminals to hide funds in KiwiSaver.

These amendments are significant and a much-needed change to the status quo. I thank those who support the bill. I want to thank, also, the select committee for getting this across the line to the second reading, and everyone who has made a submission to the bill. Kia ora.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, thank you. I rise in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment bill in its second reading. First of all, I would also like to acknowledge everybody who made a submission on this bill, as well as my colleagues on the Justice Committee for all their mahi. I have only recently joined the select committee, so I wasn’t part of the work done on this particular bill, but I am looking forward to being part of this hard-working team chaired by the awesome Vanushi Walters. I’ve learnt a lot, actually, about this bill from previous speakers. Nicole McKee, obviously, explained quite a lot of the complexities around this bill. The committee did a good job in working its way around all of those challenges and bringing it back to the House after careful consideration.

Together with the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, which will come up tonight as well, the measures in this bill will also hit gangs where it hurts most: their profits. In 2020, we campaigned on working harder and smarter to keep our communities safe, break the cycle of offending, and tackle the root causes of crime, and that, across a range of areas, is exactly what we’re doing. So that will mean that not only will we have more front-line police than ever before but they will also have greater powers to hit the gangs where it hurts.

Now, I had a constituent come into my office the other day, and they said, very eloquently, “National speaks loudly about being tough on crime, while actually being quite useless.” National talk quite a big game—we’ve heard it tonight from Mr Mitchell—when they’re in Opposition, but in Government they failed to deliver. They couldn’t deliver firearms prohibition orders in nine years, despite multiple attempts, but we have. And, during the Nats’ last time in office, they ran down the police with their funding cuts and insufficient staffing, and they closed down community stations. They like to forget about that, but, in 2015, roughly 30 police community stations were closed—including the one in Ōrewa; Mr Mitchell, I believe you were around at that time, and you didn’t manage to keep it open. But this Government is committed to provide the police the tools they need to tackle organised crime, and, therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. At this, the second reading, it’s traditional for members to reflect on the discussions at select committee. I wasn’t a participant in those, but I’ve listened carefully, obviously, to the debate tonight from those who were, and obviously I’ve read the select committee report as well as the legislation itself. So I come to the subject as an outsider, at least to some extent, but having been involved in some discussions at a very early stage—thanks to the diligence of the Minister of Justice approaching members of National and, I think, other parties as well, separately—I’m at least somewhat familiar with the content.

I do want to test some of the content of the law against some pretty fundamental legal principles. I think it’s a discipline that we should engage in whether in formal terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZ BORA) or even just in a more general kind of way. So that’s something for you to look forward to, Mr Speaker. But, first, just a reflection that there’s always a danger when we make law that isn’t 100 percent certain that we allow more discretion—whether that’s the activities of the police, prosecutorial discretion, and of course the judge’s decision making. Where there is potential for discretion, there’s potential, too, for a lack of equality before the law, and I think our colleague from the Green Party articulated that well, and my colleague and friend Simon O’Connor has acknowledged that.

I think we don’t need to use the term “prejudice” in an ugly way to understand that there is always potential for human beings in applying what we might hope and believe to be black-letter law in a way that is not consistent across all districts or in all circumstances. So I suppose that’s a reminder to all of us, including myself, just to always be mindful of the problems of definition that arise the moment one starts talking about “associates”, for example, of organised criminal groups, as opposed to “members”—and even that concept, of course, can be somewhat fluid.

In terms of the fundamental human rights that we’ve talked about, the presumption of guilt has been referenced by other members in the House and, of course, as, again, my colleague and friend Simon O’Connor articulated, it’s usually the case in the law that we would presume that a person is innocent of a crime or offence unless and until they can be proven to have committed it to the relevant standard and also to be tried in court or, in NZ BORA terms, to be present at their own trial, and, interestingly—and I was pleased that the Justice Committee touched on this aspect—the right or the privilege against self-incrimination.

So whereas one would ordinarily have the right to remain silent about one’s circumstances—and perhaps be judged in the court of law accordingly if one did not speak in one’s own defence, and conclusions might be able to be drawn from that—in this law we see, and I’ll get into the detail as much as time allows, that there is a presumption or rather, effectively, a prohibition on remaining silent to the extent that, for some people, failing to provide evidence of legitimate activity or commerce as the basis for property acquisition could result in its confiscation. So that’s, I think, quite interesting from a legal point of view and something that we can examine, take note of, and notwithstanding that, we might support the policy objective such that we ultimately do support the bill. It is nevertheless something we should take seriously.

Of course, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act doesn’t take into account or doesn’t even seek to protect all rights. Property rights, for example, mostly are not protected by that. It’s inevitable that any even quite high-level law doesn’t take account of all rights—so I make that comment not either as a criticism or an attempt at originality or claim to be original in that matter, but, of course, unreasonable rights against search and seizure are a category of right that we would ordinarily recognise as worthy of protection, and, to some extent, those rights or equivalent rights are engaged by this.

Finally, of course, it’s worth thinking about freedom of association. So to the extent that we might unwittingly capture those who are merely associated with gang members—just to use that shorthand—as opposed to those who are associated with the criminal organisation itself or, again, to be more specific, its criminal activity. There is a danger, of course, to the extent that we merely penalise association, that we’re in danger of infringing that which we would ordinarily regard as, you know, sacrosanct, in terms of a person’s right or ability to move freely about society and so forth.

The way that the order can be made for specific property to be confiscated, effectively, there are three main elements and I think it’s worth going through those each in turn because they do give rise to the detail of the way that we should understand how this law will operate. Of course, it’s an amendment to an existing law so it’s worth acknowledging that this is not an entirely new concept but a refinement.

So, first of all, the respondent—the person who’s the subject of the possible recovery of the so-called criminal proceeds—is an “associate” or a “member of” or a “participant in” an organised criminal group. We’ve talked a little bit about the problem of definition as to who or what an associate might be and, of course, the obvious counterpoint to that comment I made earlier about not wanting to impinge on people’s right to freedom of association is that if the person who is truly the owner of the asset or, in having, you know, obtained those in an illegitimate way merely seeks to hide the fact that that ownership, by passing it in name only to a family member, for example, then that’s something we should be alive to. So, of course, that’s the reason that the law enables the associate of the criminal organisation to be captured by it as well.

Of course, we also have an element regarding the legitimate property and the insufficiency of that which the person holds legitimately. That needs to be subtracted, in effect, to what their assets are as a matter of evidence, to decide if the person is likely to have been able to obtain the other property legitimately or not. We’ve heard a bit about the threshold of the $30,000—my colleague and friend Mark Mitchell has spoken about that. I’m not well qualified to talk about that, not having participated in the select committee process but I think it’s been reasonably well covered by the House.

The “interests of justice”: that’s a phrase that is some sort of backstop provision, I guess, whereby the legislation says that the court must not make a forfeiture order if it wouldn’t be in the interest of justice to do so. So a bit of a safety net there. Again, it’s very vague, it’s very broad, and that’s intended to be helpful in protecting rights but, of course, the more discretion that’s allowed, of course the more possibility that the law will be applied unevenly. So, again, it’s a balancing act.

Looking at the way that the law actually works, we see that there’s—well, actually, I’ll pass now to the status of self-incriminating statements and, of course, it’s worth thinking about the fact that if a person is asked to justify how or why they obtained a particular bit of property, and the reason they need to do that is to prove that, effectively, it wasn’t the proceeds of crime, then we’re asking them to put themselves in a position possibly of saying that they did in fact conduct a crime or commit a crime in order to get that property illegitimately.

So we’re quite close, at that point, to breaching that usual privilege against self-incrimination. I think it’s just about justifiable in the sense that we say, “Well, actually you’re not incriminating yourself by admitting to have committed the crime in a way that could see you convicted of that crime.” And the reason for that, quite particularly, is that clause 39 has a new section—165A—which says that if you make an incriminating statement against yourself, your own interests, while complying with the disclosure of source order, then that can’t be used in most civil or criminal proceedings. So the detail that goes under that is that self-incriminating statements can only be used for civil proceedings about an application for a type 1 assets forfeiture order. We don’t have time or probably the will of the House to go into the detail of that but suffice to say there’s a bit of detail that goes into the way that self-incriminating statements can be used and, effectively, it’s for the purpose of this Act only. It’s for the purpose of determining whether an asset was gained legitimately or not, and, of course, that’s because we have that lower bar in terms of the onus of proof—the reversal of the onus of proof—and the presumption of innocence to the extent that it does.

So with those thoughts, I join others on this side of the House—and, indeed, across the House, it seems—in commending the bill to the House but with these gnarly issues needing our serious attention as we go through further from here.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise and take the final call this evening on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. It seems, to me, that this is a bill that will improve the effectiveness of the law, in either restraining or forfeiting—or perhaps both—property that is acquired by way of significant criminal activity.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee. Many members have referred to the technical changes that have been recommended by that select committee, one of which, actually—and I take Mr Penk’s point, perhaps not to delve too much into the detail—is of note: the official assignee could continue to hold seized assets beyond a 28-day period in circumstances where a court might be considering an application relating to whether or not it should grant a restraining order. That, on face value, makes sense in terms of time. If that’s one particular technical change that a select committee does, it does point to a body of work that the committee has done that makes it a much more relevant piece of legislation, which, of course, is what we ask of our select committees.

With choices around significant criminal activity come consequences. That is clearly a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill.

I move, That the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to come into the House this afternoon to be able to make this second reading speech. I know that many New Zealanders are concerned about crime and the impact that it has had on their whānau and their community. Our goal with this bill is to stop criminal organisations and other criminals from terrorising our communities, by targeting the kinds of violent and intimidating behaviour that makes us feel unsafe, and by limiting the ability of criminals to profit from crime.

There are five parts to this bill, each of which introduces either a new offence or a new enforcement tool to counteract crime. Briefly, these include a new offence in the Crimes Act of discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate. This will ensure that those who use guns to frighten and menace can be adequately held to account.

Secondly, an increase to the number of Land Transport Act offences for which police can seize a vehicle for 28 days. Reckless, dangerous, or careless driving offences are frequently carried out by organised criminal members travelling in convoys, and the amendments in this bill will mean that those who do risk the loss of their bike or their vehicle.

Third, a new gang conflict warrant, which will provide police with new powers to search for and seize weapons. It’s not acceptable for warring gangs to terrorise the communities around them the way that we saw in Auckland last year. This power will enable police to act swiftly and remove weapons whenever tensions between gangs arise.

Fourth, a prohibition on cash transactions over $10,000 for those goods that are most frequently used to launder money. Protections against money-laundering are crucial to limiting the profitability and, therefore, the appeal of crime. By preventing the use of cash to purchase those goods that are at the highest risk of being used to launder money, the bill will limit the ability of gangs and other criminals to profit from the harm that they cause.

Fifth, a new cash seizure power that allows police to seize money found in suspicious circumstances is created. Currently, if police find cash during a search, they cannot seize it without further evidence that it is the proceeds of a crime. However, very few of us innocently carry around tens of thousands of dollars in cash without some ability to account for it. The bill provides that if someone has a significant amount of cash—$10,000 or more—and cannot explain how they came by it, then police can take the cash for a limited period of time in order to investigate its source.

This bill has now been considered by the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge their work, and I want to acknowledge that they must be one of the busiest select committees due to the volume of legislation that has been coming through. The majority of the committee’s recommendations relate to the gang conflict warrant provisions. It is appropriate that any new enforcement powers receive robust scrutiny, and I’m grateful both to the committee and to those that submitted, who commented on this part of the bill in particular.

The bill, as reported back from the committee, is clearer about the matters a judge must be satisfied of before issuing a gang conflict warrant, and enables the judge to require a search warrant report. This better aligns the new power with the other warrant powers in the Search and Surveillance Act.

The bill also now requires police to provide, where reasonably practicable, a redacted copy of the warrant to the person being searched. This appropriately balances privacy and operational concerns with a person’s right to see the warrant. The committee has also made minor improvements to the new cash seizure powers. If police question someone about suspicious cash found during a search, they must now advise the person of their ability to seize that cash. Any money seized must also be listed in the search warrant report if one is requested.

Altogether, these changes to the bill enhance the transparency of the new powers, and they further ensure that these powers will be used appropriately. To those members of the public that submitted, and for the studious approach that the committee took, again, I thank you. Together with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill—also now progressing through the House this evening—this bill provides a significant check on the criminal activities of organised crime, and it sends a strong message that these kinds of crimes will simply not be tolerated in Aotearoa New Zealand. To that point, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on this, the second reading of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. Firstly, can I just take a moment to acknowledge the outgoing chair, the Hon Ginny Andersen, who has become a Minister, and the incoming chair, Vanushi Walters, who is doing an outstanding job and making sure that us on the Opposition are given a fair chance in the Justice Committee. So can I just—

Chris Penk: Don’t tell her that!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, well, it’s important to acknowledge that, because we want to continue to operate like that. So I just want to acknowledge her and the work that she’s done. Can I acknowledge the Minister Kiri Allan. I have to say that it’s probably no secret in this House how I feel about the current situation in terms of lawlessness and crime in this country, and I’ve got my own very clear ideas how that has happened and why it has happened. But in saying that, I want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing a bill to the committee that at least has got some teeth in it and will go some way to at least giving the police the ability to be able to respond—what we all saw last year with the gang violence in South Auckland and West Auckland with drive-by shootings; none of us want to see 23 drive-by shootings. How an innocent member of the public wasn’t badly hurt or killed is a miracle.

But we did actually talk a lot in the committee about balancing up or capturing—when you start to talk about fairly broad powers like this, when you start to talk about the police having to respond quickly to try and identify who the offenders are, who the perpetrators are, being able to get warrants issued, and then start to take action, there is a chance that you could end up with a situation where police, thinking they’re doing the right thing, are entering a home of someone that may be on the fringes but aren’t actually directly involved with that gang activity—in fact, may not be involved at all. It is a massive invasion of someone’s privacy, of their property rights, to have police officers burst into their home, and it can be deeply traumatic and stressful on any children that might be in the house.

So we took that really seriously, and so it was very good to see—and we actually made sure that there were some measures put in place to assure that there was actually a threshold that the police had to meet to get that warrant issued, and also, as the Minister said, to actually provide, even if it is redacted, a copy of that search warrant, so that there is actually some rigour put around the process of making sure—if we’re going to give the police those sorts of powers, then we have to have a high level of confidence that they are capturing the people that need to be sorted out.

In terms of the cash, the $10,000 threshold: fully support that. The Minister made the point that people just don’t have tens of thousands of dollars lying around their home, and so it’s going to be incumbent on them to be actually able to show what is the reason for having that money and where did that money come from. So that’s another very good part of this bill.

I just want to add very quickly—I didn’t hear Marja Lubeck’s last contribution, but I got a text from a retired police officer who served in the Ōrewa Police Station, who said the Ōrewa Police Station’s never been closed. So I’m not sure what she said, but, yes, I can confirm that: the Ōrewa Police Station has never been closed. Perhaps if the member was attending victim support meetings there in the last five or six years, she might’ve realised that that was the case. But I’m very happy to stand and support this bill. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to give a bit of a hand to my colleague Marja Lubeck, I believe she said that it was the police community centre that was closed—because we are all about clear information.

However, I would like to take my brief call on this bill, firstly, to thank the Minister of Justice for her work bringing several bills before this House that do respond to community safety. She is doing an exceptional job in her role and, along with other colleagues in the justice space, both addressing crime as it happens but also the causes of crime and the response to ensure that there isn’t, or is low, recidivism. There is very much a joint response across that ministerial grouping.

It’s a great privilege to be part of the Justice Committee, and, just acknowledging Mr Mitchell’s comments, we are a committee who work really collegially together across some really controversial and difficult issues. So to all the committee members, I do consider it a real privilege to work alongside of you.

With respect to this bill, for me, the key changes were around those search and surveillance powers. The committee spent a lot of time digging into whether we had the settings right. For those, again, who want to see the committee’s analysis, our select committee report is an excellent summary of the issues we considered and the recommendations we proposed on this bill, including, as Mr Mitchell has outlined, the changes to require the provision of redacted information. The committee couldn’t see a reason why that information wasn’t provided, so we sought to have that included. The other one was the recommendation around amending section 123B to require the person possessing the cash to be advised of the constable’s power to seize the cash, which the Minister spoke to as well.

So, once again, this isn’t a straightforward area of the law. This bill and the bill that has just gone through second reading, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, do present complex issues. Mr Goldsmith, in his contribution on the previous bill, suggested that, when we’re considering matters like this, we may want to consider things like review and monitoring. I do believe that there is some merit to that, given the complexity of the rights issues that are before us. But I do think that this is a sound approach to the criminal justice space and the issues we are facing, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel very confident that if this had been a National Government bill, the previous speaker, Vanushi Walters, would have opposed it vigorously. It’s funny how these things work. But we certainly, on this side of the House, support this Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill.

We do not support criminal activity; we’re opposed to it. This bill is designed to give the police, particularly, and our law enforcement agencies extra tools to deal with—what I think all New Zealanders are aware of—a growing sense of disorder on our streets and in our communities, particularly in relation to gangs and firearms, but also particularly in relation to youth crime. This is not particularly focused on youth crime, but it is focused on particularly the firearms side of things in creating a new offence to discharge a firearm with intent to intimidate.

We had quite a lot of discussion in the select committee process about instances where one would discharge a firearm without intent to intimidate, and there were a few exercises in a public place, and it was pretty clear what we were trying to achieve. The law exists around discharging a firearm in the direction of a house but not unrelated to a house, so that’s one area that it’s supposed to deal with. The second one is around careless driving, but the primary piece which has caused most of the discussion is around a warrant of power to search and seize weapons during a gang conflict, and the power to seize cash found in suspicious circumstances—believed to be over $10,000—and also prohibiting cash transaction over a specified value, also $10,000 for high-value goods.

Now, all of these things limit previous rights available to New Zealanders to be able to buy whatever the heck they wanted using cash, and to be able to have their privacy maintained and not be disrupted by police. And so we don’t crimp and impinge upon those rights without careful consideration; we don’t do it in a flippant manner in any way, shape, or form, because those rights are fundamental, and the free society in which we enjoy is based upon those rights. But we always have balanced them, also, against the need for public safety, and for the rights of New Zealanders and citizens to be able to walk around free of the fear of being intimidated or robbed or injured or subject to some criminal activity—so there’s a balance there.

We got plenty of advice from the Ministry of Justice as we weighed up those issues, and it’s my view, and the National Party’s view, that these are reasonable steps that have been taken. In some cases, we would want to push further, particularly in the warrant powers for searching for weapons. It’s our view and it’s our policy that prescribed gang associates should be given the firearms protections orders, and that will enable the police to search for those firearms in cars or wherever they need to, because we cannot have a situation where we continue to have a significant increase in firearms, crime, and shootings, as we’ve seen in Auckland. We don’t want to become like Chicago or other places around the world. In Auckland, we don’t want to feel like we’re living in a TV show in New York with the permanent sound of a chopper flying overhead and sirens wailing in the distance, which is what it feels like at the moment. And New Zealanders, and Aucklanders, are rightly concerned about the commitment that the Government has to restoring that law and order.

The problem that we have—our fundamental criticism of this Government is that they have been sending mixed signals when it comes to gangs. On the one hand, they want to be tough; on the other hand, they give them money for their projects and drug rehabilitation like they have in the Hawke’s Bay. So that’s sent a very mixed signal. And in firearms policy, there is always a tendency to add an enormous amount of cost and compliance on law-abiding gun owners, confident in the knowledge, as all New Zealanders are, that it’s the unlawful gun owners who are causing the problems, and they carry on causing their mayhem. And so people rightly want to have a Government that’s focused on the needs of law-abiding citizens, and will be firm on crime. Unfortunately, we’ve got the worst of both worlds at the moment, where we have a Government that’s both soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime, because we continue to have a situation where those long-term drivers of crime are complete chaos when it comes to truancy from school, thousands of kids continuing to be raised in motel rooms, and all those long-term sort of drivers of crime not being dealt with effectively. And then, actually, when we get to the crime situation, mixed messages and no consequences, particularly for younger people.

So, look, we’re worried about the drift of law and order under this Government, but we are pleased that this bill, the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, goes some way to giving police and law enforcement agencies extra powers to deal with gang activity, in particular with discharging firearms with intent to intimidate, and also to bring some improvement to search and seizure powers for weapons during a time of gang conflict. We think and we hope that that will be interpreted widely, but that’s something that only time will tell.

Again, yes, the previous speaker did refer to my previous speech on this kind of sister bill that has come through. It does put pressure on that balance between rights and liberties and the need for law enforcement. I do think it is important, like all good legislation, that we give it time, and we hope that we will have a chance in Government to take stock five or six years after this has been introduced to make sure that it is achieving what it set out to achieve, and it is, in fact, having an impact, making it fundamentally more difficult to pursue criminal activities in New Zealand, because, make no mistake, the only way to deal with organised crime is to continually harass those involved in it day in, day out, make their life a misery, and make it difficult for them to get ahead. It’s like a game of whack-a-mole. It is relentless and it needs to be relentlessly pursued by all involved.

If a Government takes its eye off the ball for only a short period of time and wanders off into the mists, getting confused, sending mixed signals, coming up with a culture of excuses for criminal activity, it won’t take long before many flowers bloom, and we have a crime situation like we have on our streets at the moment. And so the police and authorities do need these extra powers outlined in the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill.

This being the second reading, I would want to acknowledge the work of the committee under the guidance of our former chair Ginny Andersen. There weren’t a huge number of submissions on this bill, 14 submissions, which indicates, I think, a reasonable level of support for the legislation. We think it was a useful process, and the National Party commends this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, e te Māngai o te Whare. I am pleased to take a call on this bill, as a member of the Justice Committee that has worked hard and collaboratively on what is—and I’m grateful to my colleagues Mr Mitchell and Mr Goldsmith for acknowledging—a difficult balancing act.

So for those watching, a quick praecipe. This is the pigeon pair, the partner, of the bill we got through at second reading earlier today. That one targeted the proceeds of crime and further legislation to make organised crime uneconomic for those who engage in it. This one gives the police more powers to tangle with street crime and street manifestations of organised crime.

So we’ve got more search warrants, more search powers, and more ability to seize weapons where there is gang conflict escalating. We’ve got the increase in the ability of the police to seize weapons and vehicles and motorbikes when they are behaving badly on the roads. We have a new offence of discharging a gun with the intent to intimidate—odd that we haven’t had it before; we’ve got it now. We’ve got the ability to seize cash when people are carrying unfeasibly large amounts around and to target the sorts of goods that are usually used to fence—

Simeon Brown: And how much was given to the Mongrel Mob?

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —and pass these off. Not as much as your Mr Key or your Mr Muldoon gave, Mr Simeon.

Now, what is interesting, though—and what I do want to talk about—is the previous speaker, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, discussed this as a game of whack-a-mole. If you treat it like a game of whack-a-mole, then it’s always going to be a game of whack-a-mole. This is part of a suite of measures to cope with the full range to tackle organised crime from the beginning to the end, and that needs more than the approach that takes a mallet to it. And with that thought, I commend the bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call, on behalf of the Greens, on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. Just on my reflections on some of the speeches over the night, and in particular the speech from Mr Paul Goldsmith, I really felt that he’d been watching too many cop movies, too many cop shows. It felt very Hill Street Blues, NCIS, CSI—and I would encourage that member to perhaps pick another TV subscription and maybe tune into some rom coms or something like that, to get a bit of balance in one’s life.

This bill is an omnibus bill and it changes a number of Acts. One of them is the Crimes Act 1961, the Land Transport Act 1998, and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. We have a number of issues with this bill, and those were canvassed during the first reading by my colleague Golriz Ghahraman, because we come from this in terms of what we must do for our communities, right? We’re not actually living in the cop shows that Mr Paul Goldsmith vehemently described. Also, if you don’t like the bill, don’t vote for it. But what we really need to make sure is that when we look at this, we need to think about—and knowing that crime and gang activity, they’re related to making sure that we have secure, livable incomes, secure housing, inclusive education, mental health care, and addiction treatment available to all of our communities. These are the things that must underpin it. So this bill is an attempt to be hard on crime, tough on crime, but what we need to be is tough on poverty. We need to deal with those underlying issues within our society. If we do that, it makes everything else easier.

I just want to turn to the bill just briefly and just point to the amendments of the Land Transport Act 1998 where, in the case of that sanction, it would require impounding a car for 28 days. That could be incredibly, incredibly harmful to a low-income household. Cars are not gang-affiliated. We don’t know what that car might be doing on one day and what it might be doing on the next day. Maybe it’s being used by not just one family but by a number of families. Maybe that car is being used to take children to school. We don’t know that. So if you remove that vehicle from that low-income family, it becomes an issue and it exacerbates the poverty and the problems that I was just talking about just earlier.

Detaining someone and requiring their DNA is normally reserved as a power to be applied to the worst criminals. Again, we see this as overreach. The balance hasn’t been correctly struck here, and the concern for us is that often with the police, they are not necessarily able to make the distinction about who’s in the gang, who’s associated, who’s a relative, or who’s visiting as well. So the application of these new powers will be, and could be, unevenly applied. Also, taking cash money away for suspicion of a person that is affiliated with a gang or not even a gang member, even though we may not know whether they’re involved in a crime, is a new and very expensive breach of community rights.

All of the concerns that we brought up in our first reading speech have not been addressed through the select committee process and have not been addressed in terms of the comments that have been made around the House tonight. What we need is those livable incomes. What we need is warm housing. What we need is to make sure that we look after our families. Dealing with the underlying socio-economic factors that make sure that we look after our families—that is what we do before we do anything else. So we will not be commending this bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the second reading of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, another bill that we are supporting this evening—one that we also feel doesn’t go quite far enough but it goes further than what we had, and, with that, we want to support it.

There were 14 submitters. We had organisations and individuals, and six people gave oral evidence. The officials included the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Transport, and the New Zealand Police.

The bill creates new powers and offences to assist police to prevent and respond to harm caused by criminal offending. It includes search powers for weapons when gang conflicts are occurring and tools to disrupt potential money-laundering activities.

This bill amends four Acts. The Crimes Act 1961 is the first one. It’s about discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate. I don’t understand why we are amending this bill and I do not understand why we are putting this clause into the Crimes Act legislation. It’s already in the Arms Act legislation at section 48, where there is an offence for discharging a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or public place. The difference is that, under the Arms Act, the offence is liable for a conviction of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine of $10,000, and it will be placed upon a person “if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to—(a) endanger property; or (b) endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.” The difference here is five years with no fine as opposed to six months and $10,000, and the Labour Government is making a hoo-ha, saying they’re actually doing something, when they already had legislation which was not being used. We now have two sets of legislation.

We’re also amending the Land Transport Act 1998 so that vehicles can be seized and impounded. Amending the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 gives two new powers: allowing the issue of a warrant to search and seize weapons during a gang conflict, and the power to seize cash found in suspicious circumstances and over $10,000. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing Terrorism Act 2009 is also being changed to prohibit cash transactions over a specified value for certain high-value goods.

We’ve only made amendments, as a select committee, to the search and seizure provisions in the bill. We have new sections inserted by clause 20, amending the Search and Surveillance Act, where a judge can issue a warrant for search and seizure if he is satisfied that, first of all, a gang conflict does exist—that there is one or more gangs involved—and, by issuing the warrant, the community will be better for it because the potential harm will be gone. The warrant can be issued in respect of either a place or a vehicle, and the committee decided to amend the bill so that the provisions around either a place or a vehicle could be applied either separately or together.

Another provision in the bill is that the occupier who is the subject of a search, either of a vehicle or of a property, should receive a redacted copy of the search warrant—redacted because there’s a possibility that there will be multiple occupiers at multiple addresses or with multiple vehicles that are still to be searched, so the redaction would relate to whom else is on the list to be searched. However, there was a requirement that if the officer did not have that warrant upon them, then they would have seven days in which to provide it after the search. The committee decided to amend clause 22 of the bill so that if a warrant was issued under section 18D(2) and 18D(3) of the Search and Surveillance Act, which relates to searching a property and which is where a warrant is issued after a judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that gang conflict and property ownership by specified persons criteria are met, then the seven-day pass to provide a warrant should not stand because those being searched had already been fully identified and there was no reason why a redacted warrant should not be available. However, if the warrant issued is done so under section 18D(4) and (5), which relates to vehicles, then another amendment the committee made includes how that warrant should be executed and allows the seven-day right to produce that warrant if it’s not immediately available.

There is the introduction of a clause that allows police to dispose of any weapons that they seize, and I asked officials multiple times during the select committee process the advice for what happens if, say, the weapon seized is found to be a stolen firearm from a legitimate owner. I questioned whether or not that firearm would have to be destroyed or whether it would be returned to the owner if the owner is found. I was advised by officials and New Zealand Police that all attempts to find the legitimate owner and return the property are made before any destruction process is undertaken. And I wanted to speak so that it is recorded in Hansard that the expected outcome of finding stolen firearms that were legitimately owned is that they are then returned to the rightful owners, and that details around processes to identify the legitimate owners are undertaken and can be requested by the Official Information Act. There is nothing in the legislation to protect legitimate owners who are also victims of crime and ensure that they are told that the item had been found and to apply for their possessions to not be destroyed; however, upon questioning, I was assured that this would not be a problem if police knew who the legitimate firearm owner is.

There is a new clause in this bill that introduces the ability for police to seize cash found on premises equating to $10,000 or more, where a satisfactory explanation for why that cash is there and where it came from is not given. Police can apply to hold that cash for a short period of time, and if the occupant searched can produce legitimate reason for having that cash and where it came from, they can get it back pretty smartly because of the short time frame that police have to actually be able to hold it. But there was a clause that allowed police, via the Governor-General, to be able to change that $10,000 threshold either by increasing or reducing it, and this concerned us as a committee—that the threshold could decrease, especially when we know that some of our Pasifika immigrant families often have cash that they send on to their families back in the islands. The change we have made means that rather than having a provision that allows the threshold to change by amendment, it has to change by prescribed regulation instead.

We changed requirements around the reporting of executing search warrants so that cash seizures have to be reported back to the issuing officer. Reports will need to be included as to whether the search warrant was actually executed, the type of weapons that were seized, and whether other powers were also exercised, like the seizure of cash, and any criminal proceedings that eventuated because of the items found from the executing warrant.

There’s a few amendments here that we have made that we again had robust discussion about during select committee, and I’m grateful for everybody’s contribution to be able to get to a point where we could—even though we’re not quite 100 percent happy, we’re happy enough to support the changes going through, because we need to show a harder stance on criminals, on organised activity, and for those that use weapons.

So we on this side of the House are happy to support this bill through its second reading.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): This bill is a good example of a Government getting on and solving a problem. Police identified that they needed some extra tools to crack down on gang activity, specifically—in this bill—to disrupt gang conflict as it was going on. The Government responded with this proactive piece of legislation which gives police those extra tools that they need to disrupt that kind of activity, but in a proportionate way.

You’ve heard speeches around the House tonight which have acknowledged what has been a fine balancing act, and I want to thank the members of the Justice Committee who have brought their practical expertise to bear. You heard from the previous speaker, Nicole McKee, about the way that she worked with officials to make sure that the practical implementation for firearms owners was going to be something which worked for that community, and I thank her for that. You’ve also heard from the Hon Mark Mitchell about the way that he worked with officials, based on his experience in policing. That is experience which has been invaluable to the Justice Committee, and I thank him for that contribution.

This piece of legislation and the one previously have been difficult, technical exercises of landing the right balancing act. I think this bill does that. When the Greens speaker Teanau Tuiono said, “If you don’t like the bill, don’t vote for it.”, well, I do like this bill, I will be voting for it. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon O’Connor—five minutes.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. Look, it feels like Groundhog Day—it’s the same excellent people speaking in almost the same order, but it’s a different bill. This is the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill second reading. And in many ways, we could just copy and paste from Hansard my contribution to the previous bill—which would probably confuse a few people—but by and large, it accords to me that this is some good steps in the right direction. Police are calling out for more tools, particularly to target gangs. This is making some steps, but, personally, I’d prefer that we’d be running much faster and stronger.

It’s good in some ways. Yes, there are more constabulary powers to seize money if they find $10,000 or more in the back of a car. At current inflation, that won’t be much at all—sorry, a very bad joke—but there are some good elements there. The firearms one: yes, it does sound good; it does seem appropriate. But again, Nicole McKee has hit it quite well, if one can hit something to do with firearms—that’s a whole different kettle of fish. That member probably could. But, no, the long and short: the Arms Act already covers a lot of this, so are we just repeating things?

So there is a certain element on this side of the House who, while we support the bill, think that it’s just a bit of a veneer over things. I mean, even the whole notion of discharging a firearm in order to intimidate—yeah, I mean, of course that’s appropriate. But by and large, 99 percent of the time when you discharge a firearm in a public place, you are attempting to intimidate. There are some questions around how a gang conflict is going to be determined to exist. I know I’ve raised that a few times in the select committee, wanting to be absolutely clear that there’s no ambiguity and that when multiple gangs are gathering, it doesn’t matter if it’s Mount Maunganui or in Tāmaki or wherever, it’s really clear and the judges can’t—I don’t know—try to find some way to sidestep around it.

So I think the bill is doing OK in this space, and I suppose that’s the overall sentiment I’m wanting to give with this somewhat incoherent speech—and it’s only a Tuesday night. Ultimately, these are some good steps, but they could go a lot further and much, much stronger, so it’s something that I suspect we will revisit into the future. But I would certainly say to my constituents and those following this: don’t be completely fooled by this bill. In many ways, I think it’s just casting a bit of a veneer over things.

My last thoughts are actually to turn to what the Green Party member was raising. A little bit, again, like the last speech, they were saying, “Hey look, this bill could cause harm to some people’s families in that if the car was taken, the kids couldn’t get to school.”, and so forth. Yes, I mean that could be a reality for some, but, again, that is making excuses for behaviours. First and foremost, if those engaged in criminal activity are smuggling cash or discharging firearms into the public, do you know what? They should think about that, including the fact that they can’t take their children to school if they’re going to lose their car. The responsibility sits with the criminal, not society, as to be doing backflips to make excuses for them.

People—individuals—need to take responsibility for their actions, and we will end up in a very strange position if we attempt to excuse away everybody’s actions, because, ultimately, if that was the case—and I think the Green Party is pushing it—all of us could get up to all sorts of mischief, criminal or otherwise, and then just explain it away with a whole lot of circumstances in our lives, and that’s not how it should operate. So I appreciate the Green Party raising that, but, actually, it’s the responsibility of those undertaking criminal activities to, first and foremost, think about their families and the consequences.

Ultimately, we spend a lot of time in this House—rightly—creating legal consequences for those who choose to break behaviours and cause us harm. So I’m happy, rather than pleased, to support this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tangi Utikere—five minutes.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Thank you. It’s a privilege to take a call on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. I want to actually echo the sentiments of the chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters, in acknowledging Minister Kiritapu Allan for her focus on community safety, because that’s what this bill seeks to address.

It is a five-part bill, as members have referred to this evening. Each part is active in its own right. It creates a new offence provision or an additional enforcement tool to address criminal activity. Mr O’Connor has already referred to the discharge of a firearm for want of intimidation, but there are other provisions here, such as a broadening of the scope related to the 28-day seizure order for motor vehicles—such as bikes—that might be undertaking reckless or dangerous forms of activity; again, forms of intimidation out in the community; or, again, the introduction of a new warrant—a gang conflict warrant—where tensions between gangs may lead to that warrant being executed around search and seizure.

What I do note from the select committee report is a linking with that provision with that contained in the Search and Surveillance Act to ensure there is a report-back opportunity to a judge or issuing officer who, effectively, issues the warrant to ensure that it has been executed and the circumstances within which the execution of that has been undertaken and any objects that may have been seized as a result. So these are good tools to address organised criminal activity. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. As previous speakers have traversed in the House tonight, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that police have the tools that they need to address criminal activity in our communities, including activity from gangs but not just limited to gang activity.

On that note, I did just want to point out, just following some of the member from the ACT Party’s comments around the role, I guess, of both Parliament in setting the law but also the police in addressing and implementing that law and that there is that separation there. Our job as parliamentarians is to respond to police when they say that they need more tools in order to protect our communities and respond to crime as they see it.

I wanted to particularly note—because I’ve read through the legislative statement, which sets out why changes have been introduced around a particular piece that the ACT member mentioned, which was around discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate. What the legislative statement clearly states is that there is a gap in the law, and that police have identified that the law needed to be updated in order for them to be able to respond to these scenarios—in particular, that this bill amends other pieces of legislation; one of which, I note, is around disqualifying people from holding a firearms licence. So what the police identified was that the particular law that they had in front of them in the Arms Act wasn’t sufficient in order to be useful if people did discharge a firearm near a dwelling or in a public place in order to intimidate and that they needed further tools.

So this is an excellent bill. I commend the Justice Committee and the Minister for their excellent work on it. I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Others have referred to the fact that we’ve had a couple of pieces of legislation that are very similar tonight, the contributors to the debate are very similar. I myself am similar to myself. The problem, of course, with repeating in this way can be summed up as repetition, repetition, repetition.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Stop it! Ha, ha!

CHRIS PENK: It is therefore the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): It’s too much!

CHRIS PENK: It is too much, it is. I know; I feel it too. Well, if you’re feeling like that now, Madam Speaker, imagine in 9½ minutes from now! But don’t worry, it will seem like much, much longer. So Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, and this activity that I’m engaging in—you’ve attempted to intervene already, Madam Speaker, but, actually, it’s a pretty serious subject that we concern ourselves with, and that’s for a couple of reasons. One is that community safety is, of course, hugely important, and speakers all across the House have acknowledged that, but so too are the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders, including those associated with gangs. I don’t say that, of course, to sound or wish to sound at all as though sympathetic to those who commit criminal offences, but, of course, as others have alluded to—and my colleague and friend the Hon Mark Mitchell has made reference to this—we do have, you know, pretty serious and heavy powers of the State that are engaged, and it’s right that those are exercised in a way that is not unreasonable and protects as far as possible the civil liberties of all concerned.

So with that sort of thematic overview of what we’re trying to achieve here, others have talked about the discharge of firearms in public places, and there’s a bit of a theme in the legislation of looking to cover gaps in existing law. Most of these concepts—and almost the offences themselves—aren’t new, except to say that they’re variations of offences that already exist and we’re just refining, a little bit, their coverage. So, for example, we are looking to ensure that a firearm discharged inside a dwellinghouse, which is currently illegal if it’s conducted to intimidate, isn’t matched at the moment in the law with an equivalent attempt to intimidate with the discharge of a firearm in a public place. That does seem like a bit of an anomaly. I wasn’t around at the time, of course, when that original law was put in place. If I was better prepared, I suppose I could’ve looked up the Hansard to see if it was deliberate, when that law was being made, as to whether it was quite narrow that the law was confined in that way, or if it was merely that it was responding to a particular incident and the legislature at the time said, “Well, let’s do it in exactly this way.” and didn’t think that there were other situations that could be covered.

Nevertheless, sadly, it’s the case that in New Zealand, in recent times—whether that’s within West Auckland, South Auckland, or elsewhere in the country—there have been incidents of this nature. It is necessary now to respond to the fact that there have been discharges of firearms that have caused intimidation of the public and do need to be rendered illegal, because, of course, community safety is important. That’s not just physical safety—although, of course, that is the highest importance in terms of us as lawmakers having a duty to protect the New Zealand public—but also understanding that if there’s intimidation, whether deliberate or not, the effect will be that New Zealanders don’t feel safe to move about their community in a way that everyone should be able to, quite frankly.

So we see, for example, that the way that the legislation attempts to achieve this kind of balance is with new warranted search powers. Of course, any time we’re adding additional ability for the State to enter a private home or other domain of an individual, we need to move carefully, but it’s worth placing on record that a warranted search power is superior to a warrantless search power, because there is, in the process of applying for a warrant and the warrant being granted and then the terms of the warrant, a measure protection, because it’s forcing the long arm of the law, the power of the State, to prescribe, at least to some extent, what it is that is being sought.

So it is that we see detail that needed to be provided in the warrant of the gangs that it relates to, the required time limit—which I’ve read must be not greater than 14 days—and the known property that’s occupied, possessed, or owned by known members of the specified gangs within a specified region or regions.

So while there is a bit of latitude for saying that a search can take place, there’s a bit of a check-and-balance in the fact that the warrant’s needed and then that it’s got to be somewhat detailed in terms of what actually is spelt out, and then what actually plays out in terms of the search taking place. Now, that said, it’s also possible that a search can take place and something can be found that is in plain view, so to speak. This, again, is an example of a gap that the Government—through justice Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan and then the Justice Committee likewise—are looking to cover, are looking to close that gap.

The test appears to be that reasonable grounds are needed to believe that the item could have been seized under a search warrant or another search power. So whereas, of course, you learn in law school about fishing expeditions and the fact that it’s not right for the State to have its officers engage in activity that might—you know, they hope or expect, but without really reasonable or solid grounds—yield some kind of criminal activity evidence.

It’s therefore the intention of this Parliament—and we placed it on record, I suppose, by speaking about it in the debate now for the benefit of avoiding any doubt, for the benefit of the court interpreting later and so on—that we do intend for searches to be made on a reasonable basis. Then we refer to that general principle, whereby if something is found that was outside the terms of the search—it was incidental to the search being conducted—then the importance in relation to public safety of that find defines the extent to which it should be legitimate to use that in evidence in court for another matter.

I was quite interested by the subject of cash—I’m always interested in the subject of cash, of course; aren’t we all? But, actually, in terms of the bill, it’s actually quite specific in terms of talking about what cash is. So physical currency, which is, you know, what the Americans call “greenbacks” or—don’t they call them “Benjamin Franklins”, or various presidents that are on the different ones?

Angie Warren-Clark: Or “fiddy, fiddy, fiddy”.

CHRIS PENK: Or “fiddy, fiddy, fiddy”—that’s right. My gangster-learned colleague across the House has helped me out there. Thank you. Anyway, so cash in the way that you’d know and expect it, but, also, there are negotiable instruments and gold bars or gold ingots. Thankfully, there’s no reference at all to cryptocurrency, and I would hate to think that a select committee could invite “crypto bros” to submit on a piece of legislation and express their undying devotion and fandom of those things, because, I mean, I get tired of hearing about it even on twitter.com, and that’s quite enough for me. Anyway, cash, per se, is significant in the legislation. Of course, the reason for that is because transactions in cash avoid evidence of a transfer which can be useful, of course, for proving that something is legitimate or not.

Arena Williams: Tell us what you like on twitter.com—what do you like on twitter.com?

CHRIS PENK: What do I like? Oh no, no—we’re not talking about twitter.com, Arena Williams.

Simeon Brown: What are you talking about: Twitter?

CHRIS PENK: Yeah, no, I’m not talking about Twitter—and, now, I’m talking about not talking about Twitter, which is stupid because it’s now gotten quite circular. Anyway—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Has the member seen this?

CHRIS PENK It’s a copy of the bill—it’s very much like the other one that I spoke on for 10 minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I just invite him to—

CHRIS PENK: I know. I feel it too.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): —in his remaining dying seconds.

CHRIS PENK: In my remaining time, that’s right. One minute left of the speech. So dollars are important because they can be used to fund further criminal activity, and also because of that general principle that we have, whereby we don’t want people to be able to profit from crime. So there’s an element of deterrence, but there’s also a very practical element of not wishing to fund further criminal activity and, of course, perpetuate or sustain a lifestyle which those of us who believe in community safety would not approve of.

There are some safeguards, again, further, in terms of cash being seized, and these are set out in the bill. Roughly speaking—without going into the detail—basically, if cash is seized in the circumstances described in the law, then that transaction, if we were to call it that, can be undone. So after a certain period of time, if there haven’t been proper proceedings initiated by police for a restraining or forfeiture order, or if one has been withdrawn or dismissed, and, of course, in the circumstance where someone can actually state and prove, in effect, that they had it legitimately in the first place, then that’s fine too. So lots to consider in terms of the detail, but the overarching principle we’ve said we support—likewise, the bill itself—which is that we must allow the police to do their job on our behalf but with due regard to the safeguards needed.

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

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you. After all that talking about cash, I think Mr Penk should shout me a coffee next time we go to Coppers. As my colleague Arena Williams said before, the police in New Zealand have asked for legislative changes that will give them more tools to crack down on violent offending and other criminal activities. So what the changes to this bill do is actually set down some practical and targeted measures that will help the police keep the community safe. We are interested in real solutions and not empty slogans. The police need effective but proportionate powers to disrupt criminal activity, including that which is perpetuated by the gangs. This bill responds to that need and will enhance community safety. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I present a legislative statement on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.

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

Hon STUART NASH: I move, That the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill is reported to the House by 13 July 2023.

I seek the House’s agreement for the select committee to report back to the House within three months of the bill being referred to it. Cabinet considers a compressed select committee time frame is appropriate. Iwi are generally comfortable with the bill and, given the passage of time since we voted for these changes, passing these amendments into law relatively quickly will help Crown-Māori relations.

The Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, or the bill, will ensure iwi have a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fisheries assets, and improved benefits for all Māori. The introduction of this bill on the Fisheries Amendment Act passed late last year, which represented a significant step towards strengthening and modernising New Zealand’s fisheries management system. Māori have extensive rights and interests in Aotearoa fisheries, which are given effect to in the fisheries legislation.

During the 1980s, and particularly following the introduction of the quota management system in 1986, Māori expressed growing concerns that their Treaty fishing rights were being breached. This prompted the Crown to enter negotiations with Māori to resolve Treaty fishing rights over commercial fisheries. In 1992, the Crown and Māori agreed to a full and final settlement of any claims by Māori to fisheries managed under the Fisheries Act 1996. This was widely known as the “Sealord deal”. The Maori Fisheries Act 2004, or the Act, sets out a framework for the allocation and transfer of fisheries settlement assets to iwi, institutional arrangements, and a governance framework for managing fishery assets for current and future generations of Māori. Māori now hold about 40 percent of the annual catch entitlement for New Zealand’s fish stocks, and the quota management system and Māori commercial fishing entities also provide annual catch entitlement to their whanaunga fishers. Under the Act, four governance entities were established to manage settlement assets on behalf of iwi and Māori. The entities include Te Ohu Kai Moana, which allocates and transfers fisheries settlement assets to iwi and advances the interests of Māori through the development of fishery-related activities; Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which manages the centrally held commercial fishery settlement assets of Māori; Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust, which is funded from allocated trust income to promote Māori education, training, and research; and Te Wai Māori Trust, who are also funded from allocated trust income to advance Māori freshwater fishing interests.

The Act sets out a framework for the allocation and transfer of fisheries settlement assets to iwi, institutional arrangements, and a governance framework for managing fisheries assets for current and future generations of Māori. The Act requires an independent review of these governance entities to be carried out no later than the 11th year following the commencement of the Act. This review happened in March 2015. The review recommended significant changes to the governance structures of the four governance entities and more simplified processes for trading assets. Following the review, Te Ohu Kai Moana undertook extensive iwi engagement in 2015 and 2016. They established an iwi working group to develop a set of proposals from the review, consulted widely with iwi on the proposed changes, and held a series of hui to pass resolutions. In 2017, Te Ohu Kai Moana presented a report to the then Minister of Fisheries recommending a suite of changes to the Act to give iwi a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their assets.

In 2021, subject to consultation with iwi, Cabinet agreed to a set of policies that would give effect to Te Ohu Kai Moana’s recommendations. The Ministry for Primary Industries then worked with Te Ohu Kai Moana to develop the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, or the bill. In August last year, the then Minister for Oceans and Fisheries consulted on an exposure draft of the bill with mandated iwi organisations, recognised iwi organisations, and representative Māori organisations. Of the feedback received, iwi generally supported the bill. The vast majority of feedback related to Resolution 3, a proposal about the distribution of Te Ohu Kai Moana’s surplus funds. The draft bill was subsequently amended to address this feedback.

As I previously said, the proposed changes in the bill are intended to give iwi greater control over their assets and more direct influence over decisions made. By making changes to the settlement governance structures, transferring certain settlement assets to iwi, and simplifying the trading processes, we believe the bill can achieve this goal.

Proposals in the bill give iwi more direct control by changing the governance appointment framework for appointing Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. This is done by removing the current electoral college system and enabling iwi to directly appoint and remove the directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana on a one-vote-per-iwi basis. This shortens the distance between iwi and key decision-makers, empowering iwi to influence the appointment processes more directly. The bill also proposes to increase Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust and Te Wai Māori Trust maximum director limit from three to five with a majority quorum. It also changes the appointment term of directors from four years to three years and removes restrictions on the number of terms a director can serve. These proposals will make the governance arrangements consistent with the settlement entities and align with the standard corporate governance practice.

Another measure to give iwi greater rangatiratanga over their assets and deliver benefits to Māori is through the distribution of certain settlement shares to iwi. Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd (AFL) was established as part of the fisheries settlement. AFL was established with voting shares and income shares. A hundred percent of the voting and redeemable preference shares and 20 percent of the income shares were allocated to Te Ohu Kai Moana; the other 80 percent of the income shares were allocated directly to iwi. Under this change, all of AFL income shares, as well as redeemable preference shares that are currently held by Te Ohu Kai Moana, will become ordinary shares and be transferred to iwi. The voting shares will be cancelled. These changes will transfer benefits that Te Ohu Kai Moana receive from AFL into iwi control and provide iwi with direct control over the appointment and removal of AFL directors.

Consultation with iwi on these proposed changes was met with strong support. At the time of the review, iwi were split on the resolution relating to equal distribution of Te Ohu Kai Moana surplus funds to mandated iwi organisations (MIOs); 28 iwi voted in favour of equal distribution of funds versus 23 against. The exposure draft, released in August 2022, included a proposal to distribute funds equally amongst iwi regardless of iwi population size. This proposal is also known as Resolution 3. Almost all of the feedback received during this consultation related to Resolution 3, with a number of iwi submitting their strong opposition to the proposal. My officials only heard from one iwi who supported Resolution 3. Iwi who opposed Resolution 3 consider that equal distribution of funds would undermine the fisheries settlement and create inconsistencies with how funds are dealt with elsewhere in the Act. Following this feedback and further analysis and advice, Cabinet decided to remove the proposal to distribute surplus funds on an equal basis and instead distribute funds on a population basis. Minister Parker, on behalf of the Crown, communicated this decision to all iwi and to Te Ohu Kai Moana.

The bill also proposes to implement a compulsory levy model for Te Ohu Kai Moana that can be triggered in the future if required. MIOs can request a levy for any reason, or Te Ohu Kai Moana can request a levy if they are satisfied it is needed for them to carry out their duties. MIOs would need to approve a levy request by a simple majority vote. A levy would be charged proportionately, and any surplus levy funding would be returned proportionately.

The proposed amendments will also simplify trading processes for iwi wishing to sell quota assets within the Māori pool. Currently, iwi may only sell quota shares to other iwi or Te Ohu Kai Moana or its companies, known as the Māori pool. If iwi wish to sell quota assets to willing buyers within the Māori pool, they must meet a number of criteria under the Act, including gaining the approval of at least a 75 percent majority of those members of their iwi who are eligible to vote and offering the shares to other iwi who may wish to purchase them. These processes have the potential to be lengthy and onerous. The bill proposes to remove the current provisions relating to asset sales and replace it with a “willing buyer, willing seller” model while retaining these assets within the Māori pool.

In conclusion, it is great to see progress on this important kaupapa. I note that it has been quite some time since iwi developed and voted on these proposals, and it is important to iwi that these changes are implemented reasonably quickly. The proposals in the bill acknowledge Māori and iwi as kaitiakitanga and guardians of our oceans and will help ensure iwi have a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fisheries assets and improved benefits for all Māori. The select committee process is very important, and I urge all New Zealanders with an interest in fisheries to have their say on the bill to ensure we get it right and protect our vast and diverse ocean ecosystems for generations to come. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, look, it’s a pleasure to actually be speaking in support of this first reading of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. The Minister for Oceans and Fisheries this evening has actually set out in considerable detail some of the technical aspects that the bill seeks to amend, and I’m not going to relitigate those this evening, because I think, as I said, the Minister’s set them out in reasonable detail, but there are a couple of issues that I do think we want to, as a House, at first reading, probably explore.

I want to start by focusing on the report-back date, the truncated, shortened three-month report-back date, for what the Minister, in his own words, has indicated is an important piece of legislation to iwi and to the broader fisheries sector. What’s been very apparent in my reading and research and conversations about this legislation is that it’s had a pretty long gestation. It’s a piece of legislation that has been within Māoridom, within the mandated iwi organisations, it’s been well discussed, there have been lots of hui, there has been a lot of debate, there’s been a lot of discussion, there’s been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, and it’s taken a long time. Now the Minister is saying, “Well, this needs to be rushed through the select committee process quickly.” Well, actually, that’s the Minister’s view, but the reason that the Minister wants to rush it through quickly, I suspect, is more to do with the bottleneck of legislative initiatives that the Government wants to get through before the election later this year, and very little to do with haste and speed that is being accorded it for other reasons. Iwi have been very patient in this process, waiting for it to come to the House for a first reading. It’s taken a very long time, and yet it is an important piece of legislation.

Now, I’m the first to admit that much of what is contained in the legislation is of a technical, governance nature that is—if I was to put a sort of a layperson’s light upon it, I would phrase them as, essentially, being housekeeping issues that improve the efficiency, that modernise the governance structure, that rearrange the electoral college rules and the way that the decision making is made for the mandated iwi organisations. It’s an acceptance, I think, that quite a lot of governance best practice has actually changed since the principal Act was first passed in 2004, and a lot more has changed since the original 1992 deed of settlement. So there’s nothing wrong with having an iterative, evolving, growing process of change that reflects best practice in terms of governance and management, and also the operation of the deed of settlement through the principal Act. To amend the Act is—well, actually, it was mandated in the 2004 Act that there should be a review after 11 years. That review, as the Minister said, was completed in 2015 and then subsequently, following the recommendations made in that independent review, there had been all this debate, discussion, and consultation amongst the interested and involved parties and groups.

Now, that’s all very good, but, actually, those groups have been incredibly patient waiting for the current Government to bring this legislation to the House. I’d like to know from the Minister, at some point as we progress this legislation through the Parliament, why it’s taken so long to get us to this point where we’re having a first reading tonight, because it seems to me that, actually, iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana have been ready to get it done, to get the job done, quite some time ago—quite some time ago. In the meantime, because the Government’s had a very slow legislative agenda, what it’s meant is that some of the issues that the legislation seeks to resolve and remedy have just been put on the backburner—so issues relating to the surplus funds distribution, for instance.

Now, that is financially important to the mandated organisations. How those funds are distributed, what the criteria is, who makes the decisions, what the time frame is—those are all important things that have been delayed because of the Government’s slow legislative initiative in bringing this piece of legislation to the House. And then when, finally, the Government does bring the legislation to the House, they say, “Oh, no, no, no. It’s very important. We’ve got to do it fast. We’ve got to get it through select committee in three months. We’ve got to truncate the process.” Well, I don’t buy that. I think that, actually, that does a disservice to the mandated iwi organisations, it does a disservice to the spirit and mana of the original 1992 deed of settlement, and it does a disservice to the legislative requirement in the principal Act of 2004 that required a review to take place. That was done and discussed and debated and argued and tested, as is right and proper, amongst the organisations and people involved, but then sort of lay waiting on the legislative Order Paper for the Government to get their act together and finally bring it to the House tonight for first reading.

So the National Party will be supporting the bill at first reading because we think that, on balance, what we see makes sense. But we will be wanting to hear from submitters, not just from iwi but across the wider fishing sector, to hear their views, to hear their opinions. We want to have their input. And we don’t think that a truncated, shortened process does that select committee principle justice at all, and we actually think that that is a disservice to the whole process.

So, as I said, it’s not my intention to relitigate all the matters that the Minister went through in detail, but there are a number that are going to be significant. When this legislation is eventually passed, it’s going to give the iwi organisations better control, better understanding, and better involvement in the important decision-making, the commercial and fisheries decision-making that they have been imbued with through the original Fisheries Deed of Settlement back in 1992. And we’re not arguing that it doesn’t need to be updated, that it doesn’t need to be modernised—it does. Indeed, this proposed legislation provides for a further future review, and that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing because these are evolving entities, they are evolving organisations, and the fishery itself is evolving as well in terms of best practice and how it’s governed and what the best outcomes are, what the science is, what the technology is, and all those matters. Nothing is carved in stone in terms of a time frame about how things should be done. On this side of the House, we think that the basis for the original 1992 deed of settlement was a sound one and one that should be modernised, as is appropriate from time to time and is provided for in the in the principal Act and this piece of legislation in the future.

So, on that note, we on the National Party side are looking forward to participating actively in the select committee process, but we do have some questions that we want answered. And we’ll be looking forward to hearing from a wide range of submitters, and not just those that have agreed with the process—because the Minister made it clear that the decisions that are being proposed are not unanimously held by all in the mandated iwi organisations, that there is a variety of opinion and view about how decisions should be made, how the surplus funds should be distributed, and all those matters. We think that a full and proper select committee process would have been far more desirable, but we’ll be looking forward to participating at select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This is an exciting bill. Nothing in the contribution of the Hon Scott Simpson told us what was exciting in it. So let me inform the House about this bill which is designed to unlock—

Hon Scott Simpson: If it’s so exciting, how come it took so long?

ARENA WILLIAMS: —serious potential within the Māori economy—the $68 billion Māori economy, Scott Simpson. It’s an exciting time for the Government to be able to help the owners of these fishery assets, which make up between 30 percent and 50 percent of the Māori assets owned in New Zealand, to reach their potential, to ensure that we have modern governance arrangements for iwi and for Māori asset holders to engage and to actually have rangatiratanga over their assets, for people like me who are members of iwi to be closer to the decisions made by iwi about how those assets are used and how they are used to generate income for the benefit of those members—things like education grants, things like social wellbeing grants, things like iwi housing programmes that mean so much benefit practically for our communities, especially rural communities, like those in the Coromandel, the electorate of the Hon Scott Simpson.

I’m so excited about this. I’m excited because it’s time for the Government to make these changes which have been waiting since 2015 when we were not in Government. There has been extensive work that has gone on with iwi to make sure that these changes are going to be fit for purpose and are going to unlock the potential of those Māori assets, and we are comfortable now that we have got to that stage, and this is why we need to progress it.

I can assure all members of this House that the Māori Affairs Committee, of which I’m the deputy chair, is ready and willing to receive this piece of legislation. We’ve cleared the decks. The only other piece of substantive business that we have on is a briefing on Māori climate adaption, which I would welcome all members of the House to come and sit in on tomorrow morning. But this piece of legislation will be a priority.

Let me take the House through some of the issues within this bill that we will be focusing on when we have the privilege of engaging with the submitters on this. The first, in my mind, is the component in this bill that the Te Kawai Taumata electoral college system for appointing Te Ohu Kai Moana directors is removed and replaced with a new electoral system enabling iwi to directly appoint and remove Te Ohu Kai Moana directors on a one vote, one iwi basis. That change and the policy intent of that change is to ensure that members and people who have an interest within the iwi more broadly are closer to the decisions that are made about their assets. We want to make sure that, as committee members, we are comfortable that that change to the electoral system of those directors means that they are, essentially, appointed by the people who they are serving—that the people who they have in their mind as their work being of benefit to is always those members on the ground for whom they generate these profits and for whom they are acting as kaitiaki of these assets for in the future. We’ll be drilling into those questions.

The second, for me, is Te Ohu Kai Moana’s surplus funds, within this piece of legislation, being distributed to iwi, in accordance with a percentage specified for each iwi in column three of Schedule 3 in this bill. It’s important that the committee gets a good understanding of what the different options are there for the legislative tracks, what the different arguments were, and how the consultation process brought iwi to the table and heard those concerns around how those surplus funds should be distributed.

The third is that this bill would enable major transactions for Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to require 75 percent of iwi majority as the voting threshold. The committee will need to be sure that that 75 percent threshold enables the kind of decisions that need collective buy-in to be made, while, at the same time, not prohibiting those decisions from being made unnecessarily. With Te Ohu Kai Moana no longer playing a governance role in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, the change is required to make sure that iwi can take that over. And the policy intent here is that, again, iwi are making those decisions, iwi have rangatiratanga over it, but also that members of the iwi are closer to that decision-making process.

And the fourth thing is that Te Ohu Kai Moana is enabled to allocate distributions to any entity that has charitable status and is nominated by the mandating iwi organisation. That is intended to allow Te Ohu Kai Moana to distribute funds directly to charitable entities within the mandated iwi organisations or post-settlement governance entity structures without being liable for tax.

It’s important for the committee to consider from submitters the kinds of corporate entities that have been created since the 1992 settlement and then the 2004 Act, because those kinds of arrangements have changed and developed since that time. During the first settlements in 1995, those settlements often used the charitable entity as the parent entity and had other subsidiaries around a group structure. Nowadays, many corporate iwi structures use much more heavy-duty corporate structures but will have a charitable arm which they need to make distributions to from their fisheries assets. So the committee needs to be sure that this change enables modern governance entities to be able to receive those distributions and that we’re futureproofing it for whatever might arise in time if we make changes to things like limited partnerships and look-through companies.

The fifth thing that the committee will be considering is the process in itself. To engage in a process like this, the Government has gone through extensive consultation work. Te Ohu Kai Moana has done an incredible job of bringing people to the table, and we will be interested in how that work has been done.

With that, I just want to reiterate my call for members of this House to come to the Māori Affairs Committee—you will love it. It is a place where things are discussed collegially, where we share ideas, and where we interrogate legislation put before us—it’s great; come along.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the first reading of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. Under the 1992 Fisheries Deed of Settlement, the Crown and Māori agreed to a full and final settlement of all Māori claims to commercial fishing rights. The Maori Fisheries Act 2004 set out a framework for the allocation and transfer of fisheries settlement assets to iwi, institutional arrangements, and a governance framework for managing fisheries assets for current and future generations of Māori.

It required an independent review of the settlement entities to be completed not later than the end of the 11th year after the commencement of the Act. An independent review was finalised in March 2015, recommending significant changes to the governance structure of the settlement entities and simplified processes for trading assets.

In accordance with the Act, Te Ohu Kai Moana undertook extensive iwi engagement, established two iwi working groups to develop a set of proposals from the review, consulted widely with iwi on the proposed changes, and held a series of meetings to pass resolutions. As a result of the review and consultation with iwi, Te Ohu Kai Moana recommended a suite of changes to the Act. The changes are intended to give iwi a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their assets, improve benefits to all Māori, reduce costs, and improve efficiency.

As the speaker just before me, Arena Williams, mentioned, the Māori economy is something, I think, that we don’t hear enough about in this country, and it’s something that I think should be celebrated, because it has grown from about $16 billion over 20 years to $68.7 billion as at 2018, and it has notably considerably more matters and is on track to exceed more than $100 billion in assets by 2030. So it’s a part of New Zealand’s economy that is doing incredibly well, and I think that is something we should celebrate, and certainly fisheries is a key part of that. The Māori asset base in the primary sector of agriculture, fishing, and forestry make up about 34 percent of the total Māori asset base, so fisheries is a significant and important part of the Māori economy.

In terms of the intention of this bill to support a greater degree of rangatiratanga over these assets, I think that is a positive step and it is something, certainly, that is reflected in article 2—tuarua—of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. I’ve been reflecting on that section recently: “Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae”—which means the Queen of England effectively guarantees—“ki nga Rangatira,”—to the chiefs—“ki nga Hapu,”—to the subtribes—“ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani,”—to each individual person in New Zealand—“te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua”—of your land—“o ratou kainga”—of your homes, also your villages—“me o ratou taonga katoa.”—over all of your treasures, combined. So it’s useful to reflect on that as we look at the intention behind this bill.

As we go through this process, the National Party will be taking a keen interest in the select committee process and progress. We want to hear from submitters—all submitters—who wish to submit on this bill, and we’ll be listening closely to what they have to say. National wants to know from submitters what their view is on the alternative proposal that would see each iwi having one vote, irrespective of their size. The other proposal that we’re keen to hear on from submitters as well is what should occur in the future if more changes are required, will the provisions requiring review not sooner than five years after the current review only if at least 75 percent of mandated organisations agree a review is needed be adequate, and any other issues that arise. So the National Party will be keenly interested in what people have to say. We’ll be listening carefully to those submissions, because this does have some quite significant changes in terms of how matters are structured. Although it has gone through significant consultation, there are no doubt going to be various views on that, and we definitely want to hear from people in terms of what they have to say.

I should just note some of the key components of the amendments. Te Kawai Taumata electoral college system for appointing Te Ohu Kai Moana directors is removed and replaced with a new electoral system enabling iwi to directly appoint and remove Te Ohu Kai Moana directors on a one vote per iwi basis. The intention behind that is to shorten the distance between iwi and key decision-makers.

Te Ohu Kai Moana redeemable preference shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd are required to be converted into ordinary shares and distributed to iwi. This change will provide iwi with full influence over key decisions regarding Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, as iwi will have direct control over the appointment and removal of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd directors. Te Ohu Kai Moana’s surplus funds are to be distributed to iwi in accordance with the procedures specified for each iwi in column three of Schedule 3.

The bill introduces an ability to implement a compulsory levy model for Te Ohu Kai Moana that can be triggered in future, if required. The purpose of a funding levy proposal is to provide Te Ohu Kai Moana with enough funding, having regard to its likely other funding sources and reserves, to enable it to perform its functions and duties. The current Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd legislative dividend requirement is modified to allow shareholders to set it annually.

Major transactions for Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd will require a 75 percent iwi majority voting threshold. With Te Ohu Kai Moana no longer playing a governance role in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, a change is required to enable iwi to take over this role. The maximum director limit for Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust and Te Wai Māori Trust is increased from three to five with a majority quorum. The appointment term of directors is changed from four years to three years and restrictions are removed on the number of terms that a director can serve.

Simpler trading processes have been developed for iwi wishing to sell quota assets within the Māori pool. This change will enable iwi to sell their settlement assets to a willing buyer within the Māori pool without notifying all members within the Māori pool and running a bidding process.

There’s also a requirement introduced for a future review of governance entities. Te Ohu Kai Moana is enabled to allocate distributions to any entity that has charitable status and is nominated by the mandated iwi organisation. This will allow Te Ohu Kai Moana to distribute funds directly to charitable entities within the mandated iwi organisation or post-settlement governance entities structures without being liable for tax.

The bill clarifies electoral provisions in mandated iwi organisations’ constitutions. The bill simplifies the process for recognising post-settlement governance entities as new mandated iwi organisations. Current restrictions on mandated iwi organisation directors being appointed as directors of the respective asset-holding companies are removed and the bill clarifies the definition of “freshwater fisheries”. There are also some amendments, including tohutō—macrons—on words in te reo Māori to reflect current orthographic conventions and some other changes there.

This is something that the National Party is pleased to support. As I said, we think it does make some significant but important changes that are intended to give iwi a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their assets and improving benefits to all Māori, reducing costs and reducing inefficiency, which are all things that the National Party is pleased to support. So, with that, I will just say that the National Party supports this bill and commends it to the House.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): It pleases me to take a call on the first reading of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. As mentioned, the objective of the bill is to make sure iwi have greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fisheries assets, to improve benefits for Māori, reduce costs, and strengthen efficiencies.

Rangatiratanga upholds sovereignty and self-determination for whānau, hapū, and iwi. I have seen this in action at a flax-roots level, at home, through access to kai moana by uri o Te Awa Tupua, kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa [seafood by descendants of the Whanganui River, from the mountains to the sea]. This bill will go further to strengthening those benefits for uri across the motu.

I want to go back just a little and touch on the history by acknowledging Sir Archie Te Atawhai Taiaroa. He was the former chair of Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Māori Fisheries Commission; a commission board member from 1993; and a chair from 2006 to 2009. He and other leaders at the time were driven to putting the 700 million Māori fisheries resource to work on behalf of Māoridom. In the 1992 Fisheries Deed of Settlement, Crown and Māori settled claims to commercial fishing rights. The Maori Fisheries Act 2004 was established.

I support the invitation from my colleague and the chair Arena Williams to come to the select committee meetings. I look forward, as a member of that committee, to working on this bill on behalf of everyone, and I’d like to encourage Te Ao Māori to make those submissions. I look forward to reading those submissions. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe. I’m pleased to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party, who will be supporting the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. I am not going to do what Joseph Mooney did and read the departmental disclosure statement into the Hansard, but that was a very comprehensive explanation of what was in the bill. This bill has been through a lot of debate, and I note that the former chair of Te Ohu Kai Moana, Jamie Tuuta, when he wrote to the then Minister Nathan Guy in August 2017 and provided the second report which was part of the review process, he said that Te Ohu Kai Moana wanted to ensure that the decisions made by iwi—because there had been a whole series of hui after the independent review by barrister Tim Castle—are reflected appropriately in the final legislation. He also said, “It is important that this legislation proceeds as quickly as possible within the Government’s legislative mandate.”

Now, I acknowledge that the Government has passed the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill, and that bill took quite a lot of time. I think that was seen as really important by iwi and, therefore, took priority over this bill. But the Green Party is very pleased that this bill has now come to the House, that it builds on the Fisheries Deed of Settlement, which, of course, we celebrated its 30th anniversary last year, that that whole fisheries settlement has provided for the development of fisheries interests to benefit Māori, and that, as the Minister noted, Māori collectively own around 40 percent of commercial fishing quota and related commercial fishing assets.

The principal Act provides for the fundamental building blocks of that settlement 30 years ago in terms of the way in which quota and settlement assets were to be allocated and the governance framework between iwi and the various fisheries settlement entities, and it provides for some restrictions on the sale of settlement assets. This bill is amending the principal Act to improve the governance arrangements, to give iwi rangatiratanga, to redistribute the shares of Te Ohu Kai Moana in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which, of course, owns 50 percent of the shares in Sealord.

One of the key things that the bill also does is provide for a levy to fund the work of Te Ohu Kai Moana. Increasingly, because the settlement assets have been distributed directly to iwi, the work of Te Ohu Kai Moana is around protecting the settlement and also doing advocacy and policy work on fisheries and marine management issues, and it’s had an increasing role here, presenting submissions to Government, including just this week on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, and it’s had quite a key role in issues such as the proposed Rangitāhua/Kermadecs Ocean Sanctuary. Te Ohu Kai Moana has, in terms of its four pou, one of them being tiaki—care—and its whole ethos of the concept of “te hā o Tangaroa kia ora ai tāua”—“the breath of Tangaroa sustains us”. So that is a recognition of our connectedness to Tangaroa, the importance of sustaining Tangaroa, and that is at the base of a lot of the policy work that Te Ohu Kai Moana is doing.

I noticed in a recent annual report that Te Ohu Kai Moana had talked about there being a significant meeting around the Rangitāhua/Kermadecs Ocean Sanctuary with iwi early in 2023. So I really look forward, given the delays in work on the sanctuary, to that meeting happening and to progress on something that has been before the House for quite a while.

But this bill is also really important in terms of the strengthening of rangatiratanga, the improvements in the governance relationships, the ability to have Te Ohu Kai Moana funded on an ongoing basis through the levy, if that funding is needed, and because of the redistribution of shares.

So I commend the bill to the House. The Green Party is only supporting it to select committee, because of this debate around whether any surplus assets are distributed in proportion to an iwi’s population, or equally, and recognise that the bill preserves the status quo of it being distributed proportionately but expect that there will be some submissions to select committee on this issue. But the Green Party is pleased to support the bill.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill in its first reading, and it will be interesting to see how it will be canvassed through the select committee process. It will be interesting to hear a lot of the submissions and what it speaks to and the rights and assets of Māori fisheries and their owners and rangatiratanga—forgive me if I pronounce it incorrectly—and what it means to Māori fisheries and their owners. I heard 50 percent was the ownership value of the assets inside Sealord; 40 percent of commercial fisheries in New Zealand is owned by Māoridom. That is tremendous when we are looking at the economic sustainability of those assets.

This bill speaks to a wonderful opportunity to bring the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill forward and what it means for futureproofing the industry. It amends the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 to give effect to the recommendations in Te Ohu Kai Moana, which conducted a review, I believe, on settlement entities. It was noted it would give iwi a greater degree of rangatiratanga—if my pronunciation is correct—over their assets and create the right legal framework to protect those assets and iwi in the future.

The bill was introduced to the House on 20 December 2022—so it’s recently been introduced to the House. And in the departmental disclosure statement, it was noted that under the 1992 deed of settlement—the fisheries settlement legislation—the Crown and Māori agreed to a full and final settlement of any claims to Māori and their said fisheries. The Maori Fisheries Act 2004 sets out that legal framework.

The Act required an independent review of the settlement entities to be carried out no later than 11 years following the commencement of the Act. Suffice it to say the world is a very different place after 11 years, and, by virtue, their assets and how they’re owned. An independent review was finalised in 2015 and it recommended significant changes in accordance with the Act of Te Ohu Kai Moana and how it was undertook and significant engagement with iwi.

They established two iwi working groups to develop and set out various proposals. As a result, Te Ohu Kai Moana recommended a suite of changes, as mentioned by many of the members of this House this evening, giving greater rangatiratanga over their assets to iwi and reducing cost and improving efficiency. And by virtue—as the Green member the Hon Eugenie Sage rightly noted prior—we spoke to the Fisheries Amendment Bill earlier and aquaculture to Māori assets and their owners. This is a welcome piece of legislation.

These principles and these changes include changes to governance, arrangements of the entities, mandated iwi organisations and their asset holding companies to take more control—what a good thing for a party of private property rights—this is certainly something we would advocate for here in the ACT Party; Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and the governance of those assets a greater say to allocate ordinary shares and be mandated to iwi organisations, nothing like having a say over how your own business is run, I would wager; simplification of the process of quota assets and ordinary shares within the pool of fisheries settlement and those commercial entities.

It’s been referred to in the regulatory impact statement of 22 June 2021, prepared by the Ministry for Primary Industries, that the costs and benefits, which are noted as suiting both the Crown and Māori asset owners, iwi asset owners—and these people would be the main beneficiaries of this new proposed legislation—create greater alignment between iwi and their commercial operation and improve entities’ operational efficiency by removing restrictions that no longer remain fit for purpose.

Based on that, I think it’s currently a good piece of legislation. It warrants much further investigation through a select committee process. I’m sure there will be some—it has been previously noted in the House tonight—that will raise concerns, but by virtue of supporting it to that process, I can only think that we will see better outcomes for Māori, for their assets, and futureproofing for their business model going forward. ACT will support this piece of legislation through the first reading. Thank you very much.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to stand and speak in support of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. It’s an exciting bill. It’s a bill that’s overdue. The regulatory impact statement says very clearly that everyone involved is keen. I commend it to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou e te Whare. Kei te tangi tonu ki ngā mate o te wā. I takoto poto nei a Georgina ki runga ki tā tātou marae mō tētahi wā poto, nō reira, tangi atu ki a ia, tangi atu ki te nui o rātou kua riro atu ki te pō.

[Greetings everyone, greetings to the House. I continue to grieve the dead of this time. Georgina lay for a short time at our marae, and so I grieve for her and the many others who have passed away.]

I just want to acknowledge the “Māoris” in the gallery today and Te Ohu Kai Moana and the hard work that they’ve been doing to be the custodians of this particular kaupapa. We stand in support of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. This bill makes changes to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 to give effect to the recommendations of Te Ohu Kai Moana, which conducted a review of the settlement entities, the changes intended to give iwi a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their assets and prove benefits to all Māori, reduce costs, and improve efficiency.

Nō reira, e te Heamana, koutou te poari, koutou ngā kaimahi o Te Ohu Kai Moana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ka aroha nei tātou e ruku nei ki roto i tēnei kaupapa. Mai te wā i ngā mātua tīpuna kāore i konei i tēnei kei te hoki atu ngā mahara.

[And so to the chairman, to the board, and to the workers of Te Ohu Kai Moana, greetings to you all. I have sympathy for us all, diving into this issue. My thoughts are taken back to the time of our predecessors who are not with us at this time.]

So we absolutely strongly support this bill. We acknowledge the support of Te Ohu Kai Moana for this legislation and thank them for participating in this Crown review to restore rights to iwi. Giving individual iwi greater say over their quota will recognise kaitiaki relationships and help restore fisheries and the moana. The current quota system pits our people against each other, unfortunately, and it fails to protect our fisheries from commercial exploitation by those who are not part of our kaupapa. You know, for a long time—and I know from an iwi that has been handcuffed by the recognised iwi organisation to get acknowledgment for the mandated iwi organisation and to access the funding for smaller iwi. You know, we found it very difficult in the space of the calculations with the inshore coastline and also the deep sea, which is based on population. And you’ve got some disparities between iwi who have a big coastline but have a smaller population. And so I hope that in the select committee process, we’re able to find some equal processes where those with huge coastlines and little population get greater access to the resource, because we know there are many iwi who have no coastline but have huge populations that will benefit out of the changes in this particular bill.

And so that’s the big thing for the Te Paati Māori tēnei wā. Other than that, we are totally supportive. We’re not going to go through and read line by line through the legislation, but we will just say that this will allow us to remove the democracy of the way we deal with things and move things to a more tikanga-based process, a more mana-enhancing process, and, hopefully, for those smaller iwi, a greater say in regards to their moana.

I just want to say I sat for a brief time on Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust, and I’m really proud of the mahi we did at that particular time. I think we were the catalyst for a great committee. We went over to Iceland. We looked over a few kaupapa there that really helped look at how we could increase productivity with our catch by ensuring that we used all of the fish in terms of the bycatch, and we also looked at initiatives with the new netting, which allowed smaller fish to escape and to hold on to the big fish. But the biggest thing I’m proud of in terms of the Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust [Bell rings]—oh, there’s that bell—was the education grants and the education access that we gave to many of our rangatahi who are interested in this particular space. So kei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou. [So I acknowledge you all.]

I look forward to the discussions and the submissions in the Māori Affairs Committee, and I’ll look at a greater, I think, equality in regards to some of those smaller iwi who for a long time have been aggrieved by the actual process of the onshore and the deep-sea measures that we use in terms of the way we distribute that resource.

Nō reira, e hika mā, [Therefore, friends,] we support this bill, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to it tonight. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, with thanks for the constructive debate which we’ve had, particularly in this evening session since dinner, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.