Wednesday, 8 March 2023

WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 2023

WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Visitors

Norway—Norwegian Parliament

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Hege Bae Nyholt, Chair of the Norwegian Parliament Committee on Education and Research, and her accompanying delegation, who are present in the gallery.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Andrew Wilson requesting that the House amend Schedule 4, Part 7, clause 8 of the Social Security Act 2018 urban-rural statistical blocks so that urban-rural zoning for the purposes of Accommodation Supplement eligibility is based on the most recent population statistics.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Housing

1. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: How is the Government supporting people whose homes have been damaged or destroyed by recent severe weather in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The recent severe weather has caused significant damage to homes across the North Island, displacing thousands of people. To date, there have been over 9,000 rapid building assessments and reassessments completed in the impacted regions in the North Island. In Auckland, there have been 664 red placards and 2,292 yellow placards issued. Across the regions impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle, including Tai Rāwhiti, Hastings, Northland, Waikato, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Wairoa, 183 homes have red placards and a further 1,332 homes have yellow placards. While initial assessments are still to be completed in isolated areas, over 90 percent of rapid building assessments are completed, and Government will continue working closely with councils to complete the assessments.

Angie Warren-Clark: Who are responsible for conducting the rapid building assessments?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Rapid building assessors are trained volunteers who are registered with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to be deployed, where required, to assess whether affected buildings in the area can be safely used. Assessors are either qualified with engineering or building science degrees, or they have building consent officer experience with appropriate qualifications from endorsed programmes. While some territorial authorities have been able to coordinate a sufficient pool of local rapid building assessors to undertake the assessments, the Government is coordinating building management support for territorial authorities who need further resources to conduct these assessments. To date, approximately 14 rapid building assessors have been deployed from around New Zealand, and they have been deployed to Kaipara, Waikato, Hastings, Tai Rāwhiti, Wairoa, and Tīnui.

Angie Warren-Clark: What support has the Government provided to those people who have been displaced by the recent severe weather?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s temporary accommodation service has provided support to displaced people across Northland, Auckland, Tai Rāwhiti, Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, and Tararua District: 1,600 households have registered for Temporary Accommodation Service (TAS) support so far, and we’re expecting that to increase to over 3,500 households across those regions. The current priority for TAS is to ensure there is an adequate supply of short-term accommodation to meet immediate housing need as part of the disaster response, which includes commercial accommodation like motels, hotels, and motorhomes.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will the Government support households who will be displaced for longer periods of time?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Given the severity of the weather events, many households will be displaced for longer periods of time while their damaged or destroyed homes are repaired or rebuilt. We’re already investigating longer-term accommodation options to accommodate those displaced by the events, such as Portacabins, renting or buying new homes, and supporting iwi-led temporary housing initiatives. We have experience delivering these types of accommodation solutions, including the temporary village in Westport following the flooding events in 2021. When no longer needed for TAS purposes, houses, cabins, and infrastructure from TAS villages have either been sold at residual values to social housing providers or first-home buyers, or ownership has been transferred to local councils for the benefit of the local community.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. 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): Yes.

Christopher Luxon: How does he reconcile his claim he sent memos to the Public Service about constant spending “many times over the last five years” with Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes’ statement today that he’s never received one?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, the memo in question—or the memo in question, if that’s the best example of the memo in question—was in fact a minute from Cabinet. That is about the highest form of memo that you can get within the New Zealand Public Service, which is—

Hon Grant Robertson: He hasn’t been in Cabinet.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah, and I’m surprised the member opposite isn’t aware of that. I’d also note that I have met, as the Minister for the Public Service, on a regular basis, normally several times a year, with all of the chief executives of the Public Service Government departments from which this has been a topic of conversation. They should be well aware of the Government’s expectations.

Christopher Luxon: So why is Peter Hughes contradicting him?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: He isn’t.

Christopher Luxon: What did he actually do to follow up on his promise in 2018 to cut spending on consultants, or was it just a press release that he fired out and odd directives and memos?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve just indicated to the member, there was a Cabinet minute that made clear the Government’s expectations to all Government agencies.

Christopher Luxon: So why hasn’t there been a reduction in consultant spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, Government department chief executives make the decision on how best to deliver on the Government’s priorities. We’ve been very clear that we want to see less spending on consultants and contractors.

Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his claim that the $16 million spent on the cancelled TVNZ-RNZ merger was “not necessarily wasted”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s no question that some of the findings from that will point to the future direction of Government policy around public broadcasting. That landscape is changing significantly, and anybody who wants to bury their head in the sand and pretend otherwise is clearly going to end up with a public media sector that’s moribund.

Christopher Luxon: Is it a waste of money to pay the TVNZ-RNZ merger board $8,000 a day to keep working on a project that he’s cancelled?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We were very clear, and I was very clear when I announced that that work would not be proceeding, that there would be some wind-down costs. I’d expect that the departments and agencies can soon get through those as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with Willie Jackson, who said the merger could be back post cyclone recovery?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve made it very clear what the Government’s priorities are here. Radio New Zealand and TVNZ will continue as independent entities.

Christopher Luxon: Which is worse: his track record as Public Service Minister, where he failed to rein in consultant spending, his track record as education Minister, where he failed to lift achievement, his track record as police Minister, where he failed to bring down crime, or his track record so far as Prime Minister, where he’s failed to do anything?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject all of the above, but particularly on crime. I’d note that during the time I was the Minister of Police, the number of ram raids that were being conducted fell by three-quarters—so a 75 percent reduction in that through some intensive intervention on the part of the Government. The member so far doesn’t seem to be able to get past bumper sticker slogans and come up with any concrete actual ideas about how to make New Zealand a better place to live.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain mathematically what impact 82 new truancy officers will make on just under 100,000 chronically absent students?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The attendance officers are going to be working directly with schools to support their efforts to get those kids who are currently not engaging in education regularly back into the classroom on a more regular basis. As we know from previous experience, that can take a number of different forms. In some cases, simply more active engagement with the families can get those kids attending more regularly; in other cases, it requires more intensive intervention, which is why this is only one piece of that puzzle. We’ve also put additional funding into the attendance services, who do that more intensive work with the kids who are not enrolled or who are not regularly engaged and who are at that chronic end of non-attendance.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific and turned on the word “mathematically”. Now, he’s made lots of general statements, but he hasn’t addressed the fact that he’s got 82 people trying to chase about 100,000 kids.

SPEAKER: I completely disagree. A further supplementary?

David Seymour: How do you disagree?

SPEAKER: Are you challenging my ruling?

David Seymour: No—asking about it.

SPEAKER: No, well, don’t do that.

Question No. 3—Women

3. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What work is under way to progress gender equity in New Zealand?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Happy International Women’s Day. The theme of the 2023 International Women’s Day campaign is “embrace equity”. The Government has a strong commitment to progressing gender equity through pay equity. Since the passing of the amendment to the Equal Pay Act in July 2020, six claims have been settled so far, resulting in over 110,000 people having their pay corrected, and there are another 27 active claims under way.

Sarah Pallett: What pay equity settlements have recently been reached?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This week, a historic pay equity settlement was signed for 1,200 school librarians and library assistants and around 400 science technicians, and I was delighted to be able to attend the signing ceremony. For school librarians and library assistants, the new pay equity rates will see them receive average pay increases of approximately 10 to 38 percent; and for science technicians, they will see pay increases ranging from 20 to 40 percent.

Nicola Grigg: Has the Minister, as part of her work on gender equity, encouraged the Minister of Health to adopt National’s policy to extend free mammograms to women aged 69 to 74 years old, which could save 65 lives a year; and if not, why not?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The Minister of Health and myself have had discussions around the Women’s Health Strategy, which is in development at the moment. That is open until 17 March for input. I would encourage that member to put a submission in.

Sarah Pallett: What action is being taken to reduce the overall gender pay gap in New Zealand?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The gender pay gap in New Zealand is sitting stubbornly at 9.2 percent, but I will say that the gender pay gap in the Public Service is at 7.7 percent, which is the lowest it’s been on record. It has come down from 12.2 percent in 2018. That has happened because there has been a focus on this, there have been targets set, and a relentless drive by the Public Service to bring that pay gap down.

Sarah Pallett: What work is being done to address pay transparency?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Minister Radhakrishnan and I have asked for advice on what a pay transparency system in Aotearoa New Zealand could look like, and work is under way to develop options. Whilst pay transparency is one way to ensure people are paid fairly, I don’t see it as a silver bullet. The National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women has been appointed as the national advisory group on pay transparency and has been engaging with the business sector to help inform this work. We are hoping to be in a position to provide an update on this work in coming months.

Question No. 4—Conservation

4. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she believe that the Jobs for Nature programme represents good value for money?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation): Yes. The Jobs for Nature programme has ensured that conservation work is at the heart of economic recovery, providing both significant social and environmental outcomes. Now in year three, over 4,900 people employed through the programme have done more than 3.7 million hours of conservation work around Aotearoa. What that means for our environment is more predator control, more native tree planting, more weed control, and more people feeling empowered and equipped to connect and care for the whenua.

Nicole McKee: Can she confirm that as at 31 December 2022, the Ministry for the Environment website showed that just over $1 billion in funding had been contracted and 6.3 million hours of work had been completed?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I am the Minister for Conservation. I can talk to what projects the Department of Conservation has funded.

Nicole McKee: Is the Minister aware that with those figures, it means $167—which is almost eight times the minimum wage—is being paid out for each hour of work, and what are New Zealand taxpayers getting for that money?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: What Aotearoa is getting for the money that we have invested through Jobs for Nature is more than 4,900 people being employed at a time when we were facing an economic crisis and the threat of unemployment. What New Zealanders are getting is 3.7 million hours of conservation work that has been done. Through that, we have more predator control, more native planting—these are huge benefits for Aotearoa.

Nicole McKee: Has she asked the Minister of Finance how long the Government can keep borrowing money to fund low-skilled jobs at $167 an hour, and if she has, what did he say?

Chlöe Swarbrick: No such thing as a low-skilled job.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes.

Hon Member: Shameful.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah. The work that people have done for our taiao is work that we should be proud of, that we should all be grateful for. I would not describe it in the way that that member has described it. No, I have not yet had conversations with the Minister of Finance about further opportunities—

Hon Grant Robertson: No, here.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —not here, yeah—about further opportunities in terms of those people who have worked on Jobs for Nature projects.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that Jobs for Nature included the hire of helicopters to poison wilding pines and control wallabies, and that the cost of hiring a helicopter is more than the minimum wage per hour?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes, I can confirm that.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What has been the cost to taxpayers so far of work associated with proposals for a TVNZ-RNZ merger and a New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am advised that the latest available total cost of the work on the TVNZ-RNZ merger is $16.1 million. I’m further advised that the latest available total cost of the work on the New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme is $20.7 million. The final costs will be confirmed through the usual parliamentary accountability processes, and, of course, detailed questions about these programmes are best directed to the Ministers responsible for the relevant appropriations.

Nicola Willis: Are there any ongoing costs associated with these proposals, and, if so, why are New Zealand taxpayers continuing to pay for work on policies the Government does not think are fit to implement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already indicated, there will be both wind-down costs and—at the time of the announcement around the New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme—there would be ongoing policy work on what is a gap in our social security system.

Nicola Willis: How much money in addition to the $36 million already poured down the drain will this Government throw at these zombie policies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said yesterday to the member, I appreciate the fact—which she’s just confirmed with that question—that she doesn’t care about those people made redundant in New Zealand, or those people who lose their jobs through health conditions or disabilities. So, as noted at the time of the announcement, there will be ongoing policy work. If the member wants to reflect on policies where things were put down the drain, she might want to reflect on the millions of dollars spent on a sheep farm in the Saudi desert by the former National Government.

Nicola Willis: Is it the case that these flawed proposals have not been stopped, but are instead being kept in hibernation, being kept warm with taxpayers’ money, ready to return to life if Labour ever wins another election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The interesting thing is that the member hasn’t been following along very closely, because on the day that the announcements were made by the Prime Minister, it was made clear that, actually, looking after New Zealanders who lose their jobs through no fault of their own is a gap in our social security system. What the Prime Minister said at the time was that now was not the right time to do that with economic conditions as they are. So the member, if she had been following along, would know the answer to her question.

Nicola Willis: So if it’s such a good idea, why isn’t it going ahead?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because there’s a cost of living crisis, which the member keeps telling us about over and over again—which the member keeps telling us about over and over again. Yet whenever the Government proposes anything that might help people with the cost of living, the National Party oppose it—that is, I might say, other than their own proposal to give tax cuts to the highest-income earners. I stand proudly on our record of backing New Zealanders when they’re facing a cost of living crisis.

Nicola Willis: So can we now conclude that the Minister of Finance remains very emotionally attached to the Income Insurance Scheme and the jobs tax that he wanted to fund, but that even he acknowledges that slapping an $800—average—tax on New Zealanders will never be a winner and that, therefore, this is a policy that will only succeed if he somehow undermines the Prime Minister?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That speech from the member was an interesting insight into the values of different political parties. I will stand proudly on being emotionally attached to having New Zealanders in work and to having New Zealanders looked after, so that when they get sick, we look after them, and so that when they lose their job, we look after them. That’s what we did during COVID. So the member might think it’s all a political game or some part of the Wellington High School debating society that she’s part of, but for me, it is an emotional matter to have New Zealanders in work and to look after them.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te āhuatanga ki wā tātou wāhine. He wahine, he whenua, ka mate te tangata.

[Women, like the land itself, are crucial to the wellbeing of humanity.]

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

SPEAKER: You need to read it as—the last word is “policies”, not “actions”.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Do you want me to repeat that?

SPEAKER: No, it’s OK.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he stand by his statement, “Do I think we need to find Te Matatini a sustainable funding platform? Yes, I do.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he be comfortable with current levels of funding for kapa haka in Aotearoa, when, currently, the Government does not currently provide any funding for the regional Matatini competition or other levels such as tamariki and rangatahi performances?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not, and that’s a topic of active conversation at the moment.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his response to multiple research reports that show that Māori—including rangatahi—who participate in kapa haka achieve higher academic results, have better physical health, and improved cultural belonging and mental wellbeing?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I welcome those reports; I welcome Te Matatini. I do believe that the renaissance in kapa haka that we’re seeing through our education system at the moment is a very, very welcome development and one that we should all be proud of, and it’s one that we, as a Government, are keen to support.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the reports from Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga from June 2022, which were commissioned by Te Matatini, that demonstrate the value of kapa haka to Aotearoa.

SPEAKER: Are they publicly available?

Rawiri Waititi: No.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none—they may be tabled.

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

Rawiri Waititi: Will he increase the budget for Te Matatini and all levels of kapa haka so that it’s equitable to the funding for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Royal New Zealand Ballet, to recognise the higher standard of cultural excellence that is only to be found in Aotearoa; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As the member is aware, the Budget is in May. But I can tell him, as I’ve said publicly, that we are having discussions about how best to ensure that we can fund Te Matatini, how best we can support the renaissance of kapa haka that has been happening, and I do expect that there will be some further announcements coming in due course.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Prime Minister confirm that some of the major sponsors of Te Matatini—most recently held in Tāmaki-makau-rau—include Government departments such as ACC, the role of Te Whatu Ora, Te Aka Whai Ora, and Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, indeed, I can confirm that, and I also want to acknowledge and thank all of the private sector sponsors who put a significant backing into Te Matatini—an amazing event that I had the opportunity to attend in Auckland. I think it’s one we should all celebrate as New Zealanders. It was an amazing event, a fantastic spirit, and just great to see people putting their heart and soul into something that they are clearly so proud of.

Question No. 7—Education

7. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: What was the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences in term 3 2019 compared to term 3 2022, and has the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences increased over that period?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): For 93.5 percent of the time during term 3 2022, students were either present or away from school for a justifiable reason such as illness. For 6.5 percent of that time, students were unjustifiably absent when measured as half-days. For 95 percent of the time during term 3 2019, students were either present or away from school for a justifiable reason. For 5 percent of the time, students were unjustifiably absent when measured as half-days. Due to COVID-19, all absences went up, but, proportionately, more absences were justified; in other words, proportionately, when you look at the total time spent in the classroom, more absences were due to justifiable reasons in term 3 between 2019 and 2022.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question on notice about the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences. The Minister has given me a completely different number comparing the percentage of unjustified absences to justified absences, and that is not what I asked for.

SPEAKER: I think the member is going to have to accept the form that the Minister has given the answer in, because the information does address the question.

Erica Stanford: Why did the Minister say in this House on 23 February that, “Unjustified absence is dropping rapidly between 2019 to now”, when the official data shows that unjustified absences have climbed to the highest ever percentage recorded in term 3 2022?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because, as I said in my first answer, all absences went under COVID-19, but proportionately, more absences were justified. In other words, proportionately, when you look at the total time spent in the classroom, more absences were due to justified reasons in term 3 between 2019 and 2022. What I will say is that I do appreciate that attendance data is complicated and does often use different basis for talking about the same thing. Therefore, I have asked officials to consider what the best way of describing student attendance is so that we can all understand where the real issues are and focus on making improvements.

Erica Stanford: Who is correct: the Ministry of Education in their term 3 attendance report who said, “There was an increase in the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences in term 3 between 2019 and 2022”, or the Minister of Education, who said, “Unjustified absence is dropping rapidly between 2019 to now”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: If the member reads the same report, she will also see that the Ministry of Education say that, proportionately, when you look at the total time spent in the classroom, more absences were due to justified reasons in term 3 between 2019 and 2022.

Erica Stanford: Are there more children taking unjustified absences in 2022 compared to 2019?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said, due to COVID-19, there are more children taking absences full stop, but the proportion between the two shows that there are more justified absences. This is a really pleasing trend.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That could not possibly have addressed the question. Mrs Stanford was very clear that she was talking about unjustified absences, and the answer referred only to justified absences.

Hon David Parker: With respect to the Hon Michael Woodhouse, it didn’t, and she answered the question in the first part of her answer.

SPEAKER: In my opinion—I’m going to give the member an additional supplementary, but it’s not in punishment to the Minister, because I think the Minister has provided the information, but, in the interest of the House knowing, I will allow Erica Stanford to have an extra question.

Erica Stanford: Why is it that when she was shown this graph by a journalist yesterday and asked if she accepted that the unjustified absences had increased since 2019, she said no?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because, as I’m trying to explain here, we’re talking about two different data sets, and one data set shows something very, very different but the same thing. Now, I know that sounds confusing, which is why I’m talking about proportionality of the absences as a whole. When you see and look at the proportion of total time kids were in the classroom in term 3 2022, there were more justifiable absences than in term 3 2021, and, in fact, 2019. That is a promising trend.

Erica Stanford: Can she finally admit that the total number can increase even though the percentage, as she explains, is decreasing?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said—I’ll repeat what I’ve said: absences—absences—overall in COVID are greater. I’ve said that three times now.

David Seymour: Is the Minister trying to say that the bad news is more kids are missing school, but the good news is it’s justified?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Of course, during COVID, when people have been sick, you are going to get more people who are going to be absent from school.

Erica Stanford: Why is she spending her time trying to manipulate the data to desperately try and show that unjustified absences are declining, when the Ministry of Education—

SPEAKER: Order! I don’t think the member can ask the question which implies that the Minister is lying, or, in this case, you used the word “manipulating”—tantamount to saying that you’re making it up.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You may well be correct, and I’m not challenging that the question may have been out of order, but to rule it out of order on the basis that the member was accusing the Minister of lying is, I think, quite a long bow to be drawing. Now, as you know, that is a serious breach of the Standing Orders, and I think it might have been better to use a different term.

SPEAKER: That might be so, but I’ve made my ruling.

Erica Stanford: Shall I reword that question, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No, that question is gone.

Erica Stanford: Why did she say yesterday, “I almost need a whiteboard to explain it to you because it’s so complicated.”, when comparing percentage figures is a skill that’s taught at year 8?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the way, when you are using two different data sets, is obviously really difficult to understand—to compare the two. The data systems need work to be more accurate and efficient. That means they need investment, which is why we’re putting in $7.7 million over three years to do just that. This will fund experts who’ll be assigned to work directly with schools and communities to improve the quality, understanding, and the use of attendance data.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent action has the Government taken to support victims of the war in Ukraine?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): New Zealand stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine in the face of Russian barbarism, and one of the important areas in which we have provided that support is through our immigration policy. And so last week, I was pleased to announce that the Government will be expanding the 2022 Special Ukraine Visa to ensure Ukrainians in New Zealand can continue to bring their family members here as the war continues. The policy allows eligible family members to be granted a two-year visa with work rights or study rights if they’re under 18. This recognises New Zealand’s ongoing commitment to support Ukraine over a year on from Russia first launching its illegal invasion. We’ve also made a number of other changes to the settings to support the intent of the visa and ensure those looking to sponsor family members have as great a certainty as possible about how the process works.

Ibrahim Omer: How long do individuals now have to make an application under the Special Ukraine Visa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The window for expressions of interest to be submitted was due to close on 15 March this year. This has now been extended by one year to 15 March 2024. We’re also extending the period in which someone granted a visa must travel to New Zealand, from nine months to 12 months, noting that securing travel from Ukraine to New Zealand can be difficult to organise given the current situation on the ground.

Ibrahim Omer: How is the Government making it easier to sponsor relatives to come to New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Rather than relying on one family sponsor as per the current policy, each application will now have a nominating family member who meets the New Zealand and Ukrainian residency requirements, and an acceptable sponsor who will take on financial responsibility for the applicant, so that in some instances someone who isn’t related to the applicant can take on the financial responsibility for the claimant. This makes for a much more flexible regime in terms of New Zealanders who might want to support a Ukrainian person to seek shelter in New Zealand. The sponsor, whether it is a family member or another individual, will remain responsible for arranging and funding travel to New Zealand as well as accommodation and living costs once they arrive.

Ibrahim Omer: What other changes has the Government made to make the settings of the Special Ukraine Visa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We’ve also broadened the criteria for those who can sponsor a family member to include those with Ukrainian heritage, rather than just those who were born in Ukraine or are Ukrainian citizens. This will effectively increase the pool of people who are able to sponsor someone to seek shelter in New Zealand. Those who can be sponsored under the category is also expanding to include other adult family members who have lived with this family for a substantial period of time. This could be aunts, uncles, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, first cousins, and step siblings. Together, these changes reaffirm New Zealand’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and her people at this most difficult of times.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Australian Prime Minister Albanese, who said “right now, there’s not enough transparency around the gender pay gap in workplaces. That’s why we’re introducing a bill to fix that”; if so, when will she introduce a pay transparency bill?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I do agree with Prime Minister Albanese, and this Government is absolutely committed to reducing the gender and ethnic pay gaps and improving pay equity more broadly in New Zealand. Officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Women are progressing work on what a pay transparency system that is fit for New Zealand would look like. This includes considering a range of options that includes both policy and legislative options. We are also working with NACEW—that’s the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women—in their role as the national advisory group on pay transparency to ensure that we get it right for New Zealand. It is also important to remember that this is one part of a broader suite of initiatives that this Government has progressed to address pay equity issues. This is a Government that’s committed to improving pay equity. We’ve taken a number of steps already towards this and we will continue to do so.

Jan Logie: Does she consider increasing all women’s pay a bread and butter issue when it’s so essential for putting the bread and butter on the table?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I’ve already said, pay equity issues around fairness of pay is a priority for this Government. We have already progressed an amendment to the Equal Pay Act in 2020. That has meant that over 104,000 people have had an adjustment to their pay through pay equity settlements. In fact, the Minister for Women has just outlined to this House recent steps taken towards that. We have passed fair pay agreements: the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022 that will help a number of people towards pay equity. The Public Service Commission is requiring public sector agencies to report about their pay gaps and action to fix those pay gaps. And we have a number of employment action plans that have set out a range of actions designed to target exactly this.

Jan Logie: Does she acknowledge the research that shows Pacific women being paid only 75c to Pākehā men’s dollar is largely a result of unconscious bias and discrimination that could be addressed by pay transparency?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I acknowledge that piece of research and also research that was commissioned and undertaken by the Ministry for Women that finds that 80 percent of a gender pay gap was unexplained and is generally based on the result of conscious and unconscious biases and also various other factors that impact negatively on women’s recruitment and pay advancement. That is exactly why we are progressing work to look at what a pay transparency system that is fit for New Zealand could look like.

Jan Logie: Considering we’ve had an Equal Pay Act for 50 years, the public sector—which has pay transparency—has closed the gap, but New Zealand more broadly has seen a widening of the gap recently; why is the Government not acting with more urgency to introduce pay transparency legislation?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I have said time and again in this House—today, as well—we are progressing work to look at what a pay transparency system that is fit for a New Zealand context would look like. That requires work, and that work is under way. In the meantime, we’ve undertaken a range of steps to address pay equity more broadly that has resulted in the impact—or, what we’re seeing of the narrowing of the gap that the member has just outlined.

Jan Logie: Why has the Government referred the pay transparency work to NACEW, delaying implementation, when labour historian Cybèle Locke has said, “the research needed for setting up a proper pay transparency system for the private sector is already there.”?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That is not true. We do need more research into this, into what a fit for context, fit for purpose system would look like. That’s exactly what we do. I reject the member’s premise that this is delaying the work—we’re working with NACEW and their networks to make sure that we get this right.

Jan Logie: What does she say to Mind The Gap’s Dellwyn Stuart, who said, “an advisory group is not enough to put more money in people’s wallets. We need much greater urgency”?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: An advisory group is what we need to ensure that we get this work right.

Question No. 10—Whānau Ora

10. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: How has Whānau Ora responded to the communities affected by Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Firstly, I pay tribute to those who lost loved ones and all of the whānau affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and the recent weather events. There’s something about a crisis that continues to bring our communities together, and Whānau Ora certainly stood up to play their part. The Whānau Ora commissioning agencies have provided a range of supports through their network of partners to whānau, including the support of over 10,000 whānau members affected by the recent weather events; reprioritised over $3 million in support to access kai, clean water, medical support, health support, and temporary accommodation for displaced whānau; supported 800 displaced recognised seasonal employees—otherwise known as RSE workers—stood up communications support, such as call centre for triage and communication and translation services; and, through the Pacific Medical Association Medical Assistance Team, offered 461 mental health checks, and 235 GP medical checks have been completed; and they are also continuing to give vaccinations for measles and COVID-19 during this time. Whānau Ora is certainly playing their part.

Soraya Peke-Mason: How was Whānau Ora able to support communities in response to these events so quickly?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, as with COVID-19, were able to pivot their business-as-usual service provision and rapidly mobilise to surge support into affected communities. This included the movement of nearly 600 Whānau Ora workers into affected areas and into supporting those areas. This flexible infrastructure and relationship with communities on the ground is important to the agile nature of Whānau Ora and the way that they serve our communities.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What feedback is the Minister hearing about Whānau Ora support on the ground?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The Minister for Māori Development and I visited Te Matau-a-Māui and had a good chance to speak with the likes of Te Taiwhenua ki Heretaunga, Whānau Ora providers, and those who are doing the mahi on the ground. They acknowledge the value of Whānau Ora support and the support from this Government received, and they also appreciated the flexible nature with which that support was provided during this time of crisis.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What else is the Government doing to support Māori communities?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Alongside the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Te Arawhiti, a further $15 million was announced last week to accelerate the Māori response to Cyclone Gabrielle. The funding will support the continued coordination of services, ensuring whānau are accessing their full and correct entitlements, integrating Government supports to provide holistic responses to whānau needs, and supporting their planning for future resilience. This includes but is not limited to access to funding for marae rebuild or clean-up, papakāinga rebuild or clean-up, and mental and physical health support, as well as the holistic wraparound support. We should all be very proud of the work that Whānau Ora has done during this time.

Question No. 11—Public Service

11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for the Public Service: What actions, if any, has he taken to address the use of contractors and consultants in the Public Service?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for the Public Service): I am continuing the actions of my predecessor—[Interruption] I’ll start that again. I am continuing the astute actions of my predecessor in ensuring the use by the Public Service of contractors and consultants is properly monitored and managed. In 2018, this Government removed the cap on the core Government administration, which is what drove up contractors under the last Government, and conveyed through the Public Service Commissioner to all Public Service agencies the expectation that they invest in building their core Public Service and reduce their reliance on external capability. We implemented a more transparent reporting method that now accurately reports on the spend of contractors and consultants. That spend is reported to the Public Service Commission on a quarterly basis. These measures saw the spending on contractors and consultants in the Public Service fall from 13.4 percent of spending on Public Service workforce in 2017/2018 to 10.4 percent in 2020/2021. The proportion rose in the 2021/2022 financial year to 14.6 percent because of COVID-19 and the Government’s reform programme. Change requires the core Public Service to engage external expertise in the form of contractors and consultants for short periods of time from time to time. If the member expects every problem to be addressed by adding a permanent fulltime-equivalent employee to the Public Service, then the permanent Public Service would be significantly larger than it is now.

Simeon Brown: Has he or his predecessor sent a memo or a minute to the Public Service Commissioner asking him to direct the Public Service to reduce its reliance on contractors and consultants; if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I draw the member’s attention to my answer to his primary question, which is that we now engage in active monitoring of the Public Service’s use of contractors and consultants, and that is reported on a quarterly basis to the Public Service Commission, and that informs the actions of both the commission and, of course, of Public Service management.

Simeon Brown: Will his active monitoring include sending a minute or a memo to the Minister of Transport for spending over $50 million on contractors and consultants for Auckland light rail, which has gone nowhere?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What’s important to recognise is that when, as this Government has faced many times, we have urgent situations arising—whether it’s a worldwide pandemic or whether it’s a cyclone response—we have in place measures across our Public Service to provide support to people who need it most. So, for example, in the wake of the recent Cyclone Gabrielle, we’ve been able to put in place very, very quickly the means to get financial assistance to farmers and growers and members of the community who need it urgently. The member opposite and his party may trivialise the capability of the Public Service to do that, but it’s absolutely vital to support our communities in their time of need.

Simeon Brown: Point of order. The question was in regards to his monitoring and whether that would include expenditure on light rail. I didn’t hear any reference to that through the entirety of that answer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but the question also had a major assertion in it that was addressed. Any further supplementary?

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that significant transport projects such as the Eastern Busway, which have wide support in this House, cannot be delivered without the use of specialist contractors?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member makes a very important point that this is a Government that has totally embraced the need to step up the quality and capability of our transport networks, including our roading transport, that had been neglected for nine years under the previous Government because they froze funding and redirected funding to a very small number of large projects. In order to carry out projects that make a big difference to our metropolitan centres, as well as our provincial centres, we need short-term expertise to come in and assist with the design and delivery of that capability.

Simeon Brown: Does he think that spending $72 million on contractors and consultants last year to restructure the entire health system in the middle of a pandemic is a good use of taxpayers’ money, and, if not, will he be sending a minute or a memo to the former Minister of Health?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The objectives of the health reform were to, first of all, make sure that rather than having 20 centres of decision making and operation, we consolidate that into one to ensure that we get consistency of healthcare across the country. It also ensured that the appalling performance that our health system has had for Māori health is actually radically trained by the institution of Te Aka Whai Ora—Māori Health Authority to provide leadership and te tino rangatiratanga for Māori for their health needs, and that’s an important investment that will last decades into the future and better serve the needs of all New Zealand communities.

Hon Grant Robertson: Would the Minister consider a report that cost $200,000 pro bono work, as the former chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council appears to do with the McKinsey report, which he called pro bono this morning on TV, but, in fact, cost $200,000?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is important that, in the Public Service, we do get our definitions correct, and that “pro bono” means that you don’t pay anything for it, and that advice to us for $200,000 is labelled as “advice costing $200,000”. If it comes from McKinsey, then it has come from a consultant.

Simeon Brown: Does he think he will have any more success than his predecessor in getting the Public Service to reduce its reliance on expensive contractors and consultants, and, if so, why?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I draw the member’s attention to my answer to his primary question, where I outlined, actually, the achievement of my predecessor in getting down the proportion of Public Service spend on consultants. But what we can’t predict or control for is the outbreak of a worldwide pandemic.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What additional services is the Government rolling out to support homeowners affected by natural disasters?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This Government has worked swiftly to get a new service up and running to support homeowners whose properties have been affected by extreme weather events or natural disasters like we’ve seen in Nelson, Auckland, Tai Rāwhiti, Coromandel, and the Hawke’s Bay. The New Zealand Claims Resolution Service (NZCRS) will provide expert support to homeowners with insurance claims after natural disasters to avoid disputes, resolve issues, and ensure claims are settled as quickly as possible.

Rachel Brooking: What model does the National Claims Resolution Service follow, and why?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This kind of service was used to great effect in response to the Canterbury earthquakes to provide free advice to homeowners. It’s become a much needed one-stop shop for homeowners needing help with unresolved insurance claims, and it’s often proved a breakthrough. This Christchurch initiative helped over 10,000 homeowners, and satisfaction surveys showed that 90 percent of respondents say they would recommend the service. So we’re expanding this fantastic service that worked well in Christchurch to make it a permanent and nationwide service—

Matt Doocey: It started under us—started in 2014.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —for all forms of natural hazard. Thank you for your congratulations, Mr Doocey.

Rachel Brooking: When should people contact this service?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The first port of call is always to work things through with the insurer, but if homeowners get stuck or need support with unresolved claims, then that’s the time to contact this new service. I learnt from Christchurch that early intervention before things go wrong and independent technical and legal advice are key, and that’s what this service does. The new national service will now mean homeowners get the right advice at the right time.

Rachel Brooking: How many people has the service helped to date?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Great news. Since the North Island events, this service has helped more than 230 people. It’s resolved 200 cases already with many of these cases needing just a steer on the next steps as to what they should do. Of course, it’s early days for this event, and as time goes by more complex issues will occur, and the service is ready to support those people, to empower homeowners with the knowledge they need to resolve their claims. I would say to anyone struggling with their insurance claim that there are great people waiting to help you at the NZCRS, who are both knowledgeable and compassionate; call them.

Point of Order—Scope of Supplementary Questions

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When you review question time, I think you’ll note that at question Nos 3, 6, and 11, members of Government benches asked questions of Ministers that commenced with “Can the Minister confirm”, followed by matters seeking to inject information or propaganda, as described in Speakers’ rulings 183/7(1) and (2). It would be helpful to know whether or not those Speakers’ rulings still stand.

SPEAKER: I’ll come back to you.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 7 March.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the Prime Minister’s statement, the first thing that he mentioned was an acknowledgment of the adverse weather events that the country has experienced over the last couple of weeks, and I’d like to add my thoughts for those people who are affected by those adverse weather events, in particular those whānau who are bereaved at the moment.

The Prime Minister said that the Government has responded and that we will continue to respond to those weather events. Part of that response is to develop bespoke regional responses, for example, in the Tai Tokerau or Tai Tokerau, Northland, Whangārei electorates—in other words those electorates north of the Auckland super-city. Myself, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, and Dr Emily Henderson—the MPs for Northland and Whangārei respectively—have traversed the length and the breadth of those electorates, talking to the communities and determining what the priorities are that they would like to see from the weather event.

Those priorities start off with community hauora in the first instance; transport networks; communications networks; electricity networks; water supply; managed retreats; flood mitigation; business support; security post an event; support for councils, and also community safety hubs. We also have a focus on communities—what we’re describing as “communities at the end of the road”. In other words, if we can make sure that communities such as Poutoa, Mitimiti, Te Hāpua, Rāwhiti, and other small communities—literally at the end of roads—that their networks for communications, transport, electricity, water, and so on and so forth, are cared for, if they can emerge from the next weather event without houses being flooded, then we know that our response in Tai Tokerau has been effective.

I’d like to acknowledge the communities who stepped up to support during the events themselves. In particular, I’d like to acknowledge our Māori communities. Now, I don’t know the exact figures, but even though Māori make up 17 or so percent of our general population, I would say that many of the responses—at least half of the responses—would have been from Māori communities, and in some areas of the country, close to 100 percent of the responses would have been from Māori communities. We have experience, over the last couple of hundred years, of being able to feed, house and bathe people at the drop of a hat. In fact, there was a Māori response in Dargaville that was set up within an hour, where people were having food distributed, food prepared, they had a place to shower, and their needs were being looked after.

That’s why I’m pretty annoyed that there was a response from one broadcaster that wasn’t happy that there was a specific Māori pūtea set up. Now, this is a person who’s probably never set foot on a marae—certainly not stayed on a marae—probably not lifted a tea towel, not peeled one potato, never had to set the table for 100 people three times a day over the course of three or four days, probably prepared close to 1,000 meals, and he begrudges there being a response to reimburse Māori and Māori communities for what they have dipped into out of their own pockets. That just, I guess, highlights that there is a gap between the Māori communities in New Zealand, and some other communities within Aotearoa.

As the Prime Minister said in his statement, there’s no principle more fundamental in our nation’s history than working in collaboration with Māori, and I say that we actually should take advantage of the skills that Māori have in terms of the manaakitanga and our straight-up practicality and ability and expertise in a crisis. It’s something that should be interwoven into any response in situations such as the weather events, and financial support like that expected by non-Māori groups in the same situation shouldn’t be questioned or criticised or portrayed as special treatment for Māori. This is another example of what is good for Māori is good for all New Zealanders, and the Māori response to the weather events was good for all.

Just like the ongoing pursuit of equity, as an article 3 Treaty of Waitangi promise, is also good for all New Zealanders, because equity in Aotearoa will mean that there are fewer Māori in hospital, which means that there is more medical capacity to cater for other New Zealanders. If there are more Māori in employment—if there are more equitable outcomes for Māori in employment—that means that we will also have better social services. The more Māori in healthy homes will mean less stress on the whole system; the fewer Māori in prison, it’s just going to be better for all; and that more Māori get to have a say in matters that relate to our needs, then the sooner the problems will be resolved.

An example of how we are working as a Government with Māori is in our work with the National Iwi Chairs Forum. Now, as an Opposition member of Parliament, I’d attend these National Iwi Chairs Forum’s quarterly meetings, and I would notice that there would be random Ministers arrive to talk to the iwi chairs forum, talking about random topics in their portfolios and fielding random questions about other Ministers’ portfolios. So what we did, instead, is that when we became the Government we said every quarter we should be working towards shared priorities—shared priorities that we can report back on our progress towards. That way, Māori have greater access to Ministers, greater access to chief executives, greater access to officials, greater access to resources, and we are starting to make progress on issues that relate to Māori.

One hundred and eighty-three years after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, my job as the Minister for Māori Crown Relations is to ensure that those outcomes of equity for all New Zealanders—that promise towards equity—is realised. We’ve made great strides towards the promise of equity, with, for example the Māori Health Authority Te Aka Whai Ora; three quarters of a billion dollars towards investing in Māori education, Māori-medium kura kaupapa Māori; the Apprenticeship Boost that has seen 9,000 Māori get apprenticeships, and successive billion-dollar Budgets. We’ve also had another successful Waitangi Day where there has been a notable lack of conflict, and I know that a number of people around the country—and particularly in media—are lamenting the lack of conflict, because they say it’s too boring. I say that what we’re doing is creating a national day for all New Zealanders that we can all celebrate and be proud of.

We’ve also celebrated our inaugural Matariki Day, a uniquely Kiwi public holiday. All of this in the face of race baiting from certain parts of the Opposition, where they see working and cooperation with Māori as portrayed as a negative. My dream by 2040 is for all New Zealanders able to cross the bridge that is their Treaty of Waitangi in both directions, flicking in and out of both languages, comfortable in each cultural setting, and being at ease with each other and our various languages and cultures here in New Zealand. If that is to happen, then this irrational fear that if Māori are doing well means other New Zealanders won’t do so well will seem like some sort of historic artefact.

So I’d just like to endorse, again, the points that the Prime Minister raised in his statement. It sets out a vision for Aotearoa over the coming year. We’ve got hard-working Ministers that are working hard to deliver the outcomes for all New Zealanders. Of course, my particular passion is making sure that those outcomes for Māori are realised. We are yet to achieve the equity that article 3 of the Treaty did promise us and, as I’ve said on a number of occasions, and particularly in this House, that Kāwanatanga—that is us as the Government—are working alongside the Māori Treaty partners and their aspirations for rangatiratanga. When we are working together, that’s when we’ll see the magic happening. Instead, what we have seen over the last 183 years is Kāwanatanga, rangatiratanga bashing heads, and I don’t think that gets us anywhere.

When the Treaty was signed, the Kāwanatanga—the Government side of it—needed resources to enable them to do the things that they wanted to do, and of course the resources were in the hands of Māoridom, and so what we’ve seen from 6 February 1840 is the Government trying to acquire the resources of Māori. And they did it in not so subtle ways, and that has left us in the situation that we do have where Māori don’t enjoy equitable outcomes with all other new Zealanders. So I’d just like to endorse the Prime Minister’s statement. Kia ora.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Let me start by first acknowledging those who’ve got difficulties with their homes, with their farms, and with their broader communities as a result of Cyclone Gabrielle. I was up in that part of the country last week, and I know that it is a very difficult time for a lot of people. It is also very challenging to try and get those people back into some degree of normality in their lives. From this side of the House, we will be watching that for some time to come and we will offer whatever assistance we can, where it’s reasonable.

But I want to, today, rise in support of the amendment to the motion moved by Christopher Luxon. I do, though, want to start by congratulating the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, on his new elevation, wish best wishes to those Ministers who are now departing from the ministries, and congratulations to the new Ministers who have come in.

It raises the interesting point made by so many speakers from the other side of the House about the newness of this regime that has now taken over as Government. I see my friend over there: the Hon Rino Tirikatene, who was yesterday extremely excited in talking about his portfolios as if trade was some kind of a new thing that’s only just been discovered by him, and talking about how wonderful the Government is—“the new Government”—“the new Government”, apparently, is going to take New Zealand forward. Well, I think the only thing that’s new about this regime is the nameplates on the doors of Ministers; nothing much more. Everything seems to be staying exactly the same.

Now, if you go through all of the aspects of change that the current Government have made, there’s very, very little. A whole lot of stuff quietly swept to one side, kept warm, to slumber, in the hope that when they get re-elected, they might be able—or if they get re-elected—they might be able to breathe new life into it.

But, in reality, the big template thing that they’ve got rid of is the merger between Radio New Zealand and TVNZ. Let’s face it: that was a $370 million utter folly. That would have been the cost had it gone through. But instead they were just quietly, today, saying that the $16.5 million that they spent preparing for that merger is money well spent—the Prime Minister told the House that today. It was reiterated many times by Mr Robertson on previous occasions: money well spent! But what have we got for it? Absolutely nothing.

And then, of course, there was this long denial from the Government that we had a problem getting children to attend school regularly, with 60 out of every 100 children in our schools not regularly attending—six out of 10; 60 out of a 100; 600 out of 1,000 students not regularly attending schools in this country. So, suddenly, the answer is: “Oh well, we better bring in truancy officers.” And we find today that they’re not going to be people that go out there and find out what’s going on in the household that’s preventing that child from coming to school; they’re going to be desk-bound people looking at screens who are going to send out, presumably, tick-box sort of questionnaires of schools to say why they’re not there.

We get a sense of that by the new Minister of Education in the House today, part of the brand new Government coming into the House today, and saying that, actually, the number of unaccounted absences is falling; not saying that the number of absences is falling but simply that there is a stat somewhere that says we can account for why they’re not there. Well, we know they’re not there, because they’re not turning up. I think that all we’re getting is the usual sort of Labour Party approach to things: find a way of sending out a questionnaire, find a new set of stats, refer it to a committee, and ask some consultants to have a little bit of a look at it and give some advice about how best to deal with it.

When it comes to consultants, we’ve heard this week the phenomenal figure for what was spent on consultants in the last 12 months: over $440 million—$440 million; an extraordinary amount. One might wonder where all that’s gone. Well, I’ve already talked about the $16.7 million spent on the now defunct merger. There’s also the $20.7 billion spent on the Income Insurance Scheme—and I’ll come back to that in a few minutes.

And then we hear confirmation in the House today: $72 million—$72 million—on consultants to merge the health systems across the country. You’d ask yourself: what sort of healthcare did that deliver? Nothing. All we’ve got this week from the outgoing chair of that new, huge, national bureaucracy in health is an indication of how terrible everything is inside that organisation and what an utter mess that particular reform appears to be in.

You could lay that alongside the polytech merger, where we know that there’s been hundreds of millions of dollars merged into this new super-entity and it’s a mess with its issues over chief executives, issues over unquantified spending—you name it; it’s all there: a mess and at a huge cost.

And then, I think you get to a point where some of the confidence that anyone might have that this new Government was going to do something that was different—actually do something, which the Ardern Government was famous for not doing; brilliant at being able to state the problem, brilliant at being able to articulate the concern about the problem, brilliant at setting up a committee, setting up an inquiry, setting up some other sort of investigative body, but utterly hopeless at doing anything that might make a difference. I’d ask them to point to anything that would refute that particular suggestion.

Even when it comes down to something like the cost of living that’s wrecking the lives of so many New Zealanders at the moment—where we know that interest rates are racing through the ceiling, we see that rents have risen by $150 a week in a very short period of time—all the Government can say is: “Not our fault; it’s happening all over the world.” Yet we know that this wasteful spending, this extra billion dollars a week that the Government are spending—$52 billion a year more than was the case just a few years back—is part of the problem. When a Government decides it can spend better than people who are looking after their own money, then we know that we’re going to end up with unnecessary amounts of inflation.

If we want to know exactly what it means for the household, this Government’s taxation rises—even though they’ve said, “No new taxes.”, and all the rest of it—

Anna Lorck: Well, you want to tax the rich—you want to tax the rich.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —their tax take has risen by $17,000 a year per household. And they’ve got the audacity over there to criticise us on tax—the audacity to criticise us on tax—when they’ve taken $17,000 a year out of New Zealand households, averaged across the whole lot.

There are five things that are always at play in an election. That is: the economy, you could call that cost of living; it’s housing; it’s health; it’s education; and it’s law and order. All of those are in a very messy state at the present time. Just look at, as I said before, rising interest rates; massive increases in rental income; huge rate rises for property owners across the country; the threat of extra water charges for whatever might end up under the Government’s now shelved, shoved aside, but kept warm three waters project. So that is a massive contributor to that cost of living. It is a massive contributor to the housing problem we have in the country at the moment, where we have four times as many people on State house waiting lists now than we had three, four, or five years ago. We’ve also got 4,000 families right now living in temporary accommodation across the country, abandoned by the Government—abandoned by the Government—with no particular answers.

And then, of course—we’ve just covered education, with the extraordinary truancy rates that are going on, and I know that subsequent speakers are going to talk more about the law and order crisis that we’ve got in this country, and the Prime Minister could only say today, well, when he was police Minister, the numbers of ram raids dropped. Why aren’t all ram raids dropping? Why aren’t we being tougher on those people who decide that they’re going to live outside the law in this country? And why are we doing this constant hand-holding of criminals who have no intention of contributing in any positive way to the outcomes of this country?

There are so many areas where this Government could and should be held to account; other speakers will do it. But as I come to the end of my contribution, I simply say that Mr Luxon’s amendment to the motion is spot on.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Can I start off by thanking the Hon Gerry Brownlee—first elected in 1996 under the Jim Bolger Government and then first a Minister in 2008 under the John Key Government—for his lecture on the need for newness and freshness in the Government’s agenda. Can I also note that the very same member who had quite a lot to say about the use of Government consultants, not 10 years ago was having to explain why it was that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, an entity which he was responsible for, was spending $1.3 million on external communications consultants to do its job, and alongside his chief executive explaining that sometimes public agencies do need to pull upon that support to do important work.

Receiving those lectures on newness and freshness and the use of consultants in the public sector from that member was like receiving a lecture in business ethics from Del Boy. And the contrast with the Prime Minister’s statement at the start of this debate could not have been stronger because not once from Mr Brownlee—not once in that entire 10-minute bloviation—did we hear one single new idea or policy to actually deal with the real challenges and issues that New Zealanders face in 2023. We heard an endless stream of criticism and whingeing, but not eight months out from a general election did we hear from a senior member of the Opposition party one new idea or policy for how they would do anything differently to the benefit of the people of this country.

We can contrast that with the speech and the statement from our Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, which was clear and laser-focused on the focus of our Government to support New Zealanders with cost of living issues—

Andrew Bayly: Tax cuts!

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —taking concrete action like extending the fuel excise duty, road-user charges, and public transport reductions to save New Zealanders around about $700 million between now and July, taking $700 million of cost out of the pockets of Kiwi households and the Government taking care of that to make things a little bit easier. One of the members opposite calls out “What about the tax cuts?” Well, what about the tax cuts indeed, Mr Bayly, because, of course, those tax cuts proposed by that party—as a matter of ideological obsession—would give the very greatest benefit to members of this House and those on the highest incomes and give $2 per week to the lowest-earning New Zealanders in this country. This is a Government which since it came in to office has ensured that minimum wage workers in this country—those workers who do critical work for us on the checkouts, serving us the coffees that we enjoy so much, cleaning these buildings—are $240 per week better off because of the minimum wage increases that this Government has put in place that have been opposed year in, year out from members opposite. So this is a Government which is relentlessly focused on cost of living issues and making sure that ordinary Kiwis get a fair go and that the wealth of this country doesn’t just flow ever upwards but gets there to the people who do so much work to make our country function well.

I want to speak in the remaining time that I have on the extraordinary resilience, courage, and determination of New Zealanders who have faced down extreme weather events this year. I know the thoughts of everyone in this House are with our fellow New Zealanders who have had to bear so much through the course of the devastating anniversary weekend floods in Auckland and Cyclone Gabrielle, which has devastated a large part of the upper North Island, where 50 percent of the New Zealand population lives. Never before have we had weather events of this magnitude across such a large part of the country doing so much damage, and we cannot forget that between those two events 15 of our fellow Kiwis lost their lives. Many people had their livelihoods seriously compromised. We have hundreds of our fellow New Zealanders who aren’t able to sleep in their own homes tonight. It has been so tough for many people around New Zealand.

I’m enormously proud of my city, Auckland, and the community of Mt Roskill that I represent. We were one of the hardest hit communities when the floods hit Auckland and we have the highest number of people whose homes have been red stickered; people who do not as of today have permanent accommodation. And what I saw at that time when things were so, so difficult for many people was the spirit of our communities, was people coming together and helping each other, people reaching out, people digging deep, people recognising that the way that you get through tough times isn’t just to look out for yourself; the way we get through the tough times is by focusing on “we”, not just “me”. And all around my community, community groups, individuals, and schools banded together. They brought together what resources they had: somewhere to sleep, food to eat, supplies to keep the family going, things to do for the kids. We brought those things together in a community kete, and we looked after each other. And it is always the case that in the most difficult times or when we face big challenges, we get there together. We don’t get there just by focusing on ourselves; we get there together, and that has been an important lesson which we have perhaps relearnt throughout this crisis period.

In Auckland there is much work still to do and I will be focused on that in the new role that I have as Minister for Auckland. We have a big job to do as we work through the recovery period, and as we look to rebuild back better. We have an ongoing situation in which significant numbers of Aucklanders in our west coastal communities do remain cut off through a seriously compromised transport network, and there is ongoing work to make sure that the welfare and the needs of those people are met. That will be an important priority as we work with Auckland Council as it continues to develop its recovery response. There is ongoing need to make sure that emergency accommodation is provided to around about 600 Auckland households whose homes have been red stickered and potentially will remain uninhabitable for a period of time. And I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Megan Woods and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who have been working very hard to set up the temporary accommodation service in Auckland and provide as much certainty as we can to those Aucklanders who have had their lives so seriously disrupted.

As we move out of the recovery period, there is a lot of work to do to rebuild the infrastructure and to once again get our economy and our supply chains in Auckland moving. Because when Auckland does well all of New Zealand does well. It has been a tough couple of years. Following on from COVID, Auckland was seeing the sun on the horizon as we came through summer. Things were moving ahead positively and then we’ve had the setback. But our city is tough; it’s resilient; it’s a beautiful, diverse place. It is dynamic and it has limitless potential. We are the first city of the Pacific and we will work together to recover and to rebuild even better, and that will be a big focus for my work.

We know that these series of extreme weather events have devastated large parts of the country, and I also want to acknowledge those parts of regional New Zealand who are so devastated by Cyclone Gabrielle: our friends and our colleagues in Northland, Waikato, the Coromandel, Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, Wairarapa, Tai Rāwhiti; communities who have had to bear so much over the last month. And I want to reaffirm our Government’s absolute commitment to rebuilding the key infrastructure and connections that enable those communities to connect and supply chains to work. The cutting off of key roads and rail links, particularly in the Hawke’s Bay, Coromandel, and Tai Rāwhiti have been so tough for people—whānau, hapū, and businesses—who do rely on those connections to get around. Our Government’s commitment is a resolute one, and in case any member wants to question that, there is no question: we will rebuild those critical transport links and that work is under way. We put $250 million on the table as an immediate response two weeks ago to make sure that Waka Kotahi, KiwiRail, and councils are able to get on with that job.

Our transport recovery has three key phases. The first is restoring the emergency lifelines to communities who were cut off in the incredible flooding that was experienced. Around about 70 percent of that work is now complete, and remaining communities are a huge focus for our transport agency to make sure that we do reopen those connections. Some of the damage is extreme and I ask the communities for patience as we work through that and commit that we will put every resource that we can into that. Secondly, we will make sure that we then invest to bring our transport network back up to the levels of service that were experienced before Cyclone Gabrielle. And that is a complete commitment from our Government without reservation. And thirdly, we will make the investments that we need across the country to build a more resilient transport network.

One of the lessons coming out of these extreme weather events is that we are in an era of climate change. We must do both things. We must reduce our emissions because that is a moral responsibility and a practical responsibility so this situation does not get worse. And we must also invest in the resilient transport network so that we can withstand the weather that is to come. Anyone who says that it is just one or the other is putting up a false choice and is playing cheap politics. Our Government will make sure that we support New Zealanders through this recovery, will invest in the resilient infrastructure that we need, and will take farsighted decisions to reduce the impacts of climate change. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Jan Logie.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and before I formally start my speech I want to acknowledge Georgina Beyer—her passing. She was a legend to me, and her speech on the Prostitution Reform Bill was one of the most honest, brave, powerful, and effective speeches I’ve heard in my life from this place, and she means so much to people in my community. I really just wanted to start by acknowledging her, and it seems particularly appropriate to acknowledge her today on International Women’s Day because she has been such a leader for women.

Now to take my call on the response to the Prime Minister’s speech. I want to frame it around the experience of women and climate change, which was in reference to the Prime Minister’s—so much of his speech was around the impact of the climate crises events that we’ve seen so profoundly recently. I say that in the past tense—and I recognise I’ve just said that in the past tense—and, actually, for a whole lot of people right now, this is not past tense; they are still in immediate response mode of trying to ensure the basics of water and food and shelter. This is very, very real, and these are—I’ve said it already in this House—the times that we have been warning about. They are now, in our lifetimes. This is not something that is going to happen to our kids and our grandkids.

We are at 1.1 percent of warming and this is what it looks like, and we know that already another increase is already locked in. So it’s going to get worse and, in the short to medium term, there will be nothing we can do about that. That means we need to act with absolute intention and urgency to stop that escalation from what isn’t locked in already. We cannot keep on the trajectory that we have been on, and we know that the Government—we have been putting in the infrastructure to bring down our emissions, and that’s been incredibly important work over the last two terms of the Government. But we need, now, with more urgency and more detail, the actions that bring our emissions down.

This is relevant to women because, actually, the impact of climate change is not felt the same by different groups of people. The wealthiest will be relatively protected from some of the impacts—not all of them, but some of them. You see it directly for those who are more likely to have insurance and those who don’t, and the impact of that, and that’s usually a decision not of whim, but of affordability. We know that women are likely to be on lower incomes, they’re more likely to be in insecure housing and to have trouble getting more housing, and we know that this is compounded for women who experience other forms of discrimination. So this needs to be part of our thinking in terms of how we protect people from the impacts of climate change.

But it also needs to be part of our recovery from the work that we’re doing, because what we’ve seen is a massive devastation across communities, and the usual response to that is more infrastructure work that needs to come in to try and fix those things—right? But they’re typically jobs that are done by men, and that can exacerbate the inequality that already exists.

When we’re talking—as the Prime Minister did—about the need to build back better, we need to build that into it, and that includes recognising the roles that women play in agriculture and actually making sure that we are hearing the diversity of their voices and making sure that we are building back with all of our needs in consideration. But the most urgent thing is to stop this getting worse and to protect ourselves for the future.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take the final call for ACT in this debate. It is safe to say that it has been an incredibly challenging start to the year for many New Zealanders, and my thoughts continue to be with those who are affected by recent weather events. I also commend the resilience and hard work of our front-line personnel, including civil defence, Fire and Emergency New Zealand staff, Police, and the many voluntary organisations and NGOs. I especially want to acknowledge our Defence Force personnel who eagerly deployed at short notice—and that’s despite some extensive issues around tasking, complexities around the size of the challenge ahead, and stretched resources.

The cyclone has been a bit of a wake-up call for the Government in the workforce space, especially around immigration. Staffing shortages have plagued every sector in this country for quite some time now. The Government’s grand immigration reset is not fit for purpose, and it created an even more complex immigration system that puts stricter processes around temporary migration—making it harder for businesses to recruit—and a system that actually locks migrants into employment arrangements that may actually not be suitable or healthy.

While that project is still under way, with changes to residency on the horizon, there has been a glimmer of hope in the Government’s response to the cyclone. The Government’s recovery visa isn’t the solution to the regions’ workforce shortages, though it does signal that the Minister might be taking a slightly more open-minded approach to policy.

The problems with the recovery visa are obvious: it is for specific purposes or projects only, and it’s valid for just six months and it cannot be extended or renewed. The obvious reason for that is that the Government doesn’t really want it to eat the lunch of their accreditation scheme. However, employers and migrants alike deserve and need more flexibility.

One further glimmer of hope is the proposal to remove the labour market test for sectors that can support the rebuild, which is—funnily enough—getting closer to ACT’s policy of abolishing that thing altogether. If a labour market test makes it harder to fill skill shortages, then just get rid of it for every employer.

I’ll also point out that it was somewhat cynical to hit employers in affected regions with the increase to the median wage, close now to $30, in extraordinary circumstances—surely even the Labour Party can put the brakes on these sorts of ideological policies.

The effect of the Government not doing enough to support immigration, particularly in cyclone-affected regions, will be more inflation that infects the entire country, and this is unacceptable in a cost of living crisis. The solution is simple: ease up on the red tape and the regulations.

There will be many lessons learnt from the response to the cyclone, and one important aspect of that is in Defence capabilities and policy. As I have spoken about previously in this House, there are real concerns about attrition and morale in the Defence Force, and the Government has, frankly, not done enough to invest in our people nor the equipment available to them.

The three branches are doing incredible work, but, with more support, they could be deploying even more assets, whether that’s getting more ships out of Devonport, especially during times like this, or simply ensuring that hydrographers—it’s a very difficult word to say—and crane operators, for example, are actually present on the ships that have those capabilities.

Defence personnel should have also been deployed to assist police with maintaining law and order by invoking section 9 of the Defence Act. It is, frankly, not helpful when the Government gaslights communities by saying that crime and looting are not real problems and accuses the Opposition of creating hysteria, nor is it helpful when even the Prime Minister doesn’t seem to understand how section 9 works, thinking that the Defence personnel are somehow going to completely replace police on the ground. The Defence Force needs more attention from the Government in the short term, otherwise in the long term there is going to be a serious problem.

The recovery should be funded by cuts to wasteful spending, as opposed to Government borrowing billions of dollars more in an already high-inflation environment. The Government should also accept when it needs to get out of the way—not doing things like stopping local pilots from flying supplies in and out of Napier airport, for instance.

Last Friday, ACT released 15 urgent ideas for getting Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti into recovery, starting with a special economic zone where red tape is cut and inflation is managed to avoid the cost of living spiralling out of control for everyone. Businesses and everyday people have enough to deal with; they don’t need convoluted regulations from Wellington, they don’t want fair pay agreements, three waters, ghost ministries, and an endless sea of bureaucrats and consultants trying to micromanage their lives.

Luckily, fortunately, there’s an election just over seven months away, and everyday New Zealanders can be confident that ACT is here—

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

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): E hotuhotu ana te whatumanawa e mākū ana te papa i te rirohanga o te manukura e Georgina Beyer, haere, e moe, e au tō moe, Pai Mārire.

[My heart sobs and the earth is wet at the loss of the esteemed Georgina Beyer. May you rest in peace. Pai Mārire.]

I just wanted to pay a brief tribute to Georgina Beyer. Certainly, for the time that I knew her when she served in this House, she was unequivocal about her ability to give voice to the rights of the transgender community and, more importantly, to try and educate many members of Parliament in her time about the need to achieve equality of representation for the LGBTQI community. May she rest in peace.

Can I also acknowledge that this is International Women’s Day. Throughout the country when we think about the challenges that are facing many of our communities, be they big or small, the role of women in our communities is a significant contribution to the type of nation that we are.

The tone of this particular debate has been set against a specific context, and for my part, I want to acknowledge the challenging and complex world that we are in. We have experienced a global pandemic, crisis and conflict in terms of Russia’s aggression and a war in Ukraine, and then there’s climate change. If I come back to the challenge of climate change, just recently, as New Zealand has experienced Cyclone Gabrielle and the impact on many of our communities throughout the country, so too has Vanuatu experienced tropical Cyclone Judy as well as tropical Cyclone Kevin. So we know both at a local level within our region, and then at a global level, the earthquake in Türkiye as well as Syria, the impact of climate change.

So I want to join with other statements in this House and acknowledge the Prime Minister. While we are living in this complex and challenging time, I want to acknowledge the clear, pragmatic, and caring leadership of a Prime Minister who knows that we must ensure that we take decisions for this time against this complex backdrop. And why? Because more and more we need innovative solutions. We need communities to understand how important they are to respond to some of these complex challenges.

Now, the Prime Minister, in his own words, has said that we will focus on the bread and butter issues. The clarity of that statement means, for a lot of New Zealanders, that we will go back to basics, and the basics are about people, about community, and about what we can do for one another. We saw evidence of that against the response to Cyclone Gabrielle and how communities rallied around very quickly by their own volition to be able to support those in need, and there were many stories of people who were suffering themselves yet still went as first responders to be able to undertake the things that they knew were necessary so that their community could be supported.

At this point, I really do want to acknowledge many members of Parliament who within their own communities actually stood side by side with first responders, community, iwi, and also their local networks to be able to ensure that we did what we knew to do best, which was support people in their time of need, because by working together, that’s what it’s going to take. In many ways, that echoes the clarity of the statement, the pragmatic and caring nature of the statement that was reflected by our Prime Minister. He said we will be a Government who supports families and businesses through difficult economic conditions. We won’t take a hands-off approach or an austere approach of saying it’s not our problem. We will lean in, because we know that cost of living pressures are real.

We know that it’s going to be important to focus on the things that matter: an economy that is working for everybody, making sure people have incomes that will be able to provide bread and butter and, hopefully, support each other in their time of need, and by being able to tackle some of the real systemic challenges, like getting Kiwis into work by focusing on training, by lifting incomes, and things like that. Also, we need to have strengthened public services, because we know that when we have an effective health system, that when our young people are fully engaged, and that when we are able to deliver the services that people rely on day in, day out, that makes a really big difference.

By and large, much of the commentary of my colleagues on this side of the House has talked about why it’s important to lay the economic foundation that is necessary for this time, against a backdrop of climate change. I’m so proud there’s been a strong emphasis on tackling the country’s infrastructure needs. What we saw during Cyclone Gabrielle is actually some of the greatest fragilities in our infrastructure network. Now, I’ll only talk about my own electorate in Hauraki-Waikato, but going up the Coromandel Peninsula, where roads are cutting people off from their communities, or similarly out to Raglan, where roads were dropping out, we know that we need to do more to have more resilient infrastructure, and it’s not just about roads. It’s about energy, it’s about power, it’s about water to our communities, and it’s about houses and homes. Now, that’s the type of message that I’m sure many of our communities want to hear.

We are a Government who will invest in getting this not just right but getting this into a position of greater resilience because we know that climate change will lead to greater or more frequent natural weather events. For that to occur, it’s going to take leadership at all levels, and, again, I come back to the example shown through Cyclone Gabrielle and the community that is working alongside its local leaders at all levels, and then alongside local government and central government.

The cyclone recovery response that the Prime Minister announced, and setting up regional groups to be able to ensure locality plans and approaches to deliver on responses that will work community by community is the way to go. This is no longer a command and control situation. We have to be responsive to the needs and the impacts of the cyclone as it has affected people, and I’m looking forward to ensuring that, certainly within our particular region, we’ve got greater local voice about what those solutions could look like and how to prioritise the investment decisions in infrastructure—for example, in the social network and social fabric of the impacts of the cyclone that will be very helpful to our whānau.

I wouldn’t be able to complete the speech without perhaps moving through to one of the areas where I have a specific interest, and that is in the area of climate change. It concerns me quite a bit as I move around the Pacific and I recognise the stark impact of climate change on Pacific communities as to what we need to think about here in New Zealand, and sea-level rise is a prescient kind of challenge for the people of the Pacific, but so too is it for our coastal communities. Again, I think about our communities all over New Zealand, and in my own electorate—certainly in the Coromandel—they are having to significantly consider the prospect of relocating or moving back. These are not easy issues—these are not easy issues—and these are going to be the challenges that a clear, pragmatic, and caring Government will need to grapple with as we respond to the challenges of our time and hear the views of our communities.

Also, fixed-income communities: I think about the challenge that they have right at this moment. That’s why our Government is responding in the way that we are. We’re providing supports to families and communities and fixed - low-income peoples in a way that will help them move through this difficult and challenging time. Were we not to do it, like some believe we shouldn’t, we’re basically assigning these very people, these communities, those most in need, into a place of helplessness, and that is not who we are as a Government. I’m proud of our Prime Minister, who continues to assert that we will take action, we will respond to the bread and butter issues, and we will get back to basics and address the needs of our community in a very pragmatic way, because we live in a time when these challenges are so complex, ever-changing, and compounding many of the things that our families are experiencing.

It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in favour of the Prime Minister’s statement, and I hope that those who are listening to this debate continue to go back to his statement to hear what the direction of this country will be over the next coming months, because it is one that cares about people. Tēnā tātou.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in regards to the Prime Minister’s statement and take a call.

I want to first recognise the implications, as the Prime Minister noted in his statement, of the flooding that impacted Auckland, and, in particular, my electorate of the North Shore. Now, areas of my electorate, including Milford, Sunnynook, Stanley Point, Bayswater, Mairangi Bay, and elements of Takapuna, all suffered flooding and quite significant damage to multiple homes and households. The implication of that on businesses was also significant. My community, like many around this country, are continuing on that path to clean up and tidy up following those events.

As the prior speaker, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, noted, these events have and will and do reinforce the need for us to take action in regards to the resilience of our communities. The impact of climate change in terms of the impact on weather events that we are seeing much more regularly is absolutely a factor that we need to take into account in terms of our long-term planning. And for me, and for my community, that is something very much close to home.

While I’m on that topic, I want to call out one of our local heroes, and the gentleman’s name is Steve Clegg. Steve is the site manager at the Wilson Trust Home. The Wilson Trust Home is a home for children with disabilities, and it is one of the country’s leading centres, based in the area of Hauraki and Belmont, next to Takapuna Grammar. Steve, during the floods and the storms following, was noted by the principal of the Wilson School for basically coming out in the middle of the night with chainsaws to be able to cut a number of trees that had fallen, blocking that Wilson Trust site. I think it’s just one small example of local people responding to local issues in a way in which benefits all in our community. So, Steve, along with many others across our country, we acknowledge that work.

I was actually talking last evening to one of the extended-care paramedics that was deployed from Auckland into the Hawke’s Bay, and was, alongside our defence personnel, iwi relations, and other members, basically helicoptered in for the first week post that. It reinforced as well that actually the response and the applications felt in the Hawke’s Bay had meant that many people across this country have come to provide support and assistance for a community that has been significantly impacted.

For those within our local government areas, not only those local government councillors and mayors and emergency support staff and staff within our councils, not only in the regions heavily impacted but also those regions that have come to support those regions because they have the capability and the ability to support—I acknowledge them. Those members across all of our councils and local government have done an absolutely tremendous role in terms of leading a local response to what has been a local crisis. And the ability of, no doubt, local knowledge to be able to be deployed at pace has seen a number of significant benefits, and it’s added a significant amount of value to those Kiwis that are very much hurting and continue to hurt as we face the coming weeks.

In the Prime Minister’s statement, the other element that was also referenced was around the economy. The Prime Minister stated that inflation is biting into Kiwi household budgets and is impacting families. And he’s right—it absolutely is. Inflation is a significant implication and burden on hardworking Kiwis across this country. Inflation is at levels that are a significant point in our history. The reality is that a number of these factors are having a significant impact in terms of hurt that many Kiwi households are facing.

The challenge is that the hurt that Kiwis are facing is in part a result of the hurt from policies of this Government. That is the reality because we can no longer simply call out that the drivers of inflation are only as a result of global matters—that train has left the station. With global factors around supply chain constraints cooling, as outlined by Treasury and many other players, it moves us back to the reality that Government spending and the cost of this Government is driving the cost of living crisis that our families are facing. And we have to acknowledge that. We have to be able to look in the mirror and recognise that we and this Government have to—

Anna Lorck: Well, what are you doing about it; what are you going to do?

SIMON WATTS: —and do, have a role in regards to that. And it’s interesting—we’ve got a call from the other side saying, so what are we doing about it? So this is a really good example of a Government that cannot be accountable. They are a Government—they are a Government. But I’ll tell you what, quite happy to—if they want to call an election tomorrow, let’s do that and let’s swap sides and let’s get some stuff done. Because that is the reality of members on that side of the House that are simply not taking accountability or responsibility for the challenges that this country faces.

Anna Lorck: Where are the positive ideas?

SIMON WATTS: And they’re still going on, but I’m going to continue to focus on what is in front of us.

So why don’t we talk about the comments by the Prime Minister in regards to the three waters refocus—three waters refocus. I wanted to share a little bit of update stats because we’ve got some new numbers today; $35.8 million is the latest update in terms of how much this Government has spent on policy development for the three waters reforms—$35.8 million. That is the scale and significance of wastage of expenditure by this Government. And the Prime Minister in his statement says we are only going to refocus. They have had four long years of planning in regards to this reform. Surprisingly, when you get a polling result that shows you that 70 percent of Kiwis think this is an absolutely ridiculous idea, the Prime Minister, or the new Prime Minister, decides, well, it’s time for refocus. Well, we still have not heard what that refocus is going to be, even though they said it was going to be in a couple of weeks. But National has outlined a very clear plan. Here it is: local water done well. Here’s the solution: instead of $35.8 million of policy development, they can have the National Party policy for free. Here it is. It’s over here. Happy to table it; happy to have a read of it. It’s got all the answers. It’s going to solve the problems. If only this Government would listen.

It’s also interesting—the large number of councils across this country that have come in in support and endorsement of this policy, because National, right from the start, has said we will work with local government, not against them. It’s funny that the Prime Minister has added into this statement, now, that “we’ll work with local government”. I don’t know what they were doing for the last number of years, but that is the reality. They are spending $1 million a month on consultants and contractors on that failed mega-entity reform programme—$1 million a month. That is an absolute disgrace.

The Prime Minister also, in his statement, noted around the investment required in three waters to bring it up to scratch. The Prime Minister quoted numbers of $120 billion to $185 billion. These numbers are implausible. They are numbers that are simply based on the Scottish water model that independent experts have said are simply not the reality. Yet the Prime Minister continues to use such numbers in the public domain, which are not substantiated by a number of third parties across this country. So that is the reality of more information in the speech that doesn’t link with what’s actually happening on the ground.

The other aspect in the Prime Minister’s statement was actually around some information around education. We heard about these 82 attendance officers to turn around the over 100,000 kids that are in long-term truancy from school—82. So I’ll tell you what, I did the maths, because we had a question in the House today, if I recall, about let’s do the mathematics on what that is. So 1,219 students—

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. It’s a real pleasure to speak here on the Prime Minister’s statement, a statement which made it very clear that this Government is absolutely focused on the main issues facing New Zealand. One of those main issues is, of course, the cost of living, and I found it actually really surprising to hear Mr Watts talk about three waters, because this Government has a plan, and the National Party plan that they propose is to tell local bodies to up their game, and that’s about it—and that’s about it. When asked, “Will that cost more?”, what was their—a sort of awkward shrug: “I suppose so.” It will. It will drive costs for families up. This Government is committed to looking for solutions that give families what they need and drive costs down, not just now but in the long term. This is not a short-term Government; this is a Government that looks ahead to achieve structural change in all parts of the economy.

I must say, I’m very happy to be given my new role as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, especially given the fact that our focus is on making lives better for people who need it most. The consumer sector is one where there is a huge amount to do. It’s absolutely right that we’ve got to engage with the sector, whether that be finance, insurance, banking, wherever, but at the same time the absolute focus has to be: how do we deliver better and fairer prices to ordinary New Zealanders? That’s absolutely the focus of this portfolio, because there are power imbalances, and this is a Government that is committed to making sure that the vulnerable are looked after.

I do want to look back and look at the work that’s been done by previous Ministers. Think back to when we had truck shops going through South Auckland, selling at high interest, when we had loan sharks lending money at 600 percent interest to our most vulnerable communities. Where are they now? Well, they’re gone, and this is the Government that said, “It’s not good enough. We won’t put up with loan sharks preying on vulnerable consumers.” And we’re continuing that work. There’s work to be done across the board.

Of course, one of the places we’re looking is the grocery industry, and the market study that was commissioned by the last Minister showed that supermarkets are making monopoly profits. They’re making profits that they’re only making because of the powerful position they occupy in the market. We’re working on that, and we’ve got a whole programme to bend the curve of grocery prices. We know that there are tough times, that what’s gone on in the Hawke’s Bay is affecting what we see on our supermarket shelves and the prices, but what we want to see is a fair and an effective and equitable grocery sector.

I do want to say—and I know the member for Tukituki’s in the House—that the supermarket workers in the Hawke’s Bay did some great work in making sure that people could be fed. They were there, and who knows what was going on at home for them. I absolutely want to recognise that in situations like that, the people who put the power back on, the people who put the food on the shelves, they’ve got homes and families and lives as well, and they did a great job there, not only in the Hawke’s Bay but around the country. So I do want to recognise those people, who might not be earning a lot but what they do is an absolute lifeline. So, great work to those workers. You know, they’re the people that we do need to look out for.

I want to recognise that we’ve got to listen as well. You know, only moments ago I was speaking to advocates from Consumer New Zealand, who bring another perspective to this discussion, who do look and scan across the horizon for what’s going on and identify issues. We don’t necessarily agree on everything all the time, but I value the views of a diverse range of New Zealanders, and I’m committed to getting out there and listening to them.

So in the grocery sector, that legislation is going through the House and select committee now, but that wholesale supply framework, the ability for competitors to go and buy at the same price as supermarkets and distribute elsewhere—that will be a game-changer. The supply code, setting behavioural standards for supermarkets as to how they deal with other parties—that will be a game-changer. The Grocery Commissioner, a watchdog out of the Commerce Commission, an expert making sure the rules are stuck to—that will be a game-changer. We haven’t sat on our hands. We haven’t seen these large supermarkets getting super-profits and said, “Oh well, that’s just the way it is.” We have taken decisive action, and we’re going to see structural change. It’s not going to happen overnight; we’re not going to see the price of milk go down tomorrow, but in terms of the pressures on costs, this is one we don’t need. Monopoly profits going to large companies is something that we don’t need. Fair profits, fair game; monopoly profits we won’t have.

I was asked earlier today about the banking sector. You know, absolutely, we’ve got to make sure that we don’t let the banking sector get away with similar profiteering, and there are fair questions to be asked about how banks charge the amount of interest they do given the cost of the money that they use. They’re reasonable questions. I was asked whether there’s going to be a market study. Well, maybe there will, but we won’t rush into that. If there’s going to be a market study, we will do it carefully. We will do it in a considered manner. But the question when asking where we should be looking, is: where can the gains be made? Where can we return the most to ordinary New Zealanders, ordinary consumers?

One of the things I do want to look at is consumer data rights, because one of the things that the banking sector profits from is the difficulty of switching between banks. One of the challenges is that if we want to move banks, as you probably know, it’s not an easy thing. There’s a lot of information, there’s a lot of data to move, there’s a lot of credit history. One of the challenges is: how can we make that data absolutely transportable? How can we give a bit of data sovereignty not to the banks who hold it all but to the customer so that they can pick it up and move between banks seamlessly, much like we do with power companies? That would be another game-changer. We need an innovative finance sector, one where it’s customer focused and customer driven, and I absolutely endorse innovation in that sector. We need more of it.

You know, earlier today I was in this House speaking about the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service. It’s a fantastic innovation, an innovation of the Labour Party, where things weren’t working in Christchurch. There was the Residential Advisory Service, which was a narrow legal advice service; it wasn’t going far enough. This service addresses all of the needs: technical, social, mental, the whole lot. We can wrap around people and help them through what can be a very, very difficult process after a national disaster. This is a great innovation, and it’s one of the things we need to look at in terms of how we both avoid and resolve disputes, because if people are helped through some of these difficult situations, given the necessary information, given the tools and support to enter into decision making and make those decisions, then those very things that turned into disputes, we can avoid them before they emerge.

Again, the people who do this work are fantastic, highly skilled people, not just skilled in their areas of expertise but skilled in dealing with people and understanding them, and I want to give them a shout-out. I know that ahead of them they’ve got a lot of work. We know there’s a lot of damage, there’s a lot of people that need help, and I absolutely want to recognise the work that they do do and what they are going to do.

The other portfolio I’ve been given is State-owned enterprises, and, I must say, that’s one that you might not think of as being particularly policy-heavy, and it’s not, but when you think about it, there are billions of dollars of assets, over $7 billion of assets, and they’re held by New Zealand. They’re held for New Zealanders, and they are, again, some of our lifelines. Transpower: you know, that’s faced some challenges, but it’s done a great job in getting transmission lines back in the Hawke’s Bay. Kordia: most people wouldn’t even know the important role they play in the communications network. Airways, MetService—all of those things which are absolutely integral to the functioning of New Zealand, and, once again, the role of those entities is to deliver value, value in their services and value in their profits, back to New Zealanders so that New Zealand can be better.

So, absolutely focused. The Prime Minister is very clear that the cost of living is front and centre. The work that I’m doing is supporting people absolutely in doing that, both in the consumer affairs area—

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

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, there was so much more good stuff!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m sure.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): As so many speakers have already done, I wish to talk—as the Prime Minister did—about the effect of the recent weather events. In particular, I want to focus on my electorate.

The extreme rain event started in Auckland on Auckland Anniversary weekend. I was at home in Titirangi and watching the rain just pouring out of the sky. It was an extraordinary amount of rain. That Friday night, my husband and I were evacuated from our house. There was a knock on the door at about 10 o’clock—“Could you please go and stay somewhere else for the night?” We were fortunate—we called friends and went and stayed with them.

The reason was a slip down the road—a slip which has resulted in three of my neighbours’ homes being red-stickered. Further down the road, another set of houses were red-stickered; further down again, more houses red-stickered. Right through my electorate, there has been that kind of response. Now, this happened before Cyclone Gabrielle.

The extraordinary thing was seeing all the damage, but then seeing my community turn out to help each other. As Michael Wood said, it’s “we”, not “me”, and that was so obvious in my community. The Titirangi Volunteer Fire Brigade was getting out there and delivering water to homes where there was no water. Of course, they were doing this in the midst of the sadness and worry waiting to hear about their colleagues in Muriwai—had they survived? How many were dead? So our volunteer fire brigades right across my electorate and out through Auckland played an extraordinary role in helping people that first weekend.

But there’s someone else who played quite an extraordinary role in helping people that first weekend, and that was our Deputy Prime Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, who, when an evacuation centre was stood up at St Leonards Road School on the Friday night, got there herself, got the centre running, found clothes and bedding for people, and spent the whole weekend there helping.

She had a whole swag of former All Blacks there helping, led by Sir Michael Jones and Maliena Jones. But when I say “swag”, there was not a swagger amongst them. They were there to serve and to help, as was all of my community. It was the extraordinary thing during this time.

But then, of course, carrying on from the floods which left devastation, we had the cyclone blowing through as well. Between the floods and the devastation, I think there is not a single area in my electorate that has not been affected. Houses were yellow-stickered in Glenhaven down on Margate Road, houses have been red-stickered and yellow-stickered in Green Bay along Cliff View Drive. Houses in Titirangi have been destroyed, roads have been taken out.

Houses in Laingholm have had slips destroy their access. The road access is destroyed after Huia, and more houses have gone. Karekare is heartbreaking: the road down there is still rated for emergencies only and residents only—and even then, only those residents who need to get up and down. I have been taken down and around Karekare twice by residents so that I could talk to the community groups on the ground to find out what they needed. All part of that community response. I’d especially like to refer to Shalema and Becks, to Sarah, to Jenny and Kim, who’ve been leading the community there in their response.

In Pīhā, houses are red-stickered. The road into Pīhā is fragile. The water and power there have been out for extraordinary lengths of time. They’re getting back on now. But the children now have a terrible problem getting to school because they can’t get across the roads—can’t get there safely. Big shout-out there to Jenene, to Lethi, to Amber, and to others who have led the community response in Pīhā.

In Waiatarua, the roads have been taken out. In Te Henga, Bethells, access over the roads is really, really difficult and houses have been red-stickered. Big shout-out to Mark Allen there who’s led the response. In Henderson, people have been flooded and around the Swanson Road area, the road is closed because of slips. The damage is extraordinary.

I would like, though, to praise the team effort by all the people there who hold elected office: MPs, city councillors, local body members—of all political stripes. Everyone has helped, and it has been great to see it happening. The need is ongoing, and I’m very grateful for this Government’s response and the work that has been put in by this Government—and, of course, by others—to support people, to support business, to support community. I particularly note the new role of the Minister for Auckland and how that will help in the response to this extraordinary event.

So this is an extraordinary time, and one where our Government will be doing its utmost to support those who are affected, and, of course, not just in my electorate, but through Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne and the East Cape, Wairoa.

Of course, while all this was happening—this extraordinary event which the Government has responded to—the ordinary work of Government has carried on. And part of the ordinary work of Government—even though it occurs only every five years—is the census. The census has had to carry on.

I’m pleased to report that today nearly 2.6 million individual forms have been returned. That’s not counting any paper forms—we’ll only get the paper forms in a week or so; we’ll only start to get at an initial feel for the size of the response by early to mid next week.

This Government has led a whole lot of work to make sure that groups that were not counted last time—that were under-represented in the count—have been counted this time. We’ve been trying to work particularly with our Māori and Pasifika communities, where the undercount was really worrying last time.

So this time around, there has been an iwi-led response to the census in some areas—where the data collection is being led by iwi and then the data is turned over to Stats. So instead of Stats collecting the data and turning it over to the iwi, it goes the other way around. That’s one way of increasing the reach into some communities, because it is done through iwi. In particular, this has been rolled out in the East Cape and the Far North. And, of course, that’s extraordinarily helpful at this time because people on the ground will have a better response. There’s been a Te Ao Māori unit within census leading some of the work around designing the census. The census is available fully in te reo, and census engagement groups have been at community events like Te Matatini encouraging people to respond to the census.

The same in Pasifika communities. There will be census outreach officers at Polyfest, and so on. Just last night, I was out in Porirua at what was called Census Fest, where Pasifika groups had deliberately set up—with the assistance of Stats New Zealand—to get a good response from Pacific communities. And Barbara Edmonds, our wonderful new Minister, says that 782 forms were completed at that event. So that’s all under way.

Of course, because of the storms, we’ve had to have a flexible response to the census—and the Government has been flexible and nimble in that regard. The time for collecting census forms has been extended, and there will be more boots on the ground, more people collecting the census for a longer period of time. People think that the census is just one day, but the census actually extends over a period of weeks, even months as we clean the data and so on. The important thing is that people do the census as at Census Day—or, as it turns out, the night of 7 March. So that is what we’ve done in respect of the census.

Just one final thing I wish to address.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, please do!

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I wish I had more time. I think I just want to turn very briefly to what the previous speaker was saying about inflation and saying that it was the fault of this Government. So, Mr Simon Watts, I want to say to you: how is it that the Government spending in this country is responsible for the rate of inflation of Australia of 7.8 percent? How is it, Mr Watts, this Government is responsible for the rate of inflation in the UK, which is at 10.5 percent? How is it that this Government is responsible for the rate of inflation of the OECD as an average, which is 10.3 percent?

The rate of inflation in this country is 7.2 percent, and we are not alone in that. There is a worldwide pandemic of inflation, and this Government will be working hard to support New Zealanders to enable them to manage in what is a difficult time for the entire world. That is what lies behind the cost of living payment; that is what lies behind the increase in the minimum wage; that is what lies behind our efforts to help people; that is why fair pay agreements are so important: it is all about supporting the wages and the incomes of ordinary New Zealanders. And that is what this Government is committed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse for five minutes.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Who knew there was a census fest? Not I, until the Minister of Statistics told me about it. But I will say this: Harry Styles did more to promote Census 2023 than the Government has, because up until last night it was New Zealand’s very best kept secret. Until Harry told the country that we were actually having one, most people didn’t know. Now, I hope, very much, that Census 2023 is a success, but I have much more hope than confidence, because it really has been very poorly promoted.

Now, I will also start by answering questions that Dr Russell said. Why is it that all those other OECD countries have inflation like ours? It’s generally because the OECD countries made exactly the same mistakes New Zealand did, by getting the printer out and quantitative easing up the wazoo and having a Government that has overseen profligate spending.

What we really need is a Government that does what every single one of the 5 million New Zealanders that it serves has had to do, and that is to control costs because times are tough. The only person who’s benefited from that inflation has been the Minister of Finance, who seems to think that because the tax take is high, he can continue to spend on things that are simply not adding value.

We’ve heard a lot from speakers on the other side about how much more money—we just heard it from Dr Russell—they’re spending on this, that, and the next thing. That is not a virtue. The public do not care how much money the Government is spending nearly as much as they care how much the Government is achieving, and on that the Government is failing dismally.

It’s failing in health. It’s poured a lot of money into health. Waiting times, access to treatment is going down and down.

It’s put lots of money into education. What’s happening in education? Well, who knows? We’ll get the whiteboard out and find out. But there’s a huge difficulty in just getting our kids to school, and when they are there, when compared with those OECD nations, they are simply not achieving.

Anna Lorck: Can you ever say anything positive, National? Honestly, it is just the most depressing argument.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So much more money; so much little delivery. Oh, the MP for Tukituki is doing, yet again, another demonstration of why she’s going to be thrown out on her ear in just seven short months’ time—and a very good replacement is on its way.

Let’s talk about law and order. They crow about police numbers, even though they haven’t delivered them. Well, this is a really good example of where productivity matters, because I was a police Minister in 2015—that year that so many police Ministers over there say, “Oh, the funding was flat-lined.” Let me tell you what we did in that year: every single front-line police officer was given the technology to keep them on the beat and to prevent them from going back to the station to fill in paperwork. What that did was save 1.2 million hours of police time on dead-weight administration costs. That’s the equivalent of putting 600 more police officers on to the front line. But they don’t talk about that; all they talk about is how much money they can take out of Kiwis’ pockets and spend on their behalf. What Kiwis really want is results, and those results only come from a National-led Government.

As economic development spokesperson, I’ve been following the progress of the much-lauded industry transformation plans that Stuart Nash has been overseeing. I found the answer: the industry that’s been transformed most by these industry transformation plans has been the consultancy industry, because more than $8 million has been spent on consultants to prepare plans. That’s part of an expected $44 million of planned spending—maybe more—on those so-called transformation plans. What’s been the output? Very, very little. Lots of drafts. Lots of discussion documents.

Chris Penk: Lots of minutes.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Lots of talking points.

Chris Penk: Lots of memos.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Lots of memos, probably, and a few Cabinet minutes, as well, Mr Penk. But the industry that’s been transformed the most by this Government has been the likes of KPMG, Deloitte, and Pricewaterhouse. They’re good people. They do a good job. I’m a chartered accountant. I used to work for a KPMG associate. But they must be embarrassed by the amount of work that’s coming their way from a Government that creates 14,000 more bureaucrats and still cannot get the job done without outside assistance. Well, that just shows that after 5½ years, this country deserves better, and it’s coming in October this year.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It should come as no surprise that I use this opportunity to voice my concerns about the credibility of the new Prime Minister, having watched his inept performance as the Minister of Education over the past five years, where he’s overseen the abysmal decline of attendance and achievement in our compulsory sector and created an unmitigated disaster with his pet project, the centralisation of the polytechnic and industry training sector, Te Pūkenga.

I’d like to go through the four areas where this has been—

Hon Andrew Little: What? What’s the subject of this speech?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I’m sure members on my right are going to have a chance to make a speech later on. Can we please give this chance to Penny Simmonds.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let’s look at it financially, for a start. The Minister was trying to fix what was a $40 million problem. So far, he’s spent $200 million getting to where he is today, and, in an undisclosed business case that was submitted back in October but hasn’t been made available to anyone else yet, it looks like there’s another $500 million needed over the next five years to make it operational. At the same time, it is running a deficit of somewhere between $60 million and $100 million. The trouble is, when we talk about hundreds of millions of dollars, it becomes so eye-watering that we can’t actually understand how bad it is. But I can assure you, as someone who sat through a budget process every year for 23 years, running a tertiary institution where you played with trying to shift $2,000 out of here into $5,000 there and make things work, it is absolutely sickening to see hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted.

So, financially, it’s an unmitigated disaster, but equally as important is the impact that it is having on people: on the students and on the staff and with the ripple effect into the families of staff. I have seen the anxiety and the concern across staff not knowing whether they will have jobs or not, and they are right to be concerned about whether they have jobs or not. In just four months last year to November, 122 academics and 73 other staff either lost their jobs, resigned, or weren’t replaced. The business case that we have not had made available to us formally yet shows that another 487 staff are going to have to lose their jobs by the end of 2026—104 of those by the end of this year. So the impact on staff is real, the ripple effect on to the staff members’ families is real, and the impact on students who are not getting the delivery and the services they should be getting is real, and the complaints are flowing freely.

The other matter I want to talk about is the impact on innovation in the sector. Distracted people do not innovate; they are in survival mode. They cannot innovate, and where innovation has survived, head office has stamped on it with a very heavy foot. Let me give you the example of international education, which we desperately need to get back on its foils here and get our students back to fill our skills shortages. The head office has decided that the same fees should be charged by everyone all across the country. Do they not know when we are out in the world marketing for international students, we’re competing against Australia and Canada and the US and the UK, not each other? We don’t have to have the same fees. If we can do something innovative in our own communities, that should be encouraged, not stamped on.

The fourth area is the lack of understanding of the basics of restructuring and change management. Form does not come before function, and that is what this Minister, who is now our Prime Minister, does not understand. The media have tried to characterise him as “Mr Fix-it”; he is not.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Dr Tracey McLellan for 5 minutes.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure today to stand in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, a statement that I thought summed up what this Government’s priorities are really succinctly and very concisely. No one should be in any doubt of what our priority is, and that is that this Government is working for you. We are here for you, we put people at the centre of everything we do, and we are here to talk New Zealand up, not talk New Zealand down. On the other side of this very honoured room, all we hear is speeches and naysayers and people who want to talk New Zealand down as if New Zealand wasn’t one of the very best places in the world to live and as if Kiwis don’t revel in the fact of how lucky they are. That is not to say that there are not challenges that we face, but more of that soon.

As many people have done in this House I would like to acknowledge whaea Georgina Beyer, who contributed so much to various communities, to New Zealand as a whole, and to humanity. I acknowledge her.

As many people have done, I’d also like to acknowledge all of the people who have lost so much and been through so much due to Cyclone Gabrielle, and all of those adverse weather events that have happened just recently. I particularly want to acknowledge our first responders, and all of the community groups, some of which existed beforehand and have done fantastic jobs, some of which have sprung up as a result of this to do their very best. Heroes and individuals who have really come to the fore to help each other out, I acknowledge you, and I’d also like to acknowledge our local MPs, many of whom have been on the ground every day, doing everything they can—particularly my colleague to my right here, Anna Lorck.

The Prime Minister’s statement, as I said, focused on the core things that we need to be thinking about as a country. One of the reasons that we’re able to do that and focus on what matters most to people, acknowledging those challenges that we face, is the reality that we ended last year with some pretty impressive strong economic growth. It’s simply a fact that our economy is about 7.9 percent bigger than before the start of the pandemic, and that it’s growing faster than many of the places that we compare ourselves with, like Australia, the US, Canada, the whole eurozone, Japan, and the UK. That’s pretty impressive.

We have record low unemployment, and we have what can only be described as world-leading Government books. That is something to be proud of. And, while we’re at it, the other side of this House have just spent numerous amounts of their precious time barking on about consultants, and how they would cut consultants and how they need to cut consultants, presumably to pay for what is a paucity of ideas that they’ve released so far in policy, but nevertheless under-costed, not well accounted for, and that’s hardly going to cut the mustard. Unless someone’s doing the work, by definition, no one is doing the work. So we either have more public servants, which the other side—National—constantly refer to in negative terms, or we have less analysis and less evidence to support policy. So, clearly, you can see the direction that they’re heading: they’re intending to do nothing.

One of the primary responses to the cost of living pressures that people are facing in this country has to be increasing wages and improving productivity, and the good news is, again, that wages are up more than 16 percent in the three years since December 2019. The increase that New Zealand workers waited nearly five years for, following the global financial crisis—so this side of the House is doing a good job.

When we think about supporting New Zealanders and supporting Kiwis, one of the themes that is coming through is workforce shortages, and we acknowledge that that is something that everybody is facing, not just in New Zealand, but it’s a global issue. Last quarter, while we had record employment and a really low, 3.4 percent, unemployment rate, we recognised that the flip-side of that, obviously, is that there’s been some shortages.

That’s why we’re supporting New Zealanders to learn and to upskill. More than 215,000 people have taken up those free apprenticeships and that targeted trades training. Almost 55,000 apprentices now have been supported through that Apprenticeship Boost initiative, and that’s one of the things I’m most proud about, and one of the things that I have no doubt in supporting the Prime Minister’s statement because of. Thank you.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Firstly, I’d like to pay a tribute to the whānau and those that lost loved ones in Kahungunu. I had the opportunity to visit there last week to help support our Ministers, to support whānau and our marae. Sadly, when I drove down some of those streets it reminded me of a Third World country.

Secondly, I’d like to also acknowledge and pay tribute to Georgina Beyer. During the time that she visited Rātana she was a trailblazer; she was dedicated, passionate, and committed to all the causes that she represented.

E moe, e moe, e moe mai rā e te anahera tapu. Haere ki te torona o Ihoa o ngā Mano.

[Rest in peace, sacred angel. Travel to the throne of the Lord God.]

I stand to support the Prime Minister’s statement. In particular, I want to focus this discussion, this speech, on tackling the country’s infrastructure needs and, in particular, it’s the housing issue, the shortfall that we had inherited. Before entering Parliament I was a member of the Whanganui Community Foundation Trust. In recognising this critical issue, they decided to tweak their strategy, to develop policy to help to address this issue at a local level.

In developing this policy, they received an application from an organisation called the Wai-Ora Trust. This organisation nurtures inter-generational prosperity and wellbeing within the community. They also provide opportunities for whānau to reach their potential through social services that they deliver on, training, and also employment. This is a humble, dedicated passionate organisation that has served for many, many years—with volunteers a lot of the time—in our communities. Their focus has been on low socio, homelessness, and the critical shortage of housing more recently. So in 2019 they established Te Kākano Kāinga Ora. It’s a company that they’ve established to meet the housing need through offsite manufacturing and developing short-term supported accommodation on sites.

Many examples like this organisation, across the motu, help to address the issues of the critical housing shortage that we have in this country. These organisations and others will go some way towards supporting the residential investment and we are committed to providing the confidence that we need to our developers.

I think also about another local entity, an entity that I recently went to an opening of, in terms of one of their initiatives, Tamaūpoko Community Led Trust. They assist communities along Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui—small rural communities like Hiruhārama, Rānana, Matahiwi, and Pipiriki. They aim to make a difference by listening to the voices of their people, and delivering on projects which they consider to be important to them, to their health, to their wellbeing, and to their welfare.

On the weekend, when I attended this opening—the opening was about a project and a community hub that they called River Valley. It was it was a whakaaro that was developed by the locals. They turned an old homestead near Rānana into a multi-purpose community hub. And I want to quote from the CEO, Daryn Te Uamairangi: “We listened to our local whānau, and what they needed was a multi-purpose space to operate a Civil Defence station, facilitate health services and primarily care for our kaumātua … where they can come to a whare just to be themselves.” The hub will be equipped with a tele-health clinic. I want to acknowledge the next generation of this group: Tiara, Shevvy, Isobel, Ariana, and the team who are our future generation. I want to also acknowledge the words of my colleague Minister Mahuta; she discussed innovative solutions. These are examples of solutions by locals for locals who know what the needs are in their community. I support our Prime Minister’s statement. Kia ora.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too, this afternoon, would like to acknowledge those who have had a really traumatic beginning to 2023—those who have lost family, friends, and homes. It’s been a very tough time for many people and we in Taranaki - King Country have been relatively unscathed in all of this, although I do want to make mention of the people in central Te Kūiti who, back in the stage where Auckland was flooding in the early stages, actually also had a state of emergency. So it’s been a very rough time for a lot of people.

In the Prime Minister’s statement, the Prime Minister said, “We’ve got to build back better, we’ve got to build back safer, and we’ve got to build back smarter.” I, as the conservation spokesperson, am spending a lot of time—as many people are, across the House, in the Environment Committee—looking at the replacement legislation proposed for the Resource Management Act. It’s been a lot like working in real time because, as we’re talking about how we build back better and how we should do things in the future and the submissions that we’re hearing from people who have been through a lot—it’s like actually doing legislation in real time because, normally, you know, we’re a little bit removed from what’s happening at the particular point in time, but, in this situation, we’re not.

We’ve seen a lot over the last little while on electricity and connectivity and the effects on our roads going out during times of these cyclones. I have to say that, actually, the roads weren’t good before. The Prime Minister said, “Business as usual won’t work anymore. We have to accept that … additional investment is going to be required”. But the other thing the Prime Minister said is that these people “are going to need to innovate, … we will need to innovate, and [we will need to] do things differently.” Well, I put it to you that, actually, to build roads, we are going to need metal; to build bridges and connectivity and all of those things, we’re going to need steel; and we’re not going to do it without the good use of our own natural resources. Because, at the end of the day, if we can’t grow it and we can’t dig it, then we aren’t going to have it, because there’s not many things in this world that currently exist that help us build our infrastructure without those things. Also, it doesn’t help us feed people, and I also acknowledge those people that have lost fruit trees and orchards and vegetable plots, because that hasn’t been easy either.

So I am looking at a lot of things in conservation now—as the new spokesperson looking at biodiversity, looking after the animals and the plants—and I dare say we’ve lost a lot of that on the East Coast and up in Tai Rāwhiti and Northland and Auckland and various other places. But we shouldn’t look at rebuilding our future as an either/or. It’s not going to be, “Should we use our natural resources or should we just do conservation?”—we have to actually use both. It’s an “and/and”, and unless we get that balance and circle right of the environment, the social factors, and the economic factors all working in tandem, we are not going to build back better. In fact, if we don’t actually think about all of those things, we’re not going to be able to build back at all.

So I have no doubt in the floods recently that we probably have lost a lot of possums and stoats and rats, and that’s a good thing. But we’ve also lost a lot of other farm animals—you know, indigenous biodiversity. And just even talking to people from Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust: the hard work that people have put in to those areas on their land, in perpetuity—a lot of that’s been washed away in the floods, as well as the fences, and the extent of that is not even currently known.

So the Prime Minister said, “The worthy will sometimes have to make way for the urgent.”, but when we actually live our lives as humans and we look at the population of New Zealand and the needs that we have, we need to take many things into consideration. We’ve done it before as a country and we did it through the Christchurch earthquakes, and I was down there recently and a lot of things have been built back better, but they haven’t been built back without resources, and we’ve got lots of good resources that we can use and we should do that looking forward. We will build back better, but we are going to have to agree on some ways forward. So thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Anna Lorck for five minutes.

Maureen Pugh: Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m sorry, Anna. Sorry. The split call was for National—she hasn’t taken her five minutes. The next call is Maureen Pugh.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. The Prime Minister’s statement—I just want to start by quoting a couple of phrases that he said. He started, obviously, by acknowledging the people and the properties in the North Island that had suffered, but he went on to say that “we would need to set a new direction for the Government and that we would have our focus squarely on the basics, including the cost of living that affecting New Zealanders,”, and went on to say, “We … need to make some tough calls and we will need to prioritise carefully.” And just yesterday, when questioned in the House, he went on to defend the massive blowout in consultants’ costs. It’s a massive $1.7 billion and counting. Now, if you combine this with the fact that the Government has engaged, and we’ve heard it today, an extra 14,000 public servants, one could be forgiven for thinking that there was in fact enough collective wisdom among that staff to do most things that need to be done or researched, or perhaps employ staff that have the skill sets that are needed. But, no, not this Government. There will always be occasions when there will be a need for specialist skills—no question about it—but $1.7 billion? And as the leader of the National Party in his response to the PM’s statement said, under, he said that under a National Government, this gravy train will stop—or, as John Dutton might say, “Take it to the train station.”

So rather than opposing, Chris Luxon has proposed a much better spend for some of that $1.7 billion, and that is to invest $249 million into the families of hard-working low and middle income earners, and he’s going to do that by giving up to a quarter of their childcare costs back in the form of a rebate. That is, if a family is earning up to $140,000 a year, they will get back $75 a week, and that will reduce up to a maximum income of $180,000 a year. And that’s on top of the existing subsidies and benefits, such as the 20 hours of free childcare for kids over three. So this is the type of direct benefit to families that we can achieve when we stop the wasteful spending and direct it where it really counts—into the pockets of those hard-working Kiwis.

And, as I said, much of the PM’s statement rightly acknowledged North Island families, businesses, and assets that had suffered as a result of the flooding and the cyclone, and we agree that there does need to be a massive investment to rebuild and to clean up. But the residents in West Coast - Tasman know only too well the impact of losing lives, homes, and land because of weather events. And day by day they clean up, they clean out, and they start the process of rebuilding their lives and properties. But at the same time, they live in hope that the essential works that have been promised will be delivered to them. Now, my concern is that this Government has started to allocate funds and give us a broad outline of the type of work that’s going to need to be done in the North Island.

But what we need to remember is this Government’s abysmal track record on delivery. So in Franz Josef in March 29, a storm caused the Waiho River to burst its banks, and it took out the Waiho River Bridge and it cut off the only road, State Highway 6. The council successfully negotiated with Labour and New Zealand First for $24 million to help protect that land below the Waiho River, and they said in late 2021 that there will be a plan in the new year but didn’t say what year that was going to be, so they still wait. And again in Westport, July 21, Westport was inundated. Cabinet is still to consider the $56 million protection scheme that was submitted to the Government.

So this is time to prove us wrong and deliver for the North Island communities, but I want the Government to also remember the West Coast communities that are still waiting.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Hawke’s Bay has been hit hard. We are hurting. We’re down, but we are far from out. We will get up and we will rebuild. Having lived my life in this great region of Hawke’s Bay, I have never seen so much devastation. But, Madam Speaker, and to the House, I have never seen so much support and strength come from our community and from across the country to help Hawke’s Bay in our time of need. The outpouring of support and how we’ve worked together is what will keep us together and will see us become one of the best provincial regions in this country that we’ve always been and, I know, we always will be. The message I have from Hawke’s Bay is that we are going to be growing, and growing more. We have the talent, the experience, the workforces, and the people who know better about how to grow a region. We do grow the best apples and pears for the world.

Now, I think it’s important that I now note the latest report from New Zealand Apples & Pears, which has been the assessment of the damage and what hasn’t been damaged in our region for our orchardists. It came in the way of a Radio New Zealand report. But rather than use their headline, which said, “Almost 4000 hectares of apple orchards in Hawke’s Bay”, what I would like to say is more than half the apple orchards in Hawke’s Bay will be harvested and will export the best apples in the world for higher prices. That’s what I think we need to turn to.

We cannot take away from the devastation. We cannot take away from the lives lost. I would like to acknowledge those people who have lost their lives and I’d like to acknowledge those friends and whānau who have also lost loved ones.

But I do also want to say that without the help that we got—it was incredible to see so many people come together. It was the people of our region who got us through in those first few days, especially when we had no communications. I’d like to really make a shout-out to the helicopter pilots who flew in saving hundreds of people off rooves; to the neighbours who saw neighbours on rooves or needing to get on boats to go and save people—everybody did whatever they could at that time to save as many people as they could.

I want to acknowledge our Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers, many of whom were caught up in the flooding, but also their employers and the pastoral care that was given to them through all of the rescue and evacuation centres, all the generosity that came through. Again, it is the support that has kept Hawke’s Bay together.

I want to acknowledge Pakowhai School and the principal, Tim, and parents Amanda and Leslie, who cleaned their whole school out in time for the ministry to come in, and within 12 hours after two weeks of being closed, they were given the tick to let the kids back in so that they could get back to a little bit of normality, because kids need to know that that special universe of school is a safe place to strive and thrive, and get back to that way of being normal.

I could acknowledge so many more people, but I would like to take this time again to say thank you to everyone. Thank you so much to all and everyone who have done so much to help Hawke’s Bay in our time of need.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Ingrid Leary for five minutes.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It’s quite an honour to speak after my friend and colleague Anna Lorck, and I have to add my thanks to those that she has listed, actually, and for the incredible work that she has done for the people of Hawke’s Bay over the last few weeks. I think it’s fair to say there’s not a more energetic MP in this House, a more passionate advocate for the Hawke’s Bay, and so in their hour of need they really do have a great champion here. It’s great to hear her stories that she has been sharing with us, and wishing those communities all the best over the coming weeks.

It is International Women’s Day and I’d like to put a gender lens over the Prime Minister’s statement, but it’s also fitting for me to acknowledge my good friend who passed away, Georgina Beyer. I knew Georgina many years ago, when I was a journalist and she was a stripper. Our paths have crossed many times and Georgina has always been the best of company, the most gracious, fun, honest, humble, and passionate advocate for women’s rights, and I miss her very much this week.

It’s also a day when we should be looking at where women are, and that’s why I want to put this gender lens over the Prime Minister’s statement. I can tell you that even though the Prime Minister hasn’t explicitly done so himself, when I see the statements that he’s made and the plans for our country, they stack up very well, and the reason is because when it comes to the cost of living, it is often women who are hit the hardest. When it comes to targeting support, the support that is being given by this Government is really for those who are hit the hardest, and that includes so many women.

One of the areas that he alluded to was fair pay agreements. They are a crucial tool for making sure that we can not only improve productivity but also increase wages, and many of the groups that are impacted will be women’s groups. There are three industries that have made an application for fair pay agreements and two of them—supermarket workers and hospitality workers—are particularly full of women, and so they will benefit for that. That will be a game-changer.

We heard today from the Minister for Women in the House that under this Government, the gender pay gap, while sticking stubbornly at 9.2 percent in the private sector, has dropped fairly dramatically, from around 12.2 percent to around 7 percent, for women in the public sector, and that’s been as a result of a strong push by our Ministers. But we’re also making sure that the incomes of our lowest-paid workers are able to keep up with inflation, and, once again, women are overrepresented in that cohort. So we are increasing the minimum wage to $22.70 from 1 April. Now, that’s an additional $60 a week for those workers, and for many mothers that means the difference of working one job instead of two, or two jobs instead of three. It can mean being able to pay the fees for their kids to be able to do extra school activities, playing sport, being able to catch a bus, maybe buy some equipment for their children, and so on, because it is often the women who are putting the needs of the children first.

We have also reversed a freeze on the income indexation threshold for childcare eligibility put in place by National in 2020, and it’s interesting that Maureen Pugh would raise National’s policy around childcare. It’s fantastic to see that National have finally come to the party, but the problem that I have is that she’s saying that the money that will be saved will go into the back pockets of parents. When I look at the policy as it’s currently done: first, it’s not costed, so if people increase childcare, if they increase their hours, there’ll be a blowout; and, secondly, there is nothing to stop the childcare centres—particularly those that are for profit—from increasing their fees for parents. So it’s great that National are now seeing the value of that for parents, but the way that they’re going about it, once again, hasn’t been thought through. It is not going to make the difference to women, and it is not going to make the difference to women being able to get out and work with that support.

There’s a whole context around which these changes are coming, and there are many things that our Government has done to specifically increase support for women. We’ve introduced the Families Package, we’ve recorded the lowest gender pay gap in recent history, we’ve got the highest number of women in Cabinet, we have the highest number of women in our Parliament—many thanks to the Labour Party. So the Prime Minister’s statement definitely looked at the impact on women, and for that reason I’m very proud to support it.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I beg your pardon for referring to you as Madam Chair. I rise this afternoon to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement, but before I get into the detail, I’d just like to take a few moments to address and acknowledge the devastating effects of the Auckland flooding and of Cyclone Gabrielle. I don’t think that I can really add much to what my colleague Anna Lorck has said so movingly earlier, but, like many Cantabrians, I am very aware of the realities of living through a disaster of this magnitude.

I remember the feelings of fear, fear for my children and loved ones, hopelessness in the face of such widespread destruction, and genuine concern for the future. But through all of it, what I remember really clearly is how the community pulled together, from the very small things—you know, kids baking muffins for the evacuation centre, people piping spring water to the street—to, of course, the enormous heroism of our first responders, ours and those who came to support us from overseas. Watching people responding to the floods and cyclone with the same concern for each other and the same heroism has been a powerful reminder to me of who we really are as a nation, and I want to add my immense gratitude to them for everything that they have done and continue to do, as well as my sorrow over the lives tragically lost.

So, yet again, we are looking to how we can support each other. We’re looking to how we can rebuild, looking to how we can recover and build back better. The Prime Minister said we will do what it takes, that we will stand by New Zealanders as we recover, and he said you are not alone. I wholeheartedly endorse that statement because we do have some very real challenges ahead. We know that in order to support New Zealand families and businesses through the difficult economic conditions that we’re facing, we have to get back to basics and respond to the cost of living pressures that all families are facing.

I’m very proud to be the MP for Ilam. It’s an electorate that is incredibly diverse. It’s diverse in all respects. We have arguably the richest blend of ethnic communities. I’m sure to hear no argument about having the best university in the University of Canterbury. We have the best international airport in New Zealand. We have the best wildlife park and best tourist destinations. We also have the second largest social housing area in Christchurch, and we have a real mix of the highest and lowest socio-economic status, and everything in between.

So when I heard the Prime Minister talk about how we’re investing, for example, in public transport, with the extensions on fuel excise reductions, road-user charges, and half-price public transport, I immediately thought of what that would mean to my community, to our large student population, to those on low incomes. With transport being the third largest expense to households, after housing and food, and the average cost saving that this represents of about $17.25 for a 60 litre tank fill up or $25 on public transport, this will make a huge different just in and of itself. These half-price public transport fares have been made permanent for community services card holders and Total Mobility card holders.

From 1 May, 1.2 million New Zealanders will receive up to $31.82 a week to help with their heating through winter, through the winter energy payment. In April, New Zealand Superannuation and main benefit rates will increase. That’s not the only thing that’s increasing, we continue to support workers by raising wages. From 1 April, we’re increasing the minimum wage, again, to $22.70. This will maintain the real value of more than 200,000 workers’ incomes and ensure that our lowest-paid workers are able to keep up with the increases to the cost of living. From $15.75 in 2017 to $22.70 on 1 April—that’s the rise in the minimum wage that Labour has overseen. That’s $15.75 to $21.20 in six years, and we increase that to $22.70 in a month or so. The National Party oversaw an increase of $12 to $15.75 in nine years. The ACT Party—well, they want a moratorium for the next three years, and, unfortunately, the National Party describes it as a great shame that we’ve increased the minimum wage so much. A great shame—putting cash in the hands of our lowest earners!

But because it’s International Women’s Day, I’m going to move to something a little bit more positive. Happy International Women’s Day. It’s worth highlighting that this week, only this week, our Minister for Women, the Hon Jan Tinetti, signalled a historic pay equity settlement for 1,200 school librarians and library assistants, and around 400 science technicians. Those new pay equity rates will mean that school librarians and library assistants will have their income increased by between 10 and 38 percent, and the science technicians between 20 to 40 percent—that’s massive. Since the passing of the amendment to the Equal Pay Act in July 2020, there have been six claims involving 110,000 people who have had their pay corrected—110,000 people—and we’ve got another 27 claims under way.

But I know you want to hear more about Ilam. Because it’s my favourite subject, I obviously want to talk about it more, and that’s fair enough. We are closing the housing shortfall that we inherited, and we’re doing that in Ilam too. Under this Government, there are 11,473 more public houses, including 9,236 newly built homes. This Labour Government has delivered nearly one in seven of all New Zealand public housing stock. In Ilam, construction began on a new Kāinga Ora housing redevelopment just around the corner from my office in Bryndwr. That’s 34 new, dry, warm homes for people in need. It’s a mix of two-storey, one- to five-bedroom units, with a communal garden and a play area and lots of recreational green space. Eight older existing houses were demolished to make way for those 34 new, warm, dry homes. And that’s not all we’re doing in Ilam. This is only one of many redevelopment sites in Bryndwr and Burnside. In the next few years, up to 113 new units on 14 sites will replace 39 older units. That’s another 113 warm, dry homes.

But wait, there’s more—of course there’s more. In his statement, the Prime Minister spoke about the importance of investing in our schools and in our kura. And he announced, last week, a further $301 million for Christchurch schools to complete building and refurbishing 115 schools in the next two years. We celebrated the opening of the first set of new classrooms with the Prime Minister on Friday at Heaton Intermediate School, and it was fantastic to see students in their warm, dry, learning environments—modern, beautiful spaces—after such a long journey. And on Friday morning, the same day—before that—I was absolutely honoured to be able to turn the first sod at Fendalton Open-air School to mark the beginning of their rebuild. It was a good day for schools in Christchurch. As I said before, it was a long journey, but I’m so honoured to be a part of it and to have been a part of it, and what this does is send a really strong message to people who are currently in the aftermath, experiencing the aftermath, as they’re still in the grips of flooding and cyclone damage.

What this says is, as the Prime Minister said, we are with you, as we have been with every challenge we’ve faced since Labour came into Government, because Labour shows up for the people of New Zealand. Labour shows up each and every time. And that’s why I support the Prime Minister’s statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a five-minute call—Nicola Grigg.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I think, as the old saying goes, the best offence is a defence, and I think when the Government sees its polls tanking as they are, it is in defence mode. It is defending, defending, defending. I would like to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement as well and express absolutely no confidence in this Government.

As has been acknowledged by a number of speakers before me, it is International Women’s Day, and unfortunately for the women of New Zealand, they are the recipients of absolutely nothing from a Government that has had five years in power and has failed to deliver on every single metric that would advance the rights of women and girls in New Zealand. This Government has an absolute inability to get things done. There was nothing in the Prime Minister’s statement that would advance women and girls in New Zealand.

But I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all of the tireless work of the NGOs that operate in this space, particularly organisations like Mind The Gap, the Gender Justice Collective, the Breast Cancer Foundation, just to name a few. These organisations are doing the Government’s work for it because it simply cannot deliver, and the wider sector can see that.

We have heard a lot of back-slapping and self-congratulations from the Government today but absolutely nothing on how it’s going to address the issue of getting the 11,000 women who lost their jobs during COVID back into the workforce. Those women are still languishing, and after years in the making, the Government’s Women’s Employment Action Plan offers nothing but vague promises and waffle, as we have become so used to from this lot—vague promises and waffle, and loose commitments like “it will monitor women’s participation in the workforce”; all the while, real outcomes are going backwards. The gender pay gap is still sitting at 9 percent. The last National Government dropped it by 3 percent; since this lot came into power, it hasn’t shifted. They haven’t done a thing.

Most worryingly is the absolute inaction on healthcare for women in New Zealand. New Zealand women’s lives are at risk: 50,000 women missed a mammogram and 50,000 women missed their cervical screening tests during COVID. I have not heard one action statement from this Government, particularly from the Minister of Health or the Minister for Women, that has shown any energy, any impetus, to address those backlogs.

At least on this side of the House, we are coming up with plans. Dr Shane Reti has announced that if we are in the next Government, we’re going to extend mammograms for women aged 69 to 74 years old. That will save the lives of 65 women a year. We will also address those backlogs. We know where the fat in the system is; we know we can get through those backlogs in a matter of years, at the cost of $15 million. On this side of the House, we do the work. We get things done. I’ve always said that if we want to reduce women’s inequality in society, we have to reduce the inequities in healthcare.

The Ministry for Women’s own studies show women are missing out, with a conservative estimate of $116 million a year, because they can’t access childcare. Again, on this side of the House, we’ve got a plan. We’re going to cut this Government’s ridiculous spending on consultants and workforces and the general gravy train of up to $250 million. We’re going to make sure 130,000 families in New Zealand get a $75-a-week rebate so that their kids can go to early childhood education, so that the mums, who it more often than not falls on, don’t have to make the choice between educating their kids and going back to the workforce and having a life of their own, socialisation of their own, and their own independent income.

I doubt any woman in this country would express confidence in this Government, and I certainly do not.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in response to the Prime Minister’s statement. I just want to say first at the outset that my thoughts very much go out to those who’ve been affected by the floodings, the cyclone events around the country. I want to extend my gratitude to all those men and women who have put their own safety at risk to help others, and continue to do so. I’ve travelled to Hawke’s Bay, I’ve travelled to Gisborne, Tai Rāwhiti, to see the impact and just to talk to people who’ve been affected by these flooding events, and it is very significant. I want to really say that my heart goes out to them and thank you to everyone who’s working really hard to assist them at this time of need.

The Prime Minister said that he is going to set a new direction for the Government and reprioritise work streams. Can I suggest that the Prime Minister focuses on the primary sector. The primary sector has been deeply impacted in many parts of the North Island through these flooding events, and we need to see a Government actually step up and realise the impacts that these events have had on them, and the impact that Government policy has had over the last five years on the primary sector.

We see food prices at the highest they have been in 30 years in this country—food is at the highest it’s been in 30 years. This means people in our country are going hungry. We need to thank those who are working hard to make sure they produce food in this country and we need to make sure they have got policy settings that can actually enable them to get on with doing the work to produce food, rather than focusing on how to deal with an endless array of changing and differing work streams that are coming from different Government departments that are often not integrated—it appears Government departments aren’t talking to each other and there’s about 20 different tennis balls coming over the net at farmers and other primary producers around the country.

This is a time when there is a cost of living crisis and it’s absolutely critical that the Government actually steps back from its work streams and says, “OK. What is important? What should we prioritise?” So I think the Prime Minister has identified the issue that his Government has got too much work under way. It has got too many work streams. The Government has been going in the wrong direction for five years. I would say, fundamentally, the only way it’s going to go in the right direction is to get a new Government in October this year. But in the meantime, it’s critical that the Government actually reduces this workload on our producers, on our orchardists, on our farmers, on horticulturalists, on those who are producing food for New Zealand.

In respect of health, I’ll note that the Prime Minister said the Government is committed to ending the postcode lottery for health in New Zealand. I have written on a number of occasions over the last couple of years about the disparity in rural healthcare in my region, in Southland. For just one example, patients in Te Ānau have to pay for their own blood tests and X-rays or travel 4½ hours return to Invercargill or Queenstown to get to the nearest hospital service where those services are free. I have asked repeatedly for this to be addressed, as have the healthcare providers in that region who have been asking for about a decade for that issue to be addressed; it has still not been addressed.

The CEO of Gore Health has written to Te Whatu Ora, raising the issue of the rural trust hospitals of the southern region of New Zealand, which have been existent for about quarter of a century, and both Balclutha and Gore Health Ltd have secured their financial self-sustainability by establishing complementary health services alongside our publicly funded hospitals. However, for the last 10 to 15 years, Gore Health’s been forced to take 5 percent funding cuts, restructure staff on three occasions, and reconfigure their clinical workforce, given the lack of funding, which has made employing rural hospital specialists unfeasible. They’re running at deficits of roughly half a million dollars per year, solely due to significant under-funding. I would suggest that issue needs to be addressed urgently.

Another issue is workforce shortages. This is a huge issue right across the country, and certainly right across my region. Although we’ve been very fortunate to have a great tourism season in the southern part of the South Island—the weather has been good and the people have been coming—we just don’t have the workforce to address those. Frankly, the immigration settings need to be urgently reassessed and looked at.

And finally, accommodation is a big issue. Just today, I presented a petition to the House on zoning difficulties in my region. I would hope the Deputy Prime Minister, who I’ve written to on a number of occasions about that issue, pays attention to this and addresses the issue. This is very important to my region.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start off my contribution by acknowledging the horrendous weather events that we’ve been having across Aotearoa New Zealand. These moments are trying for our nation, and I think there’s no other team in this country right now that has been tried more than our new ministerial line-up that had just been appointed before the Auckland floods and now the cyclone as well. I am so proud of the new Ministers that have been appointed and our new Prime Minister, who have been tasked to lead our country out of the devastating effects of the cyclone and the flooding, but also to build back better after these horrific weather disasters.

Lots of people in the electorate have been telling me that this is a Labour team, a new Labour team, that has received a baptism by fire and we stood up to the challenges. But like I think my colleague Vanushi Walters said yesterday, this is a team that puts people at its heart, people before politics. And I too want to recognise all of the other members of this House who have rolled up their sleeves and got into helping their communities.

During the first Auckland flooding and the days after, I saw the best of our communities. I saw businesses who were willing to donate unlimited amounts of food, grocery products—a shout-out to lots and lots of different Asian supermarkets that reached out to me; a particular healthcare provider who was able to supply us with disposable gloves and single-use items. I especially shout out to one of our personal care hygiene companies/manufacturers in New Zealand, who were able to give us toothpaste, body wash, shampoo—those essential items that were so badly needed in those emergency centres across Aotearoa. I was just so privileged to just be a little tiny part of that response in order to witness the amount of generosity our community has for each other.

I’m extremely and particularly pleased that we now have a Minister for Auckland in the Hon Michael Wood. And I was just really relieved to hear our Prime Minister talk about Auckland, saying that if Auckland is well the rest of the country is well, and recognising that Auckland as the largest city in New Zealand is the powerhouse to our economic recovery, whether that was post-COVID or, now, it’s post cyclone and flooding as well.

And straight after the appointments, a week later, we had the Minister of small and medium enterprises, the Hon Ginny Andersen, coming up to Auckland and meeting with so many business associations around the table at the Employers and Manufacturers Association. And it was actually during that meeting I saw the humility and the care that she had for small businesses and the understanding she had of that sector in such a short amount of time. I saw the commitment she had as well in terms of being able to be there for that sector and to be advocating strongly around the Cabinet table for that sector. It’s Ministers like her that really make me see that the road ahead for us in the near future will be one that we will do cohesively and we’ll do confidently, and it will be one that we do together with our communities as well.

In Auckland, it is going to be a very trying time as it is when we hear about the news in Hawke’s Bay, in Gisborne, and a special acknowledgment to our colleagues over there, the Hon Stuart Nash, Anna Lorck, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, and the Hon Meka Whaitiri. They are MPs who are on the ground every day with their communities. We’ve heard about the devastation there has been, especially to our horticultural, viticultural, and agricultural sectors, and we know that a lot of those communities there will be still feeling the effects of that cyclone for many more weeks, months, and even years to come. And so we all commit our energy and also just our aroha to that region as well in supporting them.

One of the things that I had been reflecting on as the cyclone hit the East Coast of New Zealand is actually our trade. Trade to New Zealand is such an important component of our economic wellbeing. And whether that’s trade in terms of with some of the bigger players in the world, the bigger countries, the bigger markets like China, the UK, or the EU, or even smaller countries like Korea, Japan, Vietnam that we’ve been setting up over the last few years—those are milestone free-trade agreements that this Government has gotten over the line, has signed, has done the deal. And those will be the free-trade agreements and those significant relationships we have internationally that will also help us navigate out of our next financial hardship we have on the horizon.

As I reflect on when all the crops in Hawke’s Bay were being destroyed and affected, what is the next milestone for trade? And I reflect on things like a more sustainable future. When I was in Chile with the Speaker on the Speaker’s delegation last year to Latin America, the Latin American market was telling us that they want to consume products from overseas with a conscience. So what does that mean? It means that they want to know that their products have been grown sustainably. They want to know that they’ve been paid a fair wage, and those who have been in the supply chain. They want to know that the products that they’re consuming are not having the detrimental effect on the planet as other products are compared to other nations. So this, I hope, is a turning point in our nation where we start to really embrace our sustainable future and not look at that just as, yes, we have to sacrifice some of the productivity or we have to look at the costs of where we have to take that away from some of the income earning that we have to do. I want this House to see the next phase of trade and sustainability as opportunity for New Zealand so that we get ahead and so that we are actually reacting to what consumers, what the markets, actually really want from New Zealand, which is that clean, green “100% Pure” New Zealand.

Over the weekend as well, I was really privileged to step in on behalf of the Hon Peeni Henare to welcome the very first tour group from China to New Zealand. China had been New Zealand’s second largest tourism market pre-pandemic and finally, after so many years—almost three years, actually more than three years—we finally welcomed the very first tour group. And gosh, it was exciting. It was very memorable.

So, like I said, if we are to sell our image as “100% Pure” New Zealand as our tourism branding, then we need to live up to that expectation. So that’s why I’m really proud, as chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee, that we’ve been pushing through legislation like the freedom camping legislation to make sure that all those who come on to our shores, those who actually choose New Zealand as their tourism destination, actually leave it just as clean as when they first found it.

And speaking of the EDSI Committee, we know that right now the cost of living is on the mind of every single New Zealander as one of their biggest concerns. And you would have heard in the Prime Minister’s statement that he was addressing our Government’s plans to tackle that and to support New Zealanders through a very hard time. In the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we’ve been actually working really hard in the recess trying to pass the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, and there’s been about three that have come through our select committee—and a shout-out to the new Minister, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb—there we go! There’s a few more prefixes for him. That bill is such a great bill in the sense that it not only addresses the land that supermarkets put covenants on but right now also the current bill is addressing the supply chain issues as well.

We had the grocery sector come into our select committee and talk about how their profit margins weren’t as high as we thought they were and then how they did that whole 6.8 percent, I think, price comparison as compared to the inflation. We heard all of that. But then as we took a deeper look into the supermarket sector, we started realising that the statistics that they were telling us of, just the label price increase, wasn’t counting things like merchandising fees, wasn’t counting the fact that they were charging producers for their product placement and for promotion as well, and that suppliers to supermarkets actually have to pay for labour to go and do the shelving as well.

So as we dived deeper into the supermarket sector, we realised the importance of competition in that sector. And this Government, through our legislation, is shining a light on that sector and also bringing them in line with what is in the best interests of New Zealand. By being able to tackle the lack of competition in that area, we are able to, hopefully, bring a better deal to all New Zealanders, and bring about competition in our grocery sector, and I really, really hope that more and more supermarkets will choose New Zealand to be their next country to venture into and that we can actually provide an environment to do business that is fair, that is sustainable, and that is actually to the benefit of all New Zealanders.

That’s the future we’re going to help achieve for New Zealand, and that’s why I support the Prime Minister’s statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Five minutes, Sam Uffindell.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I’d just like to once again send out my condolences to all of those people who have been very adversely impacted by the disasters that we have had in Hawke’s Bay and in Tai Rāwhiti, Coromandel, Northland, and other parts of the country.

I’d also like to extend my congratulations to the new Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, for ascending to the position—genuinely, well done to you on that. To the outgoing Ministers, thank you for your service to this House. To the incoming Ministers, I hope that you can work in the interests of this country and achieve what you can while you are Ministers.

Turning back to the Prime Minister and his statements now, I want to focus a little bit on this Prime Minister and his success, or lack thereof, as a Minister. I think, as the Minister of Education—

Jamie Strange: You were doing so well.

SAM UFFINDELL: I know. I’m sorry, Jamie. But you’re leaving soon, so I’ll let it go. We have seen truancy increase tremendously under this Government. We have seen education standards fall significantly, where we’ve got to the point where two-thirds of our children are failing basic literacy and numeracy tests, and if we want to have a First World nation, we are going to struggle unless a National Government comes in and can turn this around.

We had the former Minister of Police watching over numerous ram raids. This soft-on-crime Government, under the former Minister of Police; a soft-on-gangs Government. I’ll turn my attention to his record as the COVID Minister who failed to get rapid antigen tests into the country and failed to get the vaccines in here that we needed. As a result, we were one of the countries that was locked up longer than anyone else and we had to go into another lockdown in Auckland, ruining the mental health of the people up there and costing this economy billions of dollars.

As we’ve heard over the few weeks since we’ve been back in the House, the former Minister for State Owned Enterprises hired numerous consultants—14,000 more bureaucrats in Wellington. Well, we’ve got a worker shortage, so my suggestion to the Prime Minister is to enable those people to go back into the more productive areas of our economy.

Then we’ve got other parts about this Prime Minister. He’s got that schoolboy image, I know, but I wouldn’t believe that smiling face, because we’ve seen the lying and the deceit that’s happened. We’ve seen how he treats pregnant journalists who want to get back into this country, where he lies about—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. You cannot accuse another member of lying in this House.

SAM UFFINDELL: I stand and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And desist.

SAM UFFINDELL: And desist.

Hon Member: Withdraw.

SAM UFFINDELL: I did withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carry on.

SAM UFFINDELL: We saw this Prime Minister getting confused recently around Hawke’s Bay people who had had guns held at them by gang members, and then saying that they didn’t have that. We saw the former COVID Minister saying that two ladies went into Northland. He called them prostitutes, and we know that they weren’t and that they had valid passes in there.

So I am very concerned about this Prime Minister. I would encourage New Zealanders to be concerned as well, and I would encourage them to be concerned about this Government, who have delivered five years of failure—five years of failure in health. We’ve got Emergency Department times up. People are waiting months and years to get specialist treatment or surgery. In my city of Tauranga, in my electorate, people can’t get the treatment they need. They have to go to Waikato to get it, and some of them are actually choosing palliative care.

We’ve already talked about the failures in education. We have consumer, farmer, and business confidence at low, low levels. We’ve got lawlessness, youth and gang crime out of control, crumbling Second World infrastructure, and immigration settings that are totally unequipped to deal with the worker shortage that we have. We are in a world environment where it is a global labour market and we are not recognising that, at the complete detriment to businesses throughout New Zealand.

We’ve got ideologically driven student politicians trying to run our country, and they are running it into the ground. Inflation is rocketing up—the highest it’s been since the early 1990s. We have a cost of living crisis, a housing crisis, prices and rents up, and we are causing a generational divide by locking people out of the housing market. We have an inability to get things consented and an inability to get things done. This Prime Minister is not the person to do it, and we need Christopher Luxon and a National-led Government on the Treasury benches.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I just want to acknowledge the passing of members of Parliament. We’ve had three members that have passed in the last week or so—especially Chester Borrows, who was in my year in Parliament. Whoever comes in this place, whatever side they’re on, it makes a great sacrifice from their family and their community, so I just want to acknowledge all of the leadership that’s been delivered by those three people.

I also just want to acknowledge my good friend Tama Potaka here, who did an excellent maiden speech yesterday, and really showed the leadership, I think, that he ensues as an individual. I think there’s a great political career ahead of him, so I wish him all the very best in representing Hamilton West, which is the second part of Hamilton, behind Hamilton East, of course, but an equally important part of Hamilton as well.

I couldn’t help, when we just heard that last speech, but look across the side at the other side, and I don’t think any of them are coming back. I can’t see any one of these people that will actually come back at the next election. I just couldn’t—OK, I don’t know the names of some of them, and I must admit that’s very poor of me, but, effectively, none of those people on that side will come back. OK, Willie might have a chance. He may have a chance on a really good day—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —but it’s unlikely—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —he’s coming back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Bennett, could we use full names, please, in the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: The Hon Willie Jackson is the only one that, potentially, is going to come back, but that’s a big call too. But I guess that’s what happens when you come in on the big roll and you go out with the next big roll. The Prime Minister’s statement was the chance for all that backbench there to actually think they had something salvageable out of this year, and they would have sat there and they would have been so disappointed.

The only person I saw that had a little tinge to their smile was Michael Wood, and he was sitting there going, “How do I put this leader under the bus? How do I actually make sure that this guy gets smashed at the next election?” He was sort of thinking in his socialist-communist way of how he could achieve that goal, and he’s fomenting, in his little corner of the House here, and working out what his little tricks and trades will be to take the Prime Minister down.

You know, it’s unfortunate when a political party gets to that stage, and it does happen and we’re seeing it now in the Labour Party. They’re falling apart. Every day, there’s another ex-Labour Minister in trouble for breaching the conditions of the cushy jobs that they’ve been given by the Government. Every day, we see Ministers in this House that can’t perform, don’t know what to say around education, don’t know what to say around transport—they just don’t know what they’re doing in their jobs—and every day, good Ministers like Willie Jackson have been silenced in this place. The great plans that he had have been cut out from underneath him, and his legacy will be a Minister that tried but never got there. When we see that happening in this House, it’s a real disappointment for the Labour Party, but it’s the reality of a party that’s going under.

Now, I want to talk about something serious for the last minute and a bit, and that is around the infrastructure that New Zealand needs. Now, Jamie Strange, he’s my colleague from Hamilton, and he knows how effective Hamilton has grown and the infrastructure that National delivered to that city. When we came in, the hospital had leaking walls, we had to build the roads, and we gave the infrastructure that actually made this into the great city it is.

Then when you go to somewhere like Whangārei and you look at that now, when there’s a natural disaster people don’t have the resilience because the infrastructure hasn’t been built by this Government. It’s all right saying, “Oh, we’re going to get Bailey bridges in, and we’re going to fix things up.”, but the reality is when you’re in Government, you’ve got to make some really big calls about building resilience for New Zealand. It’s not only just the infrastructure; it’s the business resilience. It’s our ability to withstand issues as a coastal nation that is going to be undertaking global warming and having to deal with those issues.

But we need those decisions to be made around infrastructure, and they didn’t do it. They sat on their hands for five years and just gave money away, and we’re paying the price now.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): I’m delighted to take a call on the Prime Minister’s statement and to follow the list member in Hamilton there. But I was trying to understand his speech. He spent about four minutes talking about the Labour Party. He seems to be transfixed with what we’re doing over here in terms of our Government.

Now, if you go back about six weeks, the Opposition were feeling a little bit cocky, really. They were feeling a little bit cocky—they were. They were thinking, “We’re going to win this election.”, but a lot can change in a few weeks, can’t it? A lot can change in a few weeks. We have a new Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. We have his statement here, which we’re debating today, and the Opposition are quaking in their boots, and you can tell what’s going on there. They’re either obsessed with the Labour Party, or they’re starting to get a little bit worried—they’re a bit quiet, asking, “What’s going on here?”

So I’m going to talk about some of the things that our Government has delivered. The electorate know that we have a leader who is capable of leading New Zealand. They’re not sure yet about the Opposition’s leader. They’re still having a look at it, and the Opposition members—I think they’re starting to think, “Hmm, is he the right person?”, and they’re starting to sharpen the knives in those back rooms. But the Opposition will do what they do. We’re going to focus on what we’re doing as a Government, which is delivering for New Zealanders.

I’m going to talk about Hamilton as well—as well as the previous member there—and I would like to acknowledge the Hon David Bennett for his service to Hamilton, and I’d like to acknowledge the new member, Tama Potaka. Welcome—welcome to this House, sir. Hamilton will be New Zealand’s second-biggest city at some point in the future. We have an opportunity to grow well and it’s important that we make the right decisions now and that we make the right investments now in order to grow well, and I do partly agree with the previous member. We do need to take a long-term approach, with Governments working together on key infrastructure projects, and we have seen examples of that in terms of the Waikato Expressway, in terms of the Te Awa Cycleway, which is a 60-kilometre cycleway between Cambridge and Ngāruawāhia.

So a couple of key transport aspects: the Te Huia passenger rail, which, Mr Speaker, is very popular and if you haven’t tried it, I certainly welcome you and all members of this House to come up and have a look at the inter-regional rail. We are the envy of many other regions in New Zealand in terms of having an inter-regional passenger rail service. We used to have a lot of these across the country, but various Governments, for whatever reason, decided to move away and focus simply on only roads. Now, roads play a key role in our transport system, and we acknowledge that, but we do need a multimodal, diverse transport system. The Te Huia passenger rail service, which has been delivered by this Government, is certainly the envy of many other nations, and we’ll continue to grow and improve that service between Auckland and Hamilton.

Other Government investment in the region includes the Ruakura Inland Port: $57 million from this Government. Now, the “golden triangle”: we recently heard from the member for Tauranga here this afternoon, and he spoke about what’s happening in that area. But also I’d like to acknowledge that “golden triangle” aspect, the Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga segment—half of New Zealand’s population, half of New Zealand’s GDP—and the Government recognises and acknowledges that and are investing in that. The Ruakura Inland Port is a $3 billion inland port and logistics centre that this Government is proud to invest in.

I’ll mention a couple of other investments in the last minute. The Waikato Regional Theatre: $13 million from this Government. The 1,300 seat theatre will be the best theatre in Australasia, and, again, I welcome others to come and enjoy that. The Pan-Pacific Hub: $8 million from this Government. It’s the first of its kind, and I see members nodding who were there at the opening. The first of its kind in New Zealand in terms of a Pacific fale.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where did the Government get the money?

JAMIE STRANGE: $8 million from this Government, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Eh?

JAMIE STRANGE: $8 million. The IAF, or the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: $150 million—the largest investment of any city, even more than Auckland. So I am pleased as a local MP in Hamilton that this Government is investing in the regions of New Zealand and, in terms of the “golden triangle”, in Hamilton in particular. Thank you.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always an honour and a privilege to stand as the member for the Ōtaki electorate—my first for this year—and to support the Prime Minister’s statement. But first, if I can also acknowledge, like others have in the House today, the passing of Georgina Beyer—definitely a wāhine toa, and a trailblazer. Not only did I get to hear her talk around her advocacy and staunchness for women, for takutāpui, for Māori and for human rights I also need to acknowledge that she whakapapas to my rohe as Ngāti Raukawa with Ngāti Tukorehe, so moe mai rā rangatira.

I want to make one more acknowledgment: Margaret Hayward, who is sitting in the gallery today. It is International Women’s Day, so poignant that I acknowledge Georgina Beyer’s passing, but also poignant that I acknowledge Margaret Hayward who is the first ever woman private sec in New Zealand, under the Kirk Government. So welcome back, Margaret, and she is sitting with Dr Ian Scott—the first openly gay candidate back in the 1980s. So thank you for coming. Kia ora.

I grew up in Levin in an ex-State house. My mum, when she came to New Zealand from our farm in Samoa, was a cleaner and a seamstress, and when she had us, she had to quit work to stay home and look after us because mum and dad couldn’t afford the childcare. Labour have changed that now so we make it much more accessible, however dad was our sole income earner and he worked at Kimberley Centre.

We didn’t have a lot of money, we didn’t have a lot of material things, but we had an abundance of love, so I was very loved and very lucky that way. We know the cost of living was real then, and it’s real now. Our Prime Minister gets this—he gets it—and so that is why, in his Prime Minister’s statement, he said we are focused on targeting support for working families and the cost of living. Our Prime Minister and the Labour Government understand that to get through hard times you need to support everyone. You need to make sure that you look after everyone, your whole community, all New Zealanders—not just a select few—and that is what we do on this side of the House, and that is what we will continue to do under our Prime Minister’s leadership and this Labour Government.

Part of doing that is to continue the winter energy payment, something that this Labour Government also initiated in 2018. We know and we saw the need then and we see the need now to continue this initiative. When I worked as a case manager and I would have our superannuitants or our pensioners come in and speak to me when this initiative came in by this Government, they said to me, prior to that, they would have to sit in the cold with a blanket because they were too scared to run their heating, not knowing if they could afford it. Now, with the winter energy payment, thanks to this Labour Government, they are able to have a little bit more in their kitty to be able to run their heating and know they will be able to pay that heating bill. We know, with the cost of living, this is still true now as it was then, and that is why we are committed to continue this great support for our elderly and our most vulnerable communities—just another way we are helping people get through those cold winter months here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Likewise, another Government initiative we have done in terms of our cost of living or helping New Zealanders through is the free lunches in schools initiative, just to help to ease some of those costs and pressures on some of our whānau. Having been a board of trustee member, and also having three children myself, food takes a big chunk of my budget—always has—and I’ve heard from these teachers and from these whānau what a difference this has made to their budget. Some people are saving up to $50 in their family budget. But, for the teachers, they talk about how now these kids are focused on their learning instead of being focused on their hungry tummies. This is another initiative, along with things like our school donations scheme that we put in place, and also our free period products in schools. So no longer is it that if you can’t afford a period product and you have your period, you can’t go to school. No longer is it that you can’t afford lunch, so you can’t go to school. No longer is that you can’t afford the school fees so you can’t go to school.

We understand the need. Cost of living is true as it was when I was a kid or even an adult, true it is now. We have a Prime Minister who understands that—a real understanding. We have a Government and we have a leadership team that understands that. We will continue these initiatives and that’s why I support the statement.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call tonight on the Prime Minister’s statement, and, like other members in the House, may I begin by acknowledging the three former members who have passed recently. I do want to just pay particular note of Chester Borrows, actually, who I first met as a young activist around 15 years ago, when the section 59 law change was happening. I just want to particularly acknowledge the principled way that he approached that law change and how much I valued the small time I got to spend with him. Our thoughts go to the friends and family of all of the former members who have passed recently.

Like many members as well, I’d like to also acknowledge the impact of Cyclone Gabrielle on our friends in the Hawke’s Bay, in the Coromandel, in Northland, and in other parts of the North Island. In Nelson, we understand the impact of severe weather events only too well. Recently, we’ve had flooding, and about two or three years prior, we had severe fires in the region. But what we’ve seen through Cyclone Gabrielle is another whole scale of natural disaster. It’s had a whole other level of impact on the community and on the land. We, as a Government, are committed to supporting the region to rebuild, to get through this, and also to learn from our rebuild of this area and what that may mean for other parts of New Zealand, particularly as we adapt to the significant impacts of climate change.

Can I acknowledge civil defence, the National Emergency Management Agency, all of the first responders, the firefighters, all of our health workers, all of the volunteers, our marae, and everyone who has been involved in responding to the situation in the North Island.

I am proud to be the member of Parliament for Nelson in a strong Labour Government, and we are supporting New Zealand families and businesses through difficult economic conditions. We’re continuing to invest in healthcare, education, transport, and infrastructure projects so that we have a strong economy that supports good quality, well-paid jobs.

Today is International Women’s Day. We, as a Government, have a commitment to addressing pay equity issues. We are lifting up wages and incomes for our lowest-paid workers, many of whom are women. We are taking other steps as well to address cost of living challenges and the economic pressures that families and individuals face.

Two particular initiatives I want to mention today. One is our move to increase the dental emergency grant from $300 to $1,000. A couple of weeks ago, I was at an event in Nelson and I spoke to some dentists who told me that they are seeing an immediate impact from the increase in that grant. They can do more dental work, they are able to support people better, and they’re seeing better outcomes for people who need support with emergency and immediate dental treatment.

The other big policy that we’ve introduced that will be significant for many people in my electorate is the introduction of fair pay agreements. I do want to acknowledge FIRST Union, who I used to work for, who have initiated for a fair payment for supermarket workers. It’s something I’ve been advocating for a very long time. It’s something I’ve been advocating for for a very long time so that we can have an increase in wages for the workers who work at profitable supermarkets around New Zealand, but many of them are on the minimum wage and deserve to be paid properly.

We have a number of significant investments and projects in Nelson that have been worked on over the last couple of years but that are continuing to be rolled out, and I want to mention a few of those tonight. The most exciting of all of them is the investment in the new Nelson Hospital. Nelson Hospital is earthquake-prone. It’s very well known that it is earthquake-prone, and when one of our former health Ministers, Dr David Clark, did a stocktake of hospital buildings across the country, it was found to be the most severe in terms of the state of it and the need for it to be significantly rebuilt. It will be the biggest capital project in a generation. It will employ thousands of locals and people from around New Zealand.

Last year, we secured the first piece of funding in Budget 2022 as part of the Government’s $1.3 billion spend last year in capital infrastructure in health. We will be seeing over the next few years the rebuilds of Nelson hospital and the removal of the George Manson block, which is earthquake prone. As part of that, we will have a new energy centre, which will replace the outdated coal burner, which is something that members of that Nelson community have been pushing for for a number of years, so I’m very excited about this project.

What’s coming this year—which is very exciting—is on 1 July, we will finally have some significant improvements in public transport in Nelson. When I moved to Nelson 14 years ago as student president, I discovered that many of our students were unable to catch public transport into the polytechnic and were using their own vehicles at significant cost and having trouble finding car parking and also contributing to congestion in Nelson. We have been advocating for improved public transport in Nelson for a significant period of time, and I’m very excited about the changes that are coming. We will be increasing the frequency of public transport in Nelson, which is the biggest barrier for people to use it.

Whenever I have posted about our half-price public transport fares, that response, right back, is that people want to see more buses, and it would be easier for them to use those buses. In fact, Nelson City Council’s own survey have found that 60 percent of people would use public transport more if it came more frequently. We will be having buses to Motueka at only $6 each way, and $4 if you use your Bee Card. So it will be very affordable for people to be able to take the bus from Motueka, which is normally a 30- to 40-minute car drive. We will have a bus to the airport, which people have been asking for for a long time. The buses will all be electric, and Nelson-Tasman will have the biggest regional electric bus fleet in New Zealand. These changes are coming on 1 July, people are excited about them, and I look forward to those changes.

We have been investing in public housing and community housing in Nelson. Kāinga Ora have announced 18 more homes in Richmond this year, which is an area with a low number of public houses. Kāinga Ora have purchased the former Masonic lodge on Nile St, where they’re building another 15 to 25 houses. We are upgrading former Nelson City Council flats in Stoke and Tahunanui, and the people living in those flats have told me that their health has improved as a result of the improved insulation and upgrades of those homes.

Through the sale of those homes from Nelson City Council to Kāinga Ora, Nelson City Council is investing in community housing with organisations like the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust. Habitat for Humanity is building homes using our progress homeownership fund. We are investing in an affordable housing fund in Nelson. Finally, $35 million is being given to Nelson City Council for our infrastructure acceleration fund so that people who want to build up in Nelson, which is desperately needed, will be able to do that and increase the number of people living in our inner city so that inner-city Nelson can thrive.

I want to finish by just making some quick notes about climate change. Last week, I joined the students of Nelson who participated in the School Strike 4 Climate in Nelson. Climate change continues to be the most serious threat to our globe today. New Zealand must play our part to reduce emissions, not only for ourselves but for the world and particularly for our neighbours in the Pacific who are most vulnerable to climate change events.

Last year, the Government—and I want to acknowledge climate change Minister James Shaw—released the climate adaptation plan. This is timely, given the issues we are facing across New Zealand, particularly in the Hawke’s Bay, but we are facing it in Nelson too. We will have to make some hard decisions at times about where we can develop, where we may need to retreat from. What is important is that we do that under a proper framework with proper consideration to the criteria for that happening and that local communities can make those decisions under a national framework.

I will finish by acknowledging our new Prime Minister and our new Ministers, who, alongside the rest of the Labour Government, are working hard to both address the issues of the day like Cyclone Gabrielle and like the cost of living challenges we face, while continuing our work to lay the foundations for New Zealand’s future. I commend the Prime Minister’s statement to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the House for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t often get a go in one of these debates. It’s a long time. I can’t remember the last one. I might have written this speech for it. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, which wasn’t really a statement about the future, actually; more a statement about the dreadful effects of Cyclone Gabrielle—and of course that was very appropriate; I bet there won’t be too many Gabrielles born in the next year or two in the Hawke’s Bay!

Before I get into what I wanted to talk about, I wanted to acknowledge the three former members of the House who have passed away in the past week. I know that everyone else has done this, as well. But a person that I considered a friend was Chester Borrows, and certainly my neighbouring MP—he had a wonderful send-off. I suppose if you can have a wonderful send-off that’s great, but you don’t really want to have it when you’re 65. Paul East, another lovely man and a person I had a great deal of respect for. And Georgina Beyer, who served as a mayor as I did at the same time, and the interesting discussions I often had with Georgina when the meetings got a little boring—we’d be out the back doing nefarious things, and she was a very interesting person. She was also a very courageous New Zealander and I did enjoy my association with her in her time as the mayor.

Like so many other New Zealanders, I have family members living in the affected areas of New Zealand—those areas affected significantly by Cyclone Gabrielle. I know many of those not affected physically in those areas will feel a sense of sort of helplessness, of guilt, and won’t really know what they can do to help. That’s a very challenging thing for a community where you’ve got one half of the community badly affected by an event and the other half not affected at all. So I think it’s going to take some time for that to resolve itself.

From experience of the Manawatū floods of 2004, all I can say is that money is required above all else. Time will also be required to establish how best to provide personal assistance where that can best be used. I think the other thing that’s very challenging for these regions at times like this is the mass of people and a surplus of donations arriving in those areas and then needing to be dealt with. It’s a very challenging thing for those areas that suffer from those floods.

The statement I was particularly interested in the Prime Minister making was that we’ll build back better. Well, from experience, that too is a problem, as we need the roads reopened and the houses, where possible, rebuilt as quickly as we can. “Build back better” is really a play on words and cannot occur without much planning and a look into the future, which historically we’ve been very bad at in New Zealand. This is yet another lesson for us; we’ve had plenty in the past, and our ability to build back better has not been great.

We now have the third iteration of this Labour Government—and I’ll explain why in a minute—and to date, all it’s done is cancel most of the work of the second version. And, of course, the first one did nothing to cancel. I’ve even heard from one of the members opposite that this is now called the “Hipkins Government”—hence my reference to the third iteration; maybe they want to cancel their association with Labour as well!

The extraordinary events of the past few weeks on the East Coast, Auckland, Coromandel, and Northland, and, actually, in some parts of my region as well, where the Pohangina River and the Ōroua River, carrying that Hawke’s Bay rain out to sea, have done an extraordinary amount of damage to a number of properties on the border of those. In fact, the damage there is as significant as it was in 2004.

The real challenges facing New Zealand are our economy, the rising interest rates—and our climate change response, I think, is also an issue that we need to debate as a Parliament and politicians, in the next year or so. Rising interest rates may well dampen house prices and some of the discretionary spend but it also dampens economic growth and our productivity as businesses no longer develop new, innovative products—or take risks, for that matter—unemployment rises, and recession sets in. Not an ideal cycle for a country aspiring to higher productivity and salaries.

Our response to climate change is an area I want to spend a minute or so on. I’ll start with an example from the past, and that was our response to land damaged by Cyclone Bola. Randomly planting pine trees to stabilise land has proved to be no answer. Randomly planting pine trees to offset carbon credits equally is no answer. It’s my view that we need to have a significant review of where we’re at with this business. Obviously, the review into woody debris in the Gisborne region is welcome, and there will be much-needed work to do as a result of that to decide just how we deal with this in the future. It’s a significant issue for New Zealand.

We live in challenging times, and challenging brains will be needed to resolve some of the issues that we’ve got in the next short while. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak to the Prime Minister’s statement. Of course I’m in support of the motion that was the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, but I do wish to dwell, as others have too, on the very serious situation that faces our country in relation to Cyclone Gabrielle. Of course, it is not for the part of the world that I’m lucky enough to represent the first time, even within that particular month, that severe weather, and flooding in particular, had devastated the households and businesses of many constituents, nor would it prove the last—even, again, within the space of a month.

I acknowledge those who have lost dwellings, businesses, stock on the land, the use of the land for horticulture, farming, and other primary industry activities. As others have done, from the Prime Minister onwards, I acknowledge too the loss of life. I’m particularly thinking of those two firefighters in Muriwai, with whom I have had the fortune of interacting a little bit, in the case of one family in particular. I acknowledge that whole community. They face considerable uncertainty at an individual household level; the suburb—the community, indeed, as a whole—as well. So please know, to residents of Muriwai and surrounding areas who may be watching, that I will work tirelessly, as will others in this House—and I acknowledge that I’ve been able to do that in concert with some Labour Party members of this House as well—to ensure that as much certainty can be brought to your situation as possible, as soon as possible.

In addition to our brave, heroic volunteer firefighters, I wish to acknowledge, as always, the police, the coastguard, St John, Surf Life Saving, and other first responders. We are indebted to them even in the best of times, and these have not been the best of times. I acknowledge too those who set up evacuation centres in West Auckland, in the rural north of Auckland, and everywhere in between—and further afield, too, of course, but those were the centres that I visited and became quite familiar with a number of individuals who led those so well. Others have, rightly, acknowledged individuals by name, and I would be remiss if I were not to acknowledge not only those who attended and set those up in an official capacity but also those who attended out of the goodness of their heart and simply were there to provide comfort to fellow human beings in their hour of need, from the very first night of that first round of flooding onwards.

I was very struck by a particular meeting that I attended in Helensville that was a group of volunteers: the local school principal of Helensville Primary, there were representatives of local iwi, the church in which the meeting was taking place, various community workers, representatives of organisations—for example, Kindred Family Services. I was particularly struck by the introduction of a lady who said, with all due modesty, that she had only relatively recently arrived in that place to do the work that the others were doing to coordinate a community response. She had to be prompted by other members of the group, the informal gathering, to acknowledge that, actually, the reason that she’d only been involved in the last 24 hours was because she had been out from the very start providing emergency services in her capacity as a volunteer firefighter. That spirit of self-sacrifice and also modesty and concern for others ahead of self has characterised the response in this part of the world. As I say, that is the wonderful electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi, which I’m privileged to represent, but also, as I say, I know others in this House would say that of other parts of the country, too. So I acknowledge and thank you all.

Much needs to happen in that part of the world, whether it’s Muriwai facing the uncertainty as to their very existence as a community in that place, along with other beach communities—and I acknowledge the member of Parliament for New Lynn in that connection—the rural north, suffering ongoing issues with power, road access; the rural areas and the use of the land that they have traditionally been able to enjoy for their own benefit and the benefit of all of “New Zealand Inc.”, as we say; and those who have suffered ongoing and repeated flood damage in north-west Auckland and West Auckland particular.

We commit to support the Government in the work that they will do to improve that situation. If there are shortfalls in that response, we will hold them to account, and following mid-October, whichever Government is in place at that time, again we will support and work hard to those ends to support those people of New Zealand in my electorate.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise as the final speaker in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. It is true; we’ve heard many, many statements from people across the House. It’s been a long debate but a very thoughtful one, and I want to acknowledge the thoughtful responses that many have had.

It’s an unusual time that we have all had, and I just really want to acknowledge the handing over of the baton from the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern to our new Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, at a most extraordinary time. I want to acknowledge that because I think, on International Women’s Day, it’s useful for us as members to reflect on what it is like to be a woman in this Parliament, and that is all I would like to say on that matter. However, I do want to acknowledge today is International Women’s Day.

Before I begin my substantive speech, I’d also like to add my voice to giving the condolences for the three previous Parliament members who have passed away. So for Chester Borrows, for Paul East, and for Georgina Beyer, I do want to acknowledge their loss. I’d also just like to say, on a footnote for Georgina Beyer—that I met Georgina when I was a very young radical at university in the early 1990s. Hard to believe, yes, I know—in the 1990s. She was incredible and courageous and exceptional, and gave me some courage around some of the things that we tried to do in student union. I have continued to admire her for many years, and particularly when I was campaigning around prostitute law reform—I remember the most exceptional speech that she made here in this House. I knew, on that day, that I was on the right side of the decision to fight for the rights of prostitutes.

With that, I also want to acknowledge—it’s one of those unusual times, isn’t it, around all this sadness and difficulty? But I do want to acknowledge the devastation from the Auckland Anniversary weekend flooding, Cyclone Gabrielle, and I want to add my condolences, again, as other members in the House have done, for all the lives that have been lost, the devastation of marae, of homes, of livelihood, of crops and of stock, and just the general sense of chaos that has occurred from these weather events.

The Bay of Plenty electorate, the community I serve, suffered a series of localised events. A bridge washed out in Te Puke, and we’ve put a Bailey bridge in to make sure that that community is now able to be reached—the No. 4 Road up Te Puke. We had a log train derail, and it was very significant but very localised. And then we had the houses red-stickered in Maungatapu, which is part of the Bay of Plenty electorate. I was able to visit Egret Avenue in Maungatapu with the Prime Minister recently, and I met the family who was, frankly, so very lucky not to be killed in the landslide that wiped out their house while they slept. Honestly—and I said to them, “It sounds like it was a miracle that you were not all killed.” Their story is chilling, and I cannot begin to understand how difficult it must be for your families, but my thoughts are with them.

I’m also the buddy MP—or, I provide Labour MP support—into the Coromandel electorate, and I acknowledge that even this week parts of that community continue to suffer from adverse weather events. Even this week, State Highway 25 was again closed due to washouts and slips over the last few days. We had thunder bursts occur over the weekend. Everything is so very wet, down came the road again. And so we continue as Government to offer on-the-ground help, Waka Kotahi solutions—and re-solutions, and re-solutions, because the road keeps disappearing—and support to the Coromandel.

We continue to accelerate our economic recovery and lay the foundation for the future while, at the same time, providing the financial, community-led, and practical solutions for those affected. Todd Muller, the MP for Bay of Plenty, during his address in reply speech, said that the Labour Government had done nothing for our community, and I want to refute that. I want to talk a little bit—and it’s a bit of a long list, so I’ll just speed up my language. I want to refute that our Government has done nothing for our community.

We have funded $655 million into the Takitimu north link, to help our community grow sustainably and support productivity. There was never a funded solution from the National Party. There was no Cabinet decision and there was no money put in. We have put that money in. We have fed 2,914 students at 12 schools, to support kids learning. We have funded the underpass in the Bay Link project to ensure our community can safely cross Maunganui Road. We’ve topped up funds for the new Pāpāmoa Surf Lifesaving Club and funded the Port of Tauranga Rescue Centre, a hub for the 19 Surf Lifesaving clubs in the eastern region—and how important is that going to be, going forward? There are 16,727 schoolkids and their families who have benefited from the removal of school donations. There is $17.9 million for the rapid hospital improvements to add more ICU beds, a high-dependency unit, and a coronary care unit. There is $20.5 million to reduce kerbside waste in our city, and it has massively reduced our landfill. There is a net increase of 244 social houses, compared to a net loss of 980 houses under National.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: 980?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Yes, 980. And we funded environmental training cadetship programmes and youth programmes.

I just want to talk very quickly on the infrastructure accelerated fund (IAF) that sits in our city as well. It will unlock major transport and water upgrades in priority growth areas, including public, affordable, and market housing. In the wider Bay of Plenty, from the IAF there has been $80 million provided to provide around 2,000 homes in Tauriko West. There is $67.9 million into Te Papa Peninsula, which is Cameron Road, which is expected to enable 16,000 homes. Rotorua has received $84.6 million, which is expected to enable 3,080 homes. And Ōmokoroa has received $38 million to enable 2,580 homes. Out of all of New Zealand’s public housing stock, this Labour Government has delivered nearly one in seven of them. Let me say that again: out of all of New Zealand’s public housing stock, this Labour Government, in the last five years, has delivered nearly one in seven of them.

We are doing plenty. We are definitely continuing to do plenty also. We will keep cracking, as our Prime Minister has said. We will build back better. We will invest in our people, our places, and our future.

Rachel Brooking: Low emissions.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Low emissions, yes.

Finally, I chair the Social Services and Community Committee, and this Government has consistently put children and families at the heart of our work. I’ve got 38 seconds to read this—I’ll summarise, Mr Speaker. We have taken action across the main costs New Zealand families face: groceries, transport, housing, health, and education. We’ve introduced the winter energy payment and increased main benefits, the family tax credit, the student allowance, the accommodation supplement. Low-income New Zealanders have access to increased support for dental costs. I’m out of time, but I have to say the $1,000 special needs grant for dental costs will transform—

SPEAKER: The member’s time is expired. There are two minutes left in this debate for any member who hasn’t spoken to seek the call.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Tēnā tātou. E te Kaiārahi, tēnā koe, pō manahau ki a tātou katoa. E tika ana te tautoko i ngā poroaki o te wā ki ngā mate o te wā me ngā mihi ngā iwi e pēhia ana i te tāruke a Tāwhirimātea.

Ka nui hoki te whakamīharo ki te rongo ki ngā kōrero nunui pahupahu, roroa hoki e pā ana ki te whakatau a te Pirīmia. Ka pai hoki kei te mihi hoki ki ngā whakaaro katoa ahakoa tautoko au, kāore au i te tautoko, e mihi ana. He mana nui tō te tūranga Pirīmia, te tūranga Pirīmia me tōna tinana hou e whakakī nei i ērā hū nui. Nā reira, e mihi ana ki a ia engari, tāku e whakatūpato ana i tēnei wā.

Me āta whakaarohia ētahi o ngā mahi e whai kaha ana te Kāwanatanga ā te marama me te tau te tū nei. Ki tō mātou te rahinga me te nuinga o ngā tāngata e noho ana ki Kirikiriroa ki te Uru, e rua ngā kaupapa matua e pāngia ki a ngāi mātou o Kirikiriroa ki te Uru.

Tuatahi, ko te utu oranga, te utu ora rānei, kātahi. Koirā e whakatāmi nei, e kaha nei ki te āta whakapēhi i ngā whānau o Kirikiriroa ki te Uru. Ehara i te kaupapa poka noa, hanganoa, koretake noa rānei, engari koirā tētahi o ngā mānuka, wero, take nunui o te wā.

Tuarua, ko te mahi hangarau koirā ētahi o ngā tāngata e whai hikareti ana, e whai moni ana ki ngā toa me ngā rārangi toa o Kirikiriroa ki te Uru. Ki a au nei, me tahuri te kei o te waka o te taukī a te Pirīmia ki ngā whānau e pēhia ana e ēnei take e rua o te wā.Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings one and all. To the Speaker, greetings and a good evening to everyone. It is appropriate at this time to farewell the dead of this time and acknowledge the people badly affected by the high winds, Cyclone Gabrielle.

It is amazing to hear the many comments and the lengthy banter related to the Prime Minister’s statement. It is good, and I also acknowledge all the ideas. Whether I support them or not, I acknowledge them. The role of Prime Minister holds much prestige and the new Prime Minister has huge shoes to fill. And so, I acknowledge him, but with a caveat at this time.

We must carefully think about the work that the Government is ardently pursuing in the coming month and year. For many of us, including the majority of residents in Hamilton West, there are two main issues affecting us in Hamilton West.

Firstly, the cost of living. That is putting pressure on and strongly impacting the families of Hamilton West. It is not a random, inconsequential, or unimportant issue. It is one of the major current challenges.

Secondly, there is the criminal activity by those seeking cigarettes and cash from the shops and rows of shops in Hamilton West. To me, we must change direction of the Prime Minister’s statement to address the families impacted by these two current issues. Greetings, one and all.]

SPEAKER: Nō reira, kua pau te wā mō tēnei kōrerorero.

[Therefore, we have used the time allotted for this discussion.]

A party vote was called for on the question, That the words after “That” be deleted and are replaced with “this House has no confidence in this Government, which is known for three things: wasteful spending, an inability to get things done, and for building bureaucracies instead of improving front-line outcomes for New Zealanders.”

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 76

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House express its confidence in the Government and commend its programme for 2023 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 46

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Service Commission

Membership

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, Tangi Utikere be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission.

It’s been agreed by the Business Committee that this will be the only speech on this motion. Its purpose is to briefly explain the process behind the appointment. The Parliamentary Service Commission was created by the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 to be the main source of advice to the Speaker on the nature of services to be provided to the House and its members, and on directions relating to the allocation and administration of funding. The membership of the commission is determined by the Act. It consists of the Speaker, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition or their nominee, and an additional member of each party represented in the House, nominated by motion—but no Minister can be nominated as one of these additional members. By convention, the second representative of the leading Government party is the senior whip, which brings me to the nomination of Tangi Utikere.

Tangi was elected as the member of Parliament for Palmerston North in 2020, but he had a life prior to that. He served a term as the Deputy Mayor of Palmerston North, a job highly sought after across the land, and one that he fulfilled to a very, very high standard. As his colleagues can attest, his experience as a teacher at Freyberg High School certainly comes in handy in the role of Government whip, as I’m sure the Opposition whips would indicate too. He has already proved himself in the role to be effective and efficient—and efficient and efficient!—and he is a person who has shown that not only through his role as a whip but also in his chairpersonship of the Health Committee.

I was informed earlier today of two things about Mr Utikere that I didn’t know. The first of those is that he is a marriage celebrant. So should there be anyone around the place looking for somebody to do that for them, I’m sure Tangi would be very, very obliging in that regard. The second was from an informant who shall remain unnamed, Rachel Boyack, who attended Ross Intermediate School in Palmerston North with Mr Utikere several years ago—we won’t say how many that was—who informs me that her memory of Mr Utikere was that he was “The one who was always called up to thank the visitors who came to the school.” And that, fellow members of Parliament, tells you all you need to know about the kind of person that Tangi Utikere is. He will be a valuable source of wisdom and advice as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission, and I commend this motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2).

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 DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

The second reading of the bill is, of course, on the form of the bill that reflects the changes that have been recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee following public submissions, as well as a small number of other changes that were included as raised by officials. The main provision in this bill, other than the setting of annual rates, is addressing a gap in the GST treatment of the platform economy—that is, services where an app on a phone or a computer is used by a customer to order, for example, a driver who provides ride sharing, or the app is used to hire a holiday home from a host. Of course, members will know that the services that are provided are being provided in New Zealand, they’re being paid for by a New Zealand customer, they’re being delivered by a New Zealander, but because technically some of those transactions can be, through the platform, said to be contracted outside of New Zealand notionally, they do not attract GST according to current rules.

The OECD recognises this is an issue of global concern, and it’s leading a multilateral effort to assist it. So the bill does this by requiring digital platforms to collect and return GST on the supply of those services, like ride sharing and short-stay accommodation. Not implementing rules like this would mean that New Zealand - based competitors are at a disadvantage against those who are providing services through apps. Now, in New Zealand, GST applies to almost all goods and services supplied in New Zealand. It’s what makes it simple and fair and efficient, and it’s impossible to justify why GST shouldn’t be charged on holiday accommodation or ride-share services where their competitors are paying GST. It’s one of the reasons why submitters like Hospitality New Zealand submitted in favour of this bill—as did the New Zealand Taxi Federation.

I’m not the first to make comments to that effect, and I’m going to make some quotes made earlier. This is a quote from Nicola Willis on 1 September 2002: “It’s about fairness, ensuring motels are treated the same as Airbnb and Ubers are treated the same as taxis.” This is exactly what Nicola Willis said then but has now resiled from. I would quote the former revenue Minister Todd McClay, who in 2015—when National introduced GST on online services which became known as the “Netflix tax”—said that the bill was “about creating a level playing field for collecting GST and putting New Zealand businesses and jobs ahead of the interests of overseas suppliers.” And then, in May 2016, the former revenue Minister the Hon Michael Woodhouse said, “Currently New Zealand providers are at an unfair disadvantage because they must apply GST to their services, whereas overseas providers do not. This creates an unfair playing field which this legislation will eliminate.”

Those were all valid comments then, and they remain valid now. There’s been a bit of misinformation parleyed about, including by members of the National Party who claim that this is going to result in a 15 percent increase in cost to those providers and that this will then cause an increase in prices of 15 percent. They’re wrong for a number of reasons. A credit is given for the GST inputs that are on average incurred by an Uber driver, for example, so they get, effectively, a notional refund paid through their platform supplier of 8.5c of that 15c in the dollar, so you’re left with 6.5c, so the maximum increase in price there could be, but for competition issues, would be 6.5 percent. But even so, many of the competitors of these providers of services are already paying GST, so they’re not going to be putting up their prices, and they will grab market share from—you know, the motels will do a bit better than the Airbnb person if the Airbnb person tried to put up their price in response to this issue. In fact, the distortion that we have currently is the exclusion of those platform services to the likes of Airbnb and Uber that currently avoid GST.

There are some other changes that are made to this bill, including reporting obligations. There has been a call from some people to say that there should be a delay in those reporting rules. I’m advised by the ministry that because other countries are already in accordance with these OECD requests for imposing similar obligations, if New Zealand doesn’t require this, we’ll be creating complexity for New Zealand - based platform operators that, instead of returning this information to the Inland Revenue in New Zealand, would have the more complicated obligation of returning that sort of information in Canada or the United Kingdom, for example.

There have been some other changes recommended by the select committee in terms of some fine changes to the—to the change in the rule. Sorry, I was tongue-tied there. Another change in the bill is to remove fringe benefit tax (FBT) from public transport fares that are reimbursed by an employer. At the moment, you don’t charge FBT on a car park, but you do charge FBT on a bus fare, and that’s obviously distortionary. There have been requests to include the total mobility scheme in the proposed exemption. The select committee recommends that we do that. We think that that’s a good change. We also are confirming that on-demand services are covered by the proposed exemption. These are increasingly offered by public transport providers in areas of lower demand. It’s booked rather than provided on a set timetable, so we’re making those changes too. We’re also making some changes to address concerns about compliance and cash-flow problems for certain cross-border employers in respect of their fringe benefits and employer superannuation contributions. This proposal was intended to clarify who should have those obligations where a person works remotely from New Zealand for a non-resident employer which does not have a presence in New Zealand. To address this, the bill now proposes that the tax obligation should rest with the employer in the first instance, supported by a mutual agreement clause whereby the employee could take on that liability.

These are some of the adjustments and additions to the bill. They are in response to public feedback and consideration of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Can I thank the committee for their careful consideration of the bill and resulting improvements. I’d also like to thank the policy officials and drafters for bringing the bill to the House for its second reading, and I look forward to hearing the contortions and somersaults that we hear from the Opposition who were about to reverse their position from earlier positions in respect of GST. I find it so hard to accept that they would undermine the core principles of the GST Act and ignore the OECD advice to this country, which over the years I have heard them espouse as being worthy to follow.

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

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): This bill is just the latest in the Government’s assaults on New Zealanders’ wallets. Here we stand, in a cost of living crisis with inflation at a 32-year high, with prices at the supermarket, at the petrol pump, and rents, mortgages—all going up, up, up. New Zealanders’ real wages declining, their household budgets under strain, and what does the “Minister for KiwiSaver Taxes” get up and do? He does a David Parker—he does a Minister David Parker and tries to explain away why New Zealanders should feed this Government’s addiction to spending with yet another rapacious set of new taxes.

Here, on this side of the House, we say, “Actually, it’s time to give New Zealanders back more of their own money.” You know, the big thing the Minister didn’t talk about in his speech is the rates for income taxation that are set down in this bill, because the real missed opportunity today was the opportunity for the Government to adjust tax brackets for all of the inflation that is occurring in our economy. Because not only are they letting inflation rob New Zealanders’ back pocket once, they’re doing it twice: first, when the prices go up, and, second, by allowing the tax man, allowing the IRD to claw in ever more tax from New Zealanders as they are pushed by inflation into higher tax brackets. But not a word from Minister Parker about that.

Let me set the stage. Tax revenue under Labour: it is up $43 billion a year. Now, that is a number so big that very few can conceptualise it, so let me break it down for you. That number is the equivalent of $17,500 per New Zealand household. That’s how much more tax the Government is taking.

You know, I had this conversation with a woman the other day. She said, “You know, if really what they’d done was they’d ensured that everyone was really well educated, that the waiting times in the emergency rooms were down, that there was more elective surgery, that the environment was being looked after better—hell, if they’d done that hundred thousand KiwiBuild houses—then maybe people would understand why the tax take is so astronomically higher.”

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Can you table that conversation? Can you table the record of that, or do we just make it up?

NICOLA WILLIS: But the reality is—Deborah Russell, and you know it—the results and the outcomes for the spending are not there. So New Zealanders have an absolute right to say, “Why do you keep taking more money from me?”

So National says we cannot support a bill that fails, once again, to adjust tax brackets for inflation. We have put forward a detailed proposal, and it would ensure that a New Zealander earning $55,000 a year is $800 a year better off. David Parker will never do that, because, actually, what Labour have shown is that they believe that they can spend New Zealanders’ money better than they can. We saw that, didn’t we? We saw that with the original guise of this bill, which included a brand new tax which I recall David Parker justifying in very similar terms to those that he just used to justify this bill now. Somehow, it was OK for this Government to be wiping literally billions off the KiwiSaver accounts of New Zealanders because they felt the urge for a bit more tax. We’ve still got the Auckland regional fuel tax adding a tax burden to New Zealanders. We’ve still got, according to the passionate speeches from Grant Robertson in question time today, the prospect of a jobs tax that will also tax New Zealanders.

But I want to come now to something else in this bill, and I want to correct the record that David Parker tried to create. Because what he has said is that what he is doing with the “app tax” is somehow completely in line with the way that we have treated GST in this country historically.

Hon Stuart Nash: It absolutely is, Nicola Willis. It absolutely is—as a former Minister of Revenue, it absolutely is.

NICOLA WILLIS: Shame on him, and shame on you, Minister Nash, for trying to pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes, because we know, on both sides of this House—

Hon Stuart Nash: It’s about fairness.

NICOLA WILLIS: —that a core aspect of the fairness of the GST regime—which I believe in; I believe in fairness—has always been that if you earn under $60,000 for your sale of goods or services, then you are exempt from GST.

Hon Stuart Nash: You can get a rebate back—you get to rebate back. Come on, Nicola. Don’t be dishonest.

NICOLA WILLIS: So I want to help Mr Nash understand this—he’s confused. I want him to imagine a market, and in this market, there are several sellers, and each of them are selling, maybe, $2,000 worth of goods, $10,000 worth of good there. Overall, that entire market is selling $70,000 worth of goods. Now, what Mr Nash thinks is that means everyone should have to pay GST. We say no. The exact same principle applies to digital apps. Why should it be that the Zoomy driver who has a side-hustle, trying to keep up with the cost of living under this rapacious Government, decides he wants to earn a little bit more on the side—why is it that the members opposite think he should be slapped with a full GST even though he may only be earning $20,000 or $30,000 a year. They’re changing the rules to suit themselves because they are addicted to spending and they want more tax revenue. They are, in the words of the New Zealand Law Society, embarking on “a significant deviation to the orthodox GST treatment of services in New Zealand.” That is what they are doing.

I want them to correct the other bit of the record. We had Minister Parker saying that I was wrong to suggest that this cost would end up being paid by everyday New Zealanders when they get their Delivereasy on a Saturday night, when they catch a Zoomy somewhere, when they get an Airbnb from someone who, by the way, on average, only sells $5,600 worth of Airbnb nights in a year—he said, “Look, none of this is going to get passed onwards to that effect.”

Actually, it’s about time he listened to some of the thousands of officials in his own department, the Inland Revenue. Here is what the Inland Revenue said in the regulatory impact statement for this bill. They said, explicitly, “If GST is required to be collected by digital platforms on these services, … this will be passed on fully to consumers. This will increase the cost to consumers of purchases made through digital platforms by up to 15 percent.” Now, Minister Parker, you would do well to listen to these officials. I would warn New Zealanders that that Minister, who was prepared to stand up today and mislead, I believe, in some ways—pardon me, Madam Speaker—who was prepared to stand up and make claims about this bill which seem to be contradicted by the facts, is the man in charge of revenue in this country.

I’m worried about what comes next because, right now, there’s a little unit down in IRD—it’s the Piketty unit. It’s David Parker’s little hobby project to see what new ways he can dream up to take more tax from New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Actually look at what people pay in tax in this country.

NICOLA WILLIS: Not content with tenant taxes, the removal of interest deductibility that Dr Russell, his Associate Minister, knows was a very bad idea from the minute it was introduced—she knows it. Not content with doing that, and not content with adding to the price of rent for New Zealand tenants, not content with the proposal for a KiwiSaver tax, not content with the idea that a wealth tax may or may not be on the table depending on which Minister is standing up on the day, he is working away on new taxes.

In that sense, I just want to finish on this note from the bill which is pointing to something I find deeply ironic, which is what is called the “Build-to-rent exemption from interest limitation”—as if, for once in their lives, the members opposite think someone shouldn’t have to pay more tax. Well, let’s be clear: it’s not really an exemption, is it, when actually the orthodox tax treatment for all rental properties for many, many decades has been that everyone can deduct their interest. So, actually, that was the status quo, then Labour came in with their rapacious addiction to spending and they said, “We’re going to slap tax on everyone. Who cares if the tenants are paying more rent? Who cares if the emergency housing motels are overflowing in Hawke’s Bay? Who cares if the State house waiting list is four times longer than it ever was under National? We’ll just keep slapping those taxes down. But, don’t worry, there’s a build-to-rent exemption.” [Interruption] Well, if members are so enthusiastic about build-to-rent, I would recommend to them that they pick up our build-to-rent bill which would also exempt build-to-rent housing from the overseas investment restrictions which they are very clear is going to prevent it happening under this particular Labour regime.

So National opposes this bill—it is yet another assault on New Zealanders’ wallets during the cost of living crisis. It fails to reduce income taxes—that is very overdue—it represents a new assault on wallets in the form of the “app tax”, it is an unprincipled bill, a missed opportunity. We oppose.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Associate Minister of Revenue): It was astonishing to listen to those 10 minutes of what can only be described as naive hyperbole from the deputy leader of the National Party—“naive” because it doesn’t understand what is actually going on; “hyperbole” because the words used were absurd and ridiculous. It does make me wonder, though—it does make me wonder—why the Opposition never lets their spokesperson for revenue have the first go at tax Acts. Instead, he gets relegated down the list, not allowed to talk. If I was the spokesperson for revenue over on the Opposition side, I’d be quite upset about that. That might be worth getting hyperbolic about.

Let’s start with the amount of tax revenue under Labour, and this is where the naivety comes through. The deputy leader of the National Party—their finance spokesperson, not their revenue spokesperson—was quite naive in talking about what taxes are coming in to our coffers, to everyone’s coffers, to the country’s coffers during this period, and gave us some raw numbers—raw numbers that were not adjusted for the size of the economy; raw numbers that were just in dollars. But let’s talk about what the tax take actually is in this country, and the fact is that under Labour it’s gone up and down a little bit, but it hovers around about 30, 31 percent of GDP. There has been no particular change in the level of the tax take when you look at it in terms of the percentage of GDP. That’s because under this Government, we have had a thriving economy that is characterised by growth. So we need to move beyond the raw numbers and look at tax as a percentage of GDP.

But where I really want to take this is to talk a little bit about the platform tax, and here, again, the deputy leader of the National Party showed just how naive she is—just how naive she is. The world has changed—the world has changed. Modes of business that existed 20 years ago have changed, and, in particular, we now have new modes of business that are created and enabled by the internet, by the apps on our phones. We have new ways of doing business and the old tax system no longer fits them. We actually need to change our tax system so that it works with the new ways of business instead of just naively pretending we can carry on as we did before, and that is exactly what this work around the taxation of adding GST to platforms is actually doing.

Now, it’s not only that the new ways of doing business have grown, but, in fact, those ways of doing business have themselves changed. Think a little bit about when Uber first arrived in this country, or when Airbnb first arrived. When Airbnb first arrived in this country, it was about from time to time maybe renting out a spare room in your house so that someone else could use it for a weekend in the big city or a weekend in the country. But over time, that has changed. The way that Airbnb operates now is that often it is the whole house that is permanently operated as an Airbnb. It is not simply just one room in a house. It is not simply just an occasional thing; it is an ongoing, regular business.

The same thing with Uber: it was promoted as a ride share, but we know that the way that Uber operates now is an ongoing daily business activity for many, many people. It’s not just an occasional ride share. That was the way it was first set up, but Uber itself has changed, and in response to that we need to change the tax system.

And, in particular, we need to change it because the way the taxation system works at the moment, motel owners are at a disadvantage. Why? Because they have to charge GST, but people who operate through the Airbnb platform do not. The way we have the tax system set up now, people who operate a taxi have to charge GST, but people who operate an Uber do not. We need to find a way to make it fairer. So what we have done is introduce a way of accounting for the taxes on businesses that operate through a platform like Airbnb, like Uber. Those platforms will now charge 15 percent GST, collect the GST, pay it over.

And it does make a difference. So here’s the difference that goes on with respect to some people who are GST-registered, if a business is already GST-registered. Now, let’s remember: any business can be GST-registered as long as they are carrying on a continuous or regular service providing goods and services for consideration to another person—that’s the way we determine whether someone can be registered for GST. Any business can register for GST if they meet those criteria. Businesses who have a turnover over $60,000 must register for GST—they must register for GST, and it’s an important thing. So if those businesses who are operating through the Airbnb platform, who are operating through Uber, are already GST-registered, they are already charging GST, they’re set up for it, they can work with the platform and the platform doesn’t charge GST on the services that that GST-registered business provides.

If, however, a business is not GST-registered, then in order to ensure that Airbnbs, that Ubers, that other businesses like that operate in the same mode and are subject to the same conditions as other businesses—like motels, like taxis—from now on, the platform will collect 15 percent GST on top of the services.

But here’s something that the Leader of the Opposition—sorry, the deputy leader; it gets hard to tell which is which sometimes—got wrong: she said a Zoomy driver will be hit with the full 15 percent GST. That is simply not the case, and I direct the members of the Opposition opposite, just over there—I direct the deputy leader of the National Party, I direct whichever ACT Party member is going to speak on this—to page 75. And, in particular, I direct you to section 20(3N) of clause 116, and that tells you something quite special: that in recognition of the costs that the supplier bears, on which they pay GST, they get 8.5c of every 15c of GST back. It functions exactly the way that a GST-registered person can get a credit for the GST input tax they pay—it functions exactly that way. So they get 57 percent of every bit of GST charged back. They get it back, and I direct your attention to that clause because it’s very important. So, like anyone who is GST-registered, they get a credit for the input taxes they have paid. It’s a really straightforward—it’s sitting in there.

And if you ask why 8.5c, it’s because when IRD looked at the numbers, looked at what GST-registered businesses were paying, what GST they were collecting, what they were claiming back, it turned out to be about 8.5c of every 15c of GST they were claiming back in input tax deductions. So the Zoomy driver does not get the full impact of the GST—get it right. That’s all I can say, is “Get it right”.

I think, sadly, I’m running out of time. So I just want to end on a simple point: what we had from the deputy leader of the National Party was scaremongering on taxation. The tired, familiar old mantra from the Opposition, which goes “Taxes bad. Taxes bad.”

Let me talk of some of the good things that taxes pay for. Taxes pay for education. Taxes pay for health. Taxes pay for welfare. Taxes pay for the roads we drive on. Taxes pay for the judges and for the legal system. Taxes pay for so many of the good things that we provide to our community because that way we are all better off. It’s a simple thought: taxation is the price of civilisation, and all of us ought to be glad to pay our taxes because that is what we do to create a civilised society and to create a society in which every person is cherished. I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Are we done? Are we done?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you—I was waiting for my turn. It is a pleasure to be talking on this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2), second reading.

Well, there you have it. There you have it. What do you use taxes for? Well yes, you do use them for health and education—that’s right. But you also use them for the consultants to advise you on a broadcasting merger, three waters disaster—what else are we going to talk about? Even today, we had the New Zealand Productivity Commission before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Small entity, $5 million turnover, and guess what? They spent $883,000—nearly one-fifth of their budget—on consultants. This is the party, and now we’ve got organisations just addicted to this type of stuff.

So that comment about “Is it great to tax?”, yes, it is great to tax for the right reasons. But the reason is you’ve got to have a meaningful purpose and you don’t waste other people’s money. Unfortunately, we’ve got a Government that never regards other people’s money as something you shouldn’t waste; they think about inventing new ways of spending it, and that’s what we’ve seen.

But I’m so glad I had to sit and listen to Dr Deborah Russell, because I always enjoy her lectures.

Hon Stuart Nash: Did you learn something?

ANDREW BAYLY: I did, Mr Nash. A thought did cross my mind about her students. I now realise how students benefit from her lofty ideals and good, thought-through elucidation of the tax system—I thought it was intriguing. I loved the line about the deputy leader of the National Party using raw numbers. Of course, we’re starting to talk about proportionality.

Of course, we had a Minister of Education today talking about proportionality. Now, I’m not bad with numbers—I’m not fantastic, but I’m not bad—but even I was struggling to understand what the dickens she was talking about. And here we are, we’ve got Dr Deborah Russell talking about—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): You know, if the member wouldn’t mind—getting slightly carried away. The member will come back to the bill, please. Passing reference to some other matter, yes. But back to the bill. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you. So the raw data she thought was pretty unsophisticated. Well actually, from my recollection, the $43 billion that my good colleague Nicola Willis referred to came out of the Budget documents. So I actually think it’s not a bad source, Mr David Parker. I’m sure you’d even agree with that.

But the issue is $43 billion of additional spending—per annum, by the way; that’s the increase: it’s not over the period, the increase now is $43 billion this year—the impact of that $17,500 per family. New Zealand families, on average, are sending $17,500 more to the Government in terms of paying more tax.

And I just had a thought: “I wonder what I could do with $17,500?” So I’ve just been looking here and I thought about, “What would Mr Nash want to do with $17,500?” So I thought, “Well, maybe I’ll have a look at cars.” So the first car I looked at, I thought, “Maybe Mr Nash would go for a sporty coupe type.” I thought, “What could you buy for $17,500?” I reckon Mr Nash would look really smart, with his wife, in a 2019 Ford Focus—that’s the one that James Bond used to drive. And I thought, “How would you feel about 71,000 on the clock? That’s not a bad little number.” It’s not a bad offering—if I had $17,500 and was a family, actually I wouldn’t go amiss with that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Actually, he wouldn’t be seen dead in a Ford Focus.

ANDREW BAYLY: Oh yeah, well then I thought, “He might be a bit more conservative.” So I thought, “What would he do if he bought a sedan?” So what about, Mr Nash, a 2014 Honda hybrid—and it says, “Very, very good condition.” I’ve just got to get the name here—oh yeah, 2014 Honda Grace hybrid. And I thought that would be very good.

So when Dr Deborah Russell is saying, “It’s ordinary facts and don’t worry about it; we’ve all got to pay our fair share of tax.” The implication for New Zealand families is that they’re now paying the Government $17,500 more than what they ought to have, and what they would have, and what they will have if they elect National in the next coming election, because we are going to reverse the thresholds and, of course, this bill does no such thing.

On those grounds alone, we oppose this bill. Because we want to make sure New Zealanders are better off, and when you think about our tax proposals—to take everyone’s tax bill; what they might have been paying back in 2017 when this Labour Government came to power and what they’re paying today: that is worth about $1,700 per family. Of course, following Christopher Luxon’s great announcement over the weekend about the early education rebate—it’s $75 a week, that’s $3,900. That’s $5,500 that a family in New Zealand with children will be better off, and that’s why this bill is wrong—because it’s enshrining this avalanche of new taxes.

Now, talking about avalanches of new taxes: of course, we’ve been talking about the “app tax”. It’s a bit of a worry, this, because the context—contrary to what Dr Deborah Russell was talking about—is that this is a very new proposal. Basically, it’s only come in in about four or five jurisdictions, and whilst the EU is also looking at it—that is true to say—New Zealand is at the forefront of bringing in this new piece of legislation. One of the things we kept asking officials is “Why do we have to be at the forefront? Why does New Zealand have to be at the forefront?”

Anna Lorck: Why not?

ANDREW BAYLY: There we are, it’s a new piece of legislation, and of course one of the quick reasons we shouldn’t be at the forefront—just responding to Anna Lorck’s question—is that a number of the operators will have problems complying with this requirement. Because little old New Zealand doesn’t actually rank highly in terms of all their systems and changes they’re going to have to look at around the world. Contrary to what many people in the Labour Party think, little old New Zealand’s probably 0.1 percent of their turnover, and therefore the requirement to do this—but also the rules are very new. And the OECD has been working on this for quite some time, and they’ve only basically come to some conclusions around it. And yet this Government has chosen to just jump ahead with this proposal.

And there is some caution about that; there is some caution why we need to be at the forefront because IRD has certain priorities and I know that Mr David Parker, the revenue Minister, has had them going down blind alleyways to do stuff around their tax policy for the next election cycle around trusts, etc. But, actually, we want the IRD to be focusing on good stuff: compliance, hidden economy, actually making sure that New Zealanders are paying their fair share of tax. But no, what we’ve ended up has been diverted into this “app tax”. And there are real risks around this, and of course what my good colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse continuously tried to point out to Dr Deborah Russell was that there is a rule that you do not have to pay GST below the threshold of $60,000—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Don’t have to return.

ANDREW BAYLY: Don’t have to return. Now, commonly we heard quotes about taxi drivers. Actually, when I rang the New Zealand Taxi Federation, in the main they all earn more than $60,000 so they have to pay GST. The average value on Airbnb, which we heard, is $5,600. So this is a tax that’s going to chase people who want to go away for a holiday in January, February, or Easter coming up, or whatever it might be, and they will now have to pay more for their bach or for Uber or whatever they want to do—because of the introduction of this. And it will be a serious increase in the cost; even the officials said that it’d likely lead to a 15 percent increase.

Hon David Parker: No, they didn’t.

ANDREW BAYLY: I know there’s an argument about the “net off”. I understand that, but the officials said that, and that is what it will ultimately mean for New Zealand families going away—once this comes into play next year, Mr Parker, that they will be paying more for that bach than they would have this year, and that is a problem in a cost of living crisis in New Zealand largely made up of the Labour Government’s proliferate spending habits.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2).

I’m a new member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I want to acknowledge the previous committee members the Hon Barbara Edmonds, Glen Bennett, and Helen White, who were all involved in hearing the submissions on this bill. There were 813 submissions and 24 oral submissions. There was, of course, advice from Inland Revenue and the Regulations Review Committee—great committee, which I may have been on at that time. We had an independent reviewer as well, who was very helpful for what is a very technical bill that changes a lot of different pieces of legislation. Of course, we also had the Office of the Clerk and, as always, the Parliamentary Counsel Office. So I want to thank them for their work. As you will have noted from the speeches tonight, it’s a very engaged select committee.

There have been many amendments to this bill, but not to the annual rates and income tax. So the amendments are to the tax settings. As I mentioned before, the bill is omnibus with amendments to eight different Acts, five of which have “tax” somewhere in their title, but one of them is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and I want to get to that change.

And that is, one of the changes in this is about the build-to-rent exemption from interest limitation. The interest limitation rules prevent property investors from writing off mortgage interest as an expense when paying tax, but there were exemptions when this law came into effect from 2021. There are exemptions for new buildings for 20 years when the owner lives in them. So the logic behind this exemption is to incentivise new buildings. We need more dwellings in New Zealand, so that’s a good thing. But it is linked to ownership, so that doesn’t really work for rentals. So this bill provides an exemption for build-to-rent dwellings that meet an asset class definition, and it goes in perpetuity. So the bill as introduced required, via the definition of build-to-rent land, 20 dwellings on contiguous land. This requirement for the land to be contiguous was considered via submissions, and the select committee has removed that requirement for that land to be contiguous.

There were further small changes from the select committee around this enabling of the build-to-rent exemption. One of those changes is at clause 183(2B), inserting new clause 39C, and that enables the commissioner to share taxpayer information with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The submitters also raised an inconsistency with the Residential Tenancies Act definition of “fixed-term tenancy” not including a tenancy that is terminated by notice. The inconsistency here is that the build-to-rent definition that’s in this bill does allow for a 56-day notice by tenants. So there is now, in this legislation, an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act to incorporate this build-to-rent definition. Scope issues around that did go to the Business Committee.

This bill overall produces a more coherent and fair tax system and it includes encouragement as well as wanting to provide more houses and having the exception on the build-to-rent—houses for people to rent in long-term secure tenancies, that is. Also, there’s the changes to the fringe benefit tax that the Minister touched on, as well, that will allow other modes of transport other than vehicles—so public transport—to get that. And also the changes that the select committee made extend that to a total mobility scheme. So I’m proud to commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. The Green Party supports most of this bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2).

I just want to talk about one area where I think there’s still a huge opportunity to get a much better outcome from this bill. I’d like to really focus on that particular aspect of the bill in this speech. One of the reasons it’s a major focus is because we actually received a huge number of submissions on this at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—over 400 submissions. Some of these were from regional councils, regional councillors, people who are working in businesses, and even some tax specialists, but literally hundreds of people wrote in submissions, asking that fringe benefit tax also be exempted from other vehicles like bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, e-scooters, and sharing services that might be used for commuting purposes. Currently, the bill does not do that. The bill does exempt public transport passes from fringe benefit tax, which is a welcome change that starts to reduce the distortion to travel choice that currently exists in our fringe benefit tax system, but it doesn’t go all the way. This is a simple change that the Government could make that would make it easier for employers to provide support and incentives for sustainable commuting modes that, right now, currently, fringe benefit tax is a barrier to.

Before I even came to this House, I worked as a transport planner and I worked for an engineering consultancy that was then Sinclair Knight Merz, and it was later acquired by Jacobs. One of my first jobs when I was still a student planner there was to chair the internal environmental committee. What we were trying to do was do everything we could within the business to make our business more sustainable. One of the key things that was driving pollution and congestion was the way that people got to work. But what we found quite quickly—and this was back in 2007 and 2008—was that, as an employer, if they were to try and take steps to incentivise people to bike to work or to take public transport, it was a problem because they would have to pay fringe benefit tax on these incentives. Of course, that created huge distortion because there is no fringe benefit tax charged on employer-provided carparks, which are often worth as much as an annual public transport pass, and a good deal more than a push bike, probably about the same amount as a reasonably priced e-bike. So there is this distortion in the system.

The New Zealand Transport Agency published a research report back in 2012 that actually analysed and went into quite a bit of detail about how the fringe benefit tax system was unintentionally subsidising car trips for commuting to work. That creates congestion because, of course, what is the main driver of peak congestion? It’s the trip to school and the trip to work combined, basically. So here we are, trying to deal with high levels of congestion at some certain times of day. That’s a public cost that we have to deal with infrastructure and services to try and combat that. There’s more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from cars at the moment. And there’s just all sorts of health benefits and wider public benefits from people being able to get to work by public transport or by bike. But the system is currently unfair as it’s set up.

The problems with our high reliance on private cars for travel to work have been noted in the two most recent OECD reviews of New Zealand that I looked up. The one in 2017, an environmental review, identified transport as an area where New Zealand is lagging behind and needs to do more to achieve “coherent pricing of externalities”. They particularly noted investment and support to increase low-carbon travel by public and active transport—cycling, scooting, etc.—was recommended. Similarly, in the most recent 2022 OECD economic survey, they identified that environmental taxation can be used to reduce externalities related to road transport.

Now, the problem with the advice that we get from the IRD is that—you know, they’re always like, “Oh, but we just need this pure, simple tax system that is as simple and transparent as possible.” It’s basically their religion. I mean, I’d like to know what happens when someone gets hired by the IRD. They must be, like, sat in a room with this sort of drilled into them because they repeat it at just like such a deep level—they really believe it. The simplicity of our tax system; we’re the envy of the whole world. I tell you what, we’re really not, because if you look at the OECD economic survey, it says that we’re really lagging behind because we’re not using our tax system to get better environmental outcomes. You just can’t reconcile why IRD is saying—with that recommendation from the OECD, the world’s most preeminent body on economic research and analysis, of which New Zealand is a member. So you can tell I find it a little bit frustrating when I hear that line, because it has to be taken as an article of faith that you believe a simple tax system is more important than one that gets better outcomes that the public wants.

I personally hold that we should use our tax system in ways to get to the outcomes that we want as a public. This would be a very simple change that would cost New Zealand nothing, that would enable those employers who want to—and those employees who want to—benefit from incentivising bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, and possibly e-scooter sharing services for a commute to work. There’d be huge benefits in our town centres. One thing that I think the committee really missed out on is that not everyone can take public transport. You know, public transport doesn’t exist as a viable means of commute in many parts of New Zealand. So we haven’t really rectified the current distortion simply by exempting public transport passes from fringe benefit tax. Extending it to e-bikes, scooters, and sharing schemes that are primarily used for commuting purposes would enable that choice to available for people who don’t have public transport services, or those who, unfortunately, live in places like Wellington and Auckland, where, in theory, there are public transport services, but the buses are regularly cancelled. So it’s not very reliable at the moment.

Just a few more things I’ll say about this, which is that the United Kingdom has an incredibly successful scheme like this called the cycle to work scheme. The studies have shown that they have had huge uptake—you know, the benefits massively outweigh the cost, there are over a million users that have used it, a 91 percent increase in bike journeys over 10 years. Canada and many other countries have similar sorts of tax breaks for sustainable transport, and that includes cycling. At the moment, with the popularity in e-bikes, this would be a simple move the Government could take that would enable support for e-bikes, to make it a little more accessible for people because there is a high upfront cost to them that can put people off. But, in fact, it would help with cost of living for those people because it would mean they wouldn’t have to pay for petrol, they wouldn’t have to pay for parking, not to mention that we have these enormous public health benefits which benefit our whole health system because people who bike to work or walk to work are much less likely to get cancer and be hospitalised for a whole range of reasons—it adds to their quality of life.

Now, I know people in this House think this is a weird fringe issue, but I really would ask members in the House to consider supporting my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which I will be putting forward in the committee stages, to extend this exemption to e-bikes and bikes, as over 400 submitters called for at the select committee. I would think that it would be something that all parties could agree on, since the ACT Party and the National Party are complaining the Government has too many taxes and too much red tape. Here’s a perfect example of a tax and red tape that we could get rid of, which would help support better outcomes for the climate. I know the National Party does not have any proposals to do anything about climate change. Maybe they would consider a tax break for sustainable transport as something they could consider. I definitely think the Labour Party should consider it because the Labour Party is, at the moment, the Labour Government, and is actually doing nothing to support sustainable transport while they’re spending over $1 billion subsidising cost of fuels, unfortunately, in the name of cost of living. It’s a short-term measure to cut petrol tax; it’s a long-term measure to allow people the incentive of getting an e-bike, which then saves them having to rely on petrol for many, many years.

So that’s the opportunity we have before us, members. Please support my SOP at committee stages.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. To my colleague Julie Anne Genter, that is a good phrase that “the Labour Party’s doing nothing.” So that should stir the loins of everybody up. The actual remedial bill has three main purposes. First, it seeks to improve the current tax settings by ensuring that current tax rules are working as intended. The bill, though, also seeks to modernise the current tax settings regarding Inland Revenue’s administration of GST, KiwiSaver and social policy rules. Finally, the bill would set the annual rates from income tax for the 2022/23 tax year and has to be passed by the end of March or no income tax can be collected.

So we oppose this bill in its entirety. The bill still roots us back in the lower quartile of the OECD with regards to tax on a per capita, per GDP basis, and you can still see and feel the sucking sound of money being taken from hard-working people in New Zealand and deposited in the Treasury vaults or at the IRD. So, you know, this bill is a classic fix up job. It hasn’t allowed for adequate consultation. There’s some poor policy decisions in here. ACT will be very strong in its future negotiations in Government with regards to the interest deductibility change; the brightline test being abolished, even though our partners in National can’t see that as being something they’d even bother writing about in the alternative opinion to this bill. We trust that the distortions that this tax bill has caused to the mums’ and dads’ property market has been devastating throughout New Zealand, and for anybody who is trying to get on in this country, you can see that taxation is more important than revenue and the country only works if it’s got revenue.

So we see this as a regressive tax package; it doesn’t drive productivity or growth. It continues to place our country in a place where a young person would want to get on a plane to Australia and make a better living. The tax bill also contains a proposal to give build-to-rent dwellings an exemption from the interest limitation rules for residential property, introduced in October 2021. The intent of this proposed exemption is to ensure that the interest rate limitation rules do not disincentivise investment in build-to-rent properties. Owners’ intentions are paramount to a stable housing market around long-term tenancy and new stock. So ACT will be lodging a Supplementary Order Paper, under the name of Brooke van Velden, to the committee of the whole House to adjust all amendments made in the bill which exempt build-to-rent residential properties from interest deductible limitations to all residential properties from interest deductibility limitations.

I’d also like to point out to our National colleagues that the Labour Party, technically, has presented an argument tonight around the GST collection on apps. Technically it’s sound, however it’s bad timing; it’s not going to come into law unless the Labour Party win the election, which is up for grabs and not likely, and it really means that people now have to make hundreds of thousands or million-dollar investments in platforms that they don’t even know whether they’ll be using come Christmas-time this year. Classically, we’re bowing to the OECD and we’re bowing to external forces to run our country on a GST basis.

So you’ve seen it from the National Party—let’s reverse this—but, you know, people are asking me, sitting in taxis at Wellington Airport and Auckland Airport, “Are the National Party in the back pocket of big American companies? Do they want to give preferential terms and rates to Airbnb or Uber?” Because a lot of local business people who drive a taxi or run accommodation are getting crucified. I’ve had emails today from mums and dads—Vanessa and Nigel, who own a bed and breakfast in Napier, who are absolutely passionate about trying to get to the bottom of this. And this is where the problem is: there’s a rule for the big people and then there’s a rule that can’t be applied for the small mum and dad operators in this country, and we’ve got to get real that New Zealand—that’s how people make a living, locally. They are worried about the impact on international tourism. They don’t know what apps are. They don’t know how they apply these things but the big companies do. So I would argue that the National Party needs to go back and think this through because, ironically, in 2016, they supported the charging of GST on Netflix, which—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yeah, Netflix is a billion-dollar company.

DAMIEN SMITH: So is Uber and so is Airbnb. And so the big American companies are competing with our local businesses, Mr Woodhouse. So I’m just making the point of, historically, that was the policy platform that you guys had sorted out. So to call it an unfair tax on the people of New Zealand—it’s a GST tax. People are asking me, if they’ve got their own businesses, “Oh, that’s good. Can the National Party give us our GST back and then come and buy our services as well?” So, you know, there’s a bit of confusion there on the other side of the House, and it’s not just about apps and your food coming on a Saturday night, which we all enjoy, of course. But, you know, the committee needs to actually think about—in a cost of living crisis, this is just a bad look, in terms of charging services. But there has to be a level playing field, and that is the argument that the Labour Party are purporting to get across to the House.

The new set of rules around sole business traders under a $60,000 threshold don’t have to charge GST on their services—the figure is correct; it’s about 8 percent, which will actually be the impact. So I don’t know if the spokesman for revenue for the National Party has looked at that, but, in terms of the red tape, it seems Uber will be required to hand back 8.5c of each 15c of GST they collect to host, and drivers, as a proxy for GST, would normally reclaim their costs if they were registered for GST. So that arrangement is relatively generous; that means that the Inland Revenue will only get 6.5 percent of each dollar spent on stays and rides by the ways of the sales tax.

So I just wanted to clear that up because there is some political uncertainty around that situation, and before we plough ahead and start building systems to comply, it would be good if Mr Parker could maybe differentiate between what is really mum and dad businesses and operators versus corporations and internet-based models. Because you can have an app-based platform if it is a purely internet-driven business, but if it’s a mum and dad operator who relies on a phone call or an email or a booking, that’s very difficult, and there should be some further differentiation in that system.

So we don’t want to be hostage to big American businesses. We want New Zealand locals to have a real input into this issue, and because of the nature of the introduction of the app platform after the election, maybe it’s something we should park and have another look at and get a cross-party support that helps people who want to earn some revenue to actually be sympathetically treated and not just corporatised or OECD-ised, but let’s put New Zealand first for a change and let’s get some sense back into this tax bill.

So next year, we hope to see a more progressive tax platform. We hope to see, from the ACT Party, people getting $2,200 in their back pocket and let them make their own decisions with regards to how they spend their revenue and to reduce the size of Government spending to allow them to make their decisions. They’re sitting at home tonight working through their books, cutting their cloth accordingly, and why shouldn’t Wellington, and this bureaucracy, be doing exactly the same thing in the backrooms of the Treasury. The Treasury still hasn’t reported back yet on the cyclone effect and the moneys that are needed for that, and we believe the Government has to find savings, and not just tax the future of our children and grandchildren or the existing people today. At the ACT Party, we’ve identified $9 billion worth of savings that can be easily achieved, and this tax bill should reflect this in the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d like to acknowledge the previous member, Damien Smith, for what, at times, was a helpful contribution, in terms of explaining with some clarity, at times, what this tax on Airbnb actually does. I’d really like to address my comments tonight to those families that do run Airbnb businesses to reassure them that a lot of what has been said in the House tonight hasn’t made a lot of sense, but that this is primarily about fairness—I know that most New Zealanders are really preoccupied with fairness and don’t mind paying their fair share—and actually that the impact of this tax will be nominal. It’s not actually them who is being taxed, it’s the platform—and I’ll get into that.

But also, I’d like to just look at whether the National Party, the Opposition, actually don’t understand the tax, which could be concluded from the comments tonight, or whether they are really trying to gain some political mileage out of something. I suspect it’s the latter, because there’s quite a track record of members across the House who’ve spoken tonight who have supported this particular tax but also supported what’s being called the “Netflix tax”, which operates on the same principle. You can’t have it both ways. The fairness is basically around distortion: either the market is distorted now or the market will be distorted if we bring this tax in. It’s very clear that the market is currently distorted, and what we are doing is recalibrating it to ensure that there is fairness in the market.

I’ll give you an example. It’s not fair that somebody who prepares a meal in a restaurant is charged GST on that, but the Uber driver who goes to deliver it is not charged GST. That is simply not fair. What we are trying to do is close a loophole that has come about because the world has changed, technology has changed, and there are ways of doing business now involving multinationals, involving local suppliers, that didn’t exist when GST first came in.

So the distortion is currently in the market, and I thank Damien Smith for pointing out some of the conversations he’s had with hospitality providers, with taxi drivers, who’ve said, “How come we have to pay GST and Uber don’t?” That is very much the case, and that is why Hospitality New Zealand has supported this bill.

In terms of the impact, it is a nominal impact, and that is because, let’s remember, not all Airbnb providers earn less than $60,000; there are many motels, many professionalised members of the tourism sector who are using these platforms who are currently not passing on the GST to the Government. All of these providers are called “underlying suppliers”. They continue to be zero-rated. So the equity in the tax system remains intact, it has integrity; the GST applies to the platform provider. These are the multinationals, these are the ones that Damien Smith spoke about, who have been taking revenue out of New Zealand, who are not paying their fair share currently. This is simply not fair to small businesses in New Zealand who are trying to compete with those international providers. They need to pay that GST and, as often happens with these laws, the net is either cast slightly too wide or slightly too narrowly, and then there has to be some compensation to try and calibrate it. The way that has been achieved with this legislation is to say that, for those earning under $60,000, the GST will continue to apply to the platform provider, and they will get the 8.5 percent rebate. That is how this works.

So it’s a small number of operators. I understand that they might feel concerned. There’s been a lot of information and misinformation and a little bit of hysteria about what this tax involves, but I can assure them that the distortion in the market is now, and what this tax is aiming to do is to create a level playing field. I think all New Zealanders want a level playing field, not only because it is fair, but because that is what makes our tax system robust, it’s what makes our economy robust, it’s what contributes to economic stability.

Then when I look at the National Party’s track record on tax there has been, of course—one policy, which I think they no longer subscribe to, which was around tax cuts for the rich. I’m glad to see that’s off the table—the same policy that was going to give a $2 a week tax break for the lowest-income workers. But the flip-flop they are doing now, I believe, is really a cheap political ploy. I know that the members opposite are far more astute than that. Nicola Willis on 21 September 2022 said, and I quote, “It’s about fairness, ensuring that motels are treated the same as Airbnb, and that Ubers are treated the same as taxis.” She went on to say, and I quote, “In the case of tax for Super, the status quo has been working for more than 15 years. In the case of Airbnb and Uber, these are new developments.” And yes, they are. That is why we have these new categories of suppliers that we need to take into account.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse, a quote from Hansard, 31 March 2016: “A strength of the New Zealand tax system is the fact that taxes are applied fairly and evenly, and there are very few exceptions.” He goes on, another time in Hansard, 3 May 2016: “The strength of our GST rules is that the tax is applied equally and with very few exceptions. This helps to ensure that the tax is fair, efficient, and simple.” And there are also quotations from the Hon Todd McClay and others. So it’s tempting to think that the members opposite don’t understand tax. I can understand why my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell might say so, herself being a tax expert; I’m sure she probably thinks that of many of us in the House. I give them more credit than that. I think that this is a cheap political ploy. They like to call it the “app tax”; it’s got a ring to it. They know as well as we do that this a fair tax that is correcting a market distortion and that this is going to serve small New Zealand businesses and make the big multinationals pay the GST that they should be. And so, I commend this bill to the House.

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

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to oppose the annual rates taxation bill, because I think this is a real missed opportunity. Now, we think Labour—on this side of the House, we can see that this Government is addicted to spending. My colleague Nicola Willis pointed out, quite rightly, that under this Government tax revenue has leapt up $43 billion in five years, and that is a staggering amount of money. To put it in a scale that we could probably better understand, that is $17,500 per household—a considerable amount of money, and we do this at a time when we’re in a cost of living crisis.

On this side of the House, we believe that New Zealanders should keep more of their hard-earned money because they are under intense pressure, and there was a real opportunity here to help address that. We’ve been saying that Kiwis deserve to keep more of their money, and this bill ignores the impact of inflation. What could’ve been done is what National has been proposing, to adjust income tax brackets. Now, that might not put a huge amount of money back in your pocket, but it is going to make a difference. So, for your average household out there, you’ve got mum and dad, or both parents, or both people, working, earning $120k a year. They would receive, under National’s income adjustment tax brackets, $1,700 more a year. If you add that on to our childcare policy that came out on Saturday—an excellent policy, I might say—that would or could deliver up to $3,900 a year, and that would give households $5,600 more a year, which is enormous when you consider that, under this Government, they are being taxed $17,500 more per household.

We have a Government over the other side of the House that is addicted to spending, and they’ve tried to sneak in an “app tax” here. They tried to put in a tax on your KiwiSaver, and I’m glad, thankful, that that has been walked back—somewhat humiliatingly walked back, but walking it back was the right solution. We had ute taxes, we had petrol taxes—the Auckland regional fuel tax is still in effect—taxes on your wages, and now they’re coming after your Ubers. I heard the comments from the member who spoke before me, Ingrid Leary—we know what this is going to do, and the advice given to the Minister is that this is going to be passed on to the consumer. We are already in a significantly inflationary environment, and this is only going to add further fuel to the fire. You know this—you know this. I know you know this, because your own officials have told you this.

We want to do things to make it a little bit easier for struggling Kiwis to meet the rapidly rising cost of living, but this is a further tax grab by the Government, and they’ve got more lined up as well—we know they do. We know the “jobs tax” has been parked, but if we are all unfortunate enough for you to win the next election, then it will be coming straight back in. We know it’ll be coming in hard.

We’ve got interest deductibility taxes—that didn’t help anyone. What’d that do? The same thing the officials told you it would do: it pushed up rents. That had a significant impact on people, and it’s probably one of the reasons why we have a significant increase in homelessness under your Government.

Now, let’s look at equity, because we’ve heard it mentioned. We want this to be an equitable system, and we already have an arrangement in place where, if you earn over $60,000 as a provider of goods or services, you will pay GST. Now, what this “app tax” does is it completely circumnavigates it and it applies it, as my colleague Nicola Willis said earlier, to anyone, no matter what they earn in that space. The New Zealand Law Society described these changes as representing “a significant deviation to the orthodox GST treatment of services supplied in New Zealand.” So if you want to talk about equity, then we can do that, but this isn’t an equitable tax. This bill is a missed opportunity, and we could so much better. I oppose this bill.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take an unexpected call on this bill tonight.

Look, there is a saying that goes “It’s important to be on the right side of history.” It’s important to look forward and say “Is this the right thing to do?” As a Government, we believe it is the right thing to do in terms of fairness. I’m disappointed to see the Opposition are opposing this bill.

Nicola Grigg: You’re leaving cos you saw the poll.

JAMIE STRANGE: Now, I’m sure that members, including the member opposite who’s being very vocal there—I’m sure that members have spent time in a taxi, often leaving Parliament on the way to the airport, and they’ve had a conversation similar to this. The conversation goes: “Back in 2016, the previous National Government, the Hon Simon Bridges, Minister of Transport, he allowed Uber to have free rein.” It sort of goes something like that. And then the taxi driver then goes on to say, “Look, you see, Uber don’t have to have these sort of regulations. They don’t have to have this, they don’t have to have that. They don’t pay tax.” Now, this conversation has come up many times and it’s always ended in the same way.

I think, deep down, the National Party regret giving Uber free rein back when they brought that in. I see the member Michael Woodhouse smiling, but I think deep down they know that they made a mistake. I believe they’re about to make a mistake again. It’s still not too late. It’s still not too late to quickly text Christopher Luxon and say, “Look, can we change our mind on this? We’re on the wrong side of history.” Maybe that’s for them to think about, but we are a Government who believe in fairness in the tax system. There is no doubt that there is a gap here in policy and we’re filling it. I commend this bill to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you. I just cannot trust the National Party on tax—I can’t—because when the National Party were pitching up that they were going to do tax cuts, when they were going to come in and win an election, and they said that they would cut tax—they came in, and guess what they did! What did they do? They increased GST. They said they weren’t going to, but they did. They increased GST to 15 percent.

They love tax. The National Government loved tax. They like to tax and tax and tax. They do tax, everything they say about trying to think—or any New Zealander who seems to want to believe that the National Government won’t tax you, the National Government will tax. Then they try and say that they are going to drop taxes, but they will drop taxes on the rich. Mark my words—mark my words—it will be tax, tax, tax by the National Government if they ever get in, because they want to make income, as well. Don’t sit across there and say that you don’t like to tax, because the National Government did tax. They said they weren’t going to increase GST, and, oh yes, they did; they put it up 2.5 percent—15 percent.

And they have the gall to turn around and think that they can take this “app tax” and not mention, not once, that there is a rebate—a rebate for those who are not registered for GST, who may b. & b. their family home or their bach. So it’s all talk from the National Party—it’s all talk because they seem to think that the people of New Zealand will believe them. But you cannot trust them. You cannot trust National ever when it comes to tax, because they are on the record, they said they wouldn’t increase tax, and lo and behold, the moment they got into Government that is exactly what they did.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! Would the member come back to this bill. Thank you.

ANNA LORCK: Yes, Madam Speaker. Well, we’re talking about tax, and I like talking about tax. I just want to say that when it comes to GST and the proportion of GST that should be paid by those overseas businesses that have apps and make money out of New Zealanders, they should contribute to the tax system.

But as I finish my speech, I just need to reiterate that you can’t say one thing and then do the other. When it comes to tax, the National Government loves it. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, the one really good thing about following Anna Lorck is that you could deliver the worst speech in 15 years and still sound better than that. It truly was the ramblings of a confused and tired member. As I say, it’s OK, Anna Lorck, you’ve only got seven months to go.

Now, I must say, when the Minister in his second reading speech referred to my time as the Minister of Revenue, I was having something of a flashback to meetings with IRD officials in the office of the Minister of Finance because he wanted to keep a weather eye on tax policy. So I as revenue Minister, and Bill English as finance Minister, would meet with tax officials and their policy people—of whom I have a very high regard, I must preface this story by saying—whom, every once and a while, would come up with a pretty wacky tax policy, to which Sir Bill would say, “Well, there’s a very good reason to cut the policy budget for the Inland Revenue Department.” The problem with the current Minister is that he’s never seen a bad idea on tax.

It’s interesting to reflect on the former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s commitment to the country that there’d be no new taxes in this term of Government—and, of course, Prime Minister Hipkins has reiterated this. What I think they really meant to say was we’re not going to invent a new tax category but we’re going to squeeze the hell out of the ones we’ve already got. The really sad thing about this tax is that it is really squeezing the stone.

Now, the Minister quoted—as did Ingrid Leary—comments that I made as Minister in 2016, and Todd McClay as well, when we were Ministers trying to actually create a framework for a modern economy. Both of them are sort of suggesting that my comments then were inconsistent with the National Party position now, and nothing could be further from the truth. What’s really inconsistent—and I would encourage Ingrid Leary to think more carefully about this—is to compare a multibillion-dollar company like Netflix with a University of Otago student that wants to make a little bit of money on the side part-time by delivering Uber Eats or the family in Mosgiel when Pink comes to the Forsyth Barr Stadium in 2024 who may be renting out their property through Airbnb to make a few dollars on the side. That’s the inconsistency.

Actually, if one reads the GST Act—and this is really sad because it was a Labour Government that brought the GST Act in in 1986, and they did it then—

Andrew Bayly: Were you there then?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, thankfully. That member’s older than I am; I’m not going to take that!

Anyway, one of the things that successive Governments have been very steadfast on—

Hon Member: You’ve just been to Mongolia and ridden on a horse.

Hon Member: You couldn’t tell by looking at him!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —boy, who needs enemies?—is that there is a complete consistency across all goods and services, with very few exceptions: exports, financial services, some residential rentals, but everything else has GST on it. In fact, you could argue that the services being offered in this bill actually do have an implied GST on it, because the Act actually says if GST is not mentioned, it’s deemed to be included in the price. But this Government has no problem completely mucking up a pure system.

One of the things that’s really sad, I think, and very concerning is that this could stifle innovation, because what we’re now going to have is a situation where if somebody does want to rent out their crib or their bach, and they put a sign up on the local dairy and they make a private arrangement with somebody who wants to rent the bach for a week, that’s not going to be subject to this regime. But if the very same transaction is conducted on an online app, just because it’s overseas-based, then they’re going to have to jump through this multitude of hoops, even if their total revenue annually is under $60,000. That’s wrong. It’s inconsistent with everything the Labour Party stood for when they introduced the GST Act in 1986 and have steadfastly followed, as Governments of both colours have done, not to meddle with the GST system. But, oh no, Minister Parker sees an opportunity and an IRD policy wonk has decided that this is the most efficient way to do it. Well, I strongly disagree with that from an efficiency perspective. But certainly, in principle, the consistent thing to do—and I respectfully disagree with Damien Smith—is that it doesn’t matter what the platform is, if the person offering the service has turnover of less than $60,000, they shouldn’t be treated inconsistently.

Now, there was no reference—and let’s get to the elephant in the room—by any member of the Labour Party in their second reading speeches about the real big thing this bill does, and that’s confirm rates of tax for yet another year. We know that inflation is the biggest tax of all, and yet this Government steadfastly refuses to increase the thresholds to adjust for the massive inflation that they have caused by their profligate spending, and that’s wrong.

I talked, I think in this bill last year, because, of course, we set tax rates every single year, about my previous role as a hospital manager, and the nurses when I left there 15 years ago would have to have been on the very, very top scale of the registered nursing pay scale or even a clinical nurse specialist or first-year charge nurse in order to be on the 30 percent tax bracket; now a second-year graduate doing a few weekend shifts and evening shifts will be on the 30 percent tax bracket. That’s wrong. That’s the thief of inflation. The only beneficiary of that is the Minister of Finance.

Shanan Halbert: Back to the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And that’s why—this is exactly in the bill, Shanan Halbert; we’re setting the annual rates of tax. God, somebody, I don’t know. This is exactly what we’re doing. In fact, it’s actually what we’re not doing. We’re not changing the thresholds through this bill in order that people can get to keep a little more of their money. The reason the Government won’t do that is they have a steadfast belief that they know how to spend Kiwis’ money better than Kiwis do.

Well, we’ve heard a lot about consultancy fees and contractors’ fees and billions being poured into health and education for poorer outcomes. I actually back New Zealanders to know how they should firstly keep and then spend or save their money. That’s where it comes from. No Government should take a single penny more than is required to deliver the public services—

Andrew Bayly: Not according to Dr Deborah Russell.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s exactly right, Mr Bayly. Well, I think we’re going to hear a lot more from those New Zealanders over the next few months about what they think about the quality of the spending that the rates of tax we are setting in this bill will generate, and it won’t be good.

Andrew Bayly: Maybe Shanan Halbert will.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, Shanan Halbert doesn’t even know what bill we’re debating, so I don’t actually think we’re going to get much of a quality contribution from that member. But that’s OK. It’s probably going to be a slightly tighter race, but I do also think he might be on a limited time span as well.

This is a really, really bad bill. It’s a sad day for Kiwis, who, as a consequence of this, are going to have inflation rob them and have tax rob them.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2). This is a bill that I sat in on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for, and I first of all want to just reach out and congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell on her promotion; she gave a good contribution on this bill. I also want to congratulate my friend the member for Tukituki, who I thought gave a very entertaining contribution and I enjoyed it a lot. But my job as the final speaker for the Government is really to give you a little bit of an overview about what this bill is about.

The first thing I want to do is object to the statement that was made that this Government has caused inflation. If you look around the world—if the ordinary New Zealander looks around the world they will see that that is just not correct. That is a cynical statement because the inflation that we are facing—the fact of the matter is we all really know that this is an international phenomenon and we’ve done damn well in the circumstances. Because we have had a pandemic and we have a war and we have all sorts of issues that caused this, and actually the Government is addressing those issues by making sure that people who need support get it.

That is being done because we have a healthy tax system, because we actually have kept a very even keel in this time, and we have taken actually no more than we’ve ever—we’ve always kept the promise about tax and this bill keeps that promise again. This bill is one where the tax rates don’t go up. They stay exactly where New Zealanders expect them to be. And so we can play all sorts of games about how terrible it is that Labour is not doing an adjustment on inflation, which, in fact, of course the National Government didn’t do. So we can do this kind of thing or we can play it straight. And if New Zealanders listening to this want to play it straight, they know that they’re not being taxed any more than they ever were, because this reinforces the same tax rates. So Labour has kept its promise.

It’s also managing to spend the money that’s coming in, in tax, on things that really, really matter to New Zealanders, like flood relief right now—targeted flood relief. I am very, very much in favour of careful spending and I am proud of the fact that when these floods have happened, when the cyclone has happened, we have been putting money into the right things and we are being very careful about making sure that we respond to the actual situation that is in place. Because one of the things that we have noticed is that it is not the same for everyone. The Labour Government are listening and actually people like the member for Tukituki are telling people in this Government—because they’re the members that are on the ground in those places that are most affected—exactly where that money needs to be spent, and it’s being spent there. And it’s being spent not out of magic but out of a fair tax system.

Now, the system hasn’t been entirely without its problems, and one of the problems it has had is it hasn’t been a level playing field between some people and others in our system. So people who have been engaged in platforms have actually had an advantage. It has not been fair on other people and I think most New Zealanders know that. I think Dr Deborah Russell was very reassuring in her comments that she made, just basically pointing out that when there is scaremongering it’s probably best to look at the detail, and actually the people who will be involved in incomes of under $60,000 can get a refund of 57 percent. So, again, there’s very much an eye to the detail and fairness that’s coming out.

One of the things I wanted to add to this debate was the issue with regard to information swap on these big digital platforms. That’s actually really important. It’s a swap of information between different countries in the OECD with similar rules. It means we get the tax that we need from our people who are overseas and it means they get the tax they need and we all know what’s actually going on. So we don’t have the development of an economy that is outside of our system, and everyone gets treated fairly. We live in the big wide world. Things are changing all the time. We need to be progressive about these things and this is going to address that.

Finally, I want to talk about build-to-rent, because it’s one of those things that I’m incredibly passionate about. So what I want to talk about is the fact that we actually, in this situation, have targeted the interest deductibility. What a damn good idea that was, because where do we want the houses built? What kind of houses do we want? Do we want people just going and buying their neighbour’s house, turning it into a rental, kicking out a person who could actually buy it? No, we don’t. We want them building houses and we want international money as well. I don’t think that that’s off the table, as was suggested by Nicola Willis. We want the big super fund. We want lots of people to come in who’ve got expertise in building long-term rentals. That is actually very important. That’s important to our economy and this targets those people and it makes it more attractive.

So this is a targeted interest deductibility; good! That means that when you are making an investment in a house and you want to do it as a rental, you really will put it into one of these kinds of establishments and we’ll have a lot more housing stock. I’m not actually a believer in everybody having to own their house. I would like to see different groups of people being able to rent rather than buy. And those are people like my parents who are old and it would be nice for them to have the capital from their house. It’s young people who might not actually have the deposit for a house. I want them all to be in stable, secure rental and this is something that will help that happen. I commend the bill to the House.

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

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 7 March.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I speak to the bill, it’s appropriate, as a person who comes from Whanganui and a former member of Parliament for the Whanganui electorate, to acknowledge deceased member of Parliament now, but also former member of Parliament and friend and colleague of many here, the Hon Chester Borrows.

In taking this brief call, speaking to the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill—noting that the member in charge is the Hon Stuart Nash, Minister for Oceans and Fisheries—it’s not yet known which select committee, for the first reading of this bill, it will go to. Potentially, it could go to the Primary Production Committee, which the fisheries amendment bill that was before the House last year went to. Or, potentially, it could go to the Māori Affairs Committee. It’s unknown. But, in speaking to that—I turn to the bill—there have been a number of members who spoke to this last evening, in that the purpose of the bill is that, 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 of 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. So this bill—the amendment bill—is to update and modernise the governance and administrative framework for managing iwi fisheries settlement assets that are administered by Te Ohu Kai Moana; the Māori Fisheries Commission, as it was formerly known.

I’ve often shared in the House that I relate back to lived experience, personal experience, and professional experience. Back on 11 September 1992, my son was born here in Wellington, and I returned home shortly after that. Within two weeks of his birth, I received a phone call from the then chief executive of, as it was known, the Māori Fisheries Commission offering me a job as a legal adviser to that. Robin Hapi was then the chief executive of the Māori Fisheries Commission, now known as Te Ohu Kai Moana. I didn’t take the role, because, as I say, I had returned home to Whanganui. The priority was returning to the support of whānau, with two young children. It just happens to be that I correlate the timing of the establishment of the Māori Fisheries Commission some almost 32 years ago now. And here we are, addressing before the House the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.

As I’ve outlined what the purpose is—and in the two minutes that I have left remaining—this bill will come before whichever select committee it does, for due consideration and then reporting back to the House for the second reading. Standing as a National Party member of Parliament, it’s known that National supports this bill at first reading, taking a keen interest for it to go before the select committee to open it up for public submission. As has been outlined, it’s to look at modernising and streamlining iwi governance of the asset-holding entities.

National is very keen to hear from submitters, because, just a little bit of reading that I’ve done in relation to this, it seems that—and, again, Māori are as diverse as every other New Zealander in this country. Just because we’re Māori doesn’t mean to say that we all think and have the same mind-set in terms of how business is done. It’s known, from some articles that have been read, that there have been High Court proceedings filed, and those have been initiated by Ngāi Tahu, who are not aligned with what the whakaaro, the thinking, of Te Ohu Kai Moana is—in terms of the distribution of funds, particularly, that are collected. That is also supported by Ngā Puhi. There are some news articles there. There are likely to be submissions that come through from the members of our public community and those particularly tribal entities that have an interest here, in Te Ohu Kai Moana and the distribution of those funds.

So, in the 38 seconds that I have left, my colleague to follow later in addressing this will do so somewhat more fully, but the bill is comprised of, in two parts, 100 clauses, three schedules. It’s going to require some prudent scrutiny, importantly listening to the submitters and then looking further at whether this needs to be improved. The National Party supports this bill at first reading and very much looks forward to the submissions from members of the public, and those particularly, the iwi entities, affected by the management of Māori fisheries. Kia ora.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be here this evening, and as I begin this speech to recognise Jamie Tuuta, who’s a member of my community—or probably Barbara Kuriger’s community, more noted—but in terms of our Urenui, the chair of Ngāti Mutunga, but also recently appointed as the chair of Sealord Group, which is obviously a significant role here in Aotearoa in terms of fisheries around our coastlines.

This piece of legislation is simple. I guess we’ve traversed any conversations about it over the last few days in terms of what it does and the reason for it, so I’m going to keep my comments short. But, of course, it’s around ensuring that iwi have a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fisheries, which is something that is significant and important. When we think of rangatiratanga, it’s around that leadership—or it’s around that autonomy to make decisions; it’s around self-determination when it comes to the spaces in terms of fisheries.

Secondly, we look at this legislation and last year I had the privilege of being on the Primary Production Committee when we debated, when we went through the process of looking at the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which is now the Act. So I note as well, we continue the process; we continue progress in terms of strengthening, modernising New Zealand’s fisheries management system. I commend this bill to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill first reading, concluding this evening.

As it is the first time that I have spoken in this House since the loss of Chester Borrows, can I also add my condolences to his family. Chester was a remarkable person who was the personification of service for his community and service regardless of need and social position—he was there for everyone. The genuine outpouring of grief from his community reflects the respect and mana in which he was held.

I don’t intend to speak for long on this bill. The review that was required by the Maori Fisheries Act in 2004, which specifically said that a review had to be carried out no later than the 11th year following the commencement of that original Act—well, it happened at the 11th year, and the review was finalised in March 2015. So eight years on, and here we are, at the point of having the legislation committed to a select committee that we are assuming, perhaps, is the Māori Affairs Committee, but it’s not entirely—

Arena Williams: Yes.

TODD MULLER: It is?

Arena Williams: Yes.

TODD MULLER: Acting Madam Chair, it was very good to see you in full flight this morning, chairing the Māori Affairs Committee. You looked very comfortable in that position. I suspect you should stay there, but that’s just a personal view. But, anyway, I have had that confirmed, it is going to the Māori Affairs Committee, so, Harete Hipango, that’s good news from our perspective.

So this review was carried out. It, obviously, followed, then, eight years of extensive iwi engagement to land this proposal, which, of course, needs to see the original Act amended to give effect to it. As discussed already tonight, essentially, the bill amends the mandated iwi organisations and their asset holding companies to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, and that changes the governance arrangements accordingly, and changes the status of shares within that structure and some surpluses will then have to be settled accordingly. So there is a debate as to how best to do that, and this legislation has suggested it is a one vote per iwi basis. So we will see in the select committee process whether that indeed does have widespread support. It’ll be interesting to see how that debate in particular unfolds, but it makes sense.

The fisheries in New Zealand, I think, are a remarkable export story. In particular, Māori interests in our commercial fisheries have become so strong and impressive in their commercial performance over the last 15 years or so and I think it is an understated story of New Zealand agriculture. We should focus and celebrate the collective contribution they make, not only in New Zealand export receipts but also in terms of the communities in which they operate.

So this is, as discussed already tonight, not particularly complex, although it has had a long gestation. We look forward to it being discussed and debated in the Māori Affairs Committee, and it has the support of the National Party to proceed through that process.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call as the final speaker for the Government. This is a very important kaupapa, the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, because it has taken quite some time for iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana to develop and recommend a suite of changes to the Act, voting on proposals, and including a significant restructure of the Government’s framework, and so the next steps of the implementation are even more important. The bill makes changes to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 to give effect to recommendations which Te Ohu Kai Moana have already conducted in a review of settlement entities. The changes will give iwi the certainty, the clarity, and the pathway forward for rangatiratanga over their assets, with a strong intent to improve benefits to all Māori, reduce costs, and improve efficiency.

The select committee process—just in my final comments—is very important, and I want to encourage Kiwis across the motu with a strong interest in fisheries to have their say on the bill to ensure that we get it right to protect the vast, diverse ocean ecosystems for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Instruction to Māori Affairs Committee

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I move, That the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 July 2023.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 February.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well, what a double delight this is! I’m back again five minutes later and now we are talking about the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill, second reading.

So it has been to the select committee. We supported it with some reservations—which I’ll touch on shortly—to the select committee. As I’m sure previous contributors to this bill will have attested: 19 submissions and seven in favour, two did not support, and eight did not specify, which is interesting in itself, actually, to have a submission which doesn’t say whether you support or not. However, I’m sure they had their reasons.

Anyway, the key changes to the bill that were agreed by the committee was a tweak to the definition of a contract of fire insurance in clause 6(3) amending the definition of “sum insured”. Levy exemptions: there were a range of submitters talking about the levy arrangements for museums and galleries—maybe they were part of the uncommitted seven submitters—but they certainly were keen that museums and galleries retained their exemptions, which the committee agreed was a good and solid policy position. So that has been recommended. And then there was a technical change to how the levy applies to motor vehicles—more just sort of wrapping up potential confusion.

So we support this. It still is, though, from our perspective, a lost opportunity. There has been debate on both sides of the House over the years over how best to fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). I’ve been previously the spokesperson in this space. It struck the National Party that, really, when you look at the income stream of this organisation and the fact that it doesn’t have to compete with other departments, with Treasury, for Treasury largesse—it, essentially, just takes it off motor vehicle owners and particularly commercial property owners. And when you see the scale of the income over the last five years—reaching $460 million, which is over $200 million more than what was expected by this time in its development when it came together in 2017—there was an argument, I think, of actually looking at FENZ quite fiscally muscularly, if you like, to check whether they were being efficient with their spend, to see if there are other ways to fund them, as opposed to just tweaking the current model which has been in place for quite some time, which does have elements of free riders, does have a disproportionate impact on commercial property owners.

Rather than taking that opportunity, the Government, we think, went for the easy option of, essentially, rolling over the model that’s been there for quite some time and just tweaking at the margins. Frankly, there isn’t enough focus, from a National Party perspective, on the financial performance of FENZ. It doesn’t have that rigour, in our view, that other departments arguably have in terms of Government oversight. They have a board—quite a political board. In fact, some of the board members are able to reflect on whether they think the Opposition are progressing well or not and still stay in their jobs. So it’s quite clearly a political board, with perhaps more of a focus on playing political games as opposed to driving the organisation in a way that would stand at the level that would be expected in other Crown agencies.

However, what has been put forward doesn’t cross the threshold of us opposing, but we do believe that whilst the changes can at one level be justified, it is a huge opportunity missed to actually restructure FENZ, get them more focused on delivering a better outcome for the money they receive and actually getting greater equity in terms of the funding model over time. Thank you very much.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill (FENZ) tonight, because it is about services and providing those services that are so important to our communities. It makes sure those services are adequately funded. Can I speak in thanks to the fire and emergency services that have worked so hard through the cyclone recovery, through the Auckland floods, and in our communities every day. You know, I think back to the Papatoetoe tornado in my electorate—and in your electorate, Madam Speaker—where the fire and emergency services were there around the clock supporting our communities, and so they deserve our support tonight.

The bill seeks to make the new fire and emergency levy regime simple to implement while adhering to the funding principles in the existing FENZ Act, and the bill gives effect to Cabinet’s decision to charge the levy on contracts of insurance for fire damage and calculate the levy on the sum insured in the contracts for fire damage. These changes, which the Governance and Administration Committee has considered carefully, make the kind of change which is proportionate. The bill that was passed in 2017, while that was mostly fit for purpose, did have some difficulties come to light about how easy it would be to interpret and implement within that framework. That is why the bill is needed. It makes these important changes which we need going forward to support these services, and that’s why I commend it to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure and an honour to take a quick call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill tonight. But can I first start by acknowledging the passing of the two brave volunteer firefighters, heroes, and my thoughts and prayers go out to their loved ones as well. Actually, to all the emergency and first responders who selflessly go out there all the time, keeping us safe—really grateful to you all.

And speaking to firefighters and to the bill, my brother is a firefighter, and he was deployed to Napier, and he worked alongside many volunteers, many other first responders, firefighters, and while he noted the absolute devastation, he also commented on how beautiful it was that communities came together, worked together for the sake of everyone else around them—including people from outside. And I just want to mention that he mentioned the Ōtaki Surf Lifesavers who came up for two days, he reckoned they “slogged their guts out”—his words, not mine—alongside many others. So, again, just wanted to mihi to them all.

But, specifically, like my colleague Arena said, this bill is quite a simple change—it helps to make sure that the regime is simple to administrate or implement. It will reduce the extra costs and disruption to the system. It’s simple, it’s a no-brainer, it’s a good piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. It doesn’t amend very much, but none the less, it’s before the House tonight. Having said it doesn’t amend very much, of course, I’ve got to say what a great job the select committee did of shepherding this through to this stage, and with a number of very good submissions and quite a lot of discussion on some issues.

My colleague Todd Muller touched on some issues which I want to touch on, but before I do that, I do want to acknowledge Fire and Emergency New Zealand. We had them before the select committee today and had let them off their scheduled appearance a couple of weeks for very good reason. And whilst some of their performance in the past has left us grappling with, I guess, the way they’ve operated, at the select committee level they did come back today and their chair did give us a very good outline of the remediation activities they’re undertaking at what’s a very testing time for Fire and Emergency New Zealand, because, as previous speakers have referred to, they have been quite busy.

And, of course, the very definition of what they do is challenged at all times, and being challenged right now, and so whilst I’ll get back to the bill in a minute, the challenges that they’ve had in the past—well, certainly the past month, and before that—have been significant. I think they’ve done a pretty good job in very difficult circumstances of getting to where they’ve got to.

Back to the bill, and there were a number of issues that concerned us and concerned submitters, and I think it’s a typical example of where we get regulation being imposed as the result of the legislation we’ve passed, and I’ve talked about this a number of times in the House before. It’s very frustrating for select committees to pass a piece of legislation and then later find the regulations we anticipated might be put in place are quite different.

This time I’m particularly referring to the museum sector, who were very strong in their submissions and the worry they had about what might happen to their levies because of the fluctuating nature of their business and the fact that some of the exhibitions they wish to put on for the good of all New Zealanders are very expensive to put on, have very high value, and consequently could attract extremely high levies in this situation. They were very uncomfortable with the fact that this was being left to regulation, and we can only trust that the department, when they get to draw up these regulations, are very cognisant of the select committee’s report and the concern we had with respect to that issue.

I want to touch on—because it’s very relevant, again, with the events of the last three weeks—the way these levies are imposed. It’ll be very interesting, when we get to the end—or, I guess, assessment—of Cyclone Gabrielle and the recent extraordinary rain events we’ve had in New Zealand. It’ll be very interesting when we get the facts and figures on the number of people who carry insurance, because this bill, the essence of it is that it uses insurance premiums or the acquisition of insurance to impose these levies. So people who aren’t insuring are not being levied, and consequently getting a free ride on those who are being insured. I know if you go back to 2004, in the Manawatū floods, there were a significant number of people—probably some 11 or 12 percent of all damaged properties not insured.

We find the same now: the fact that we’ve got 11 to 12 percent of New Zealand property owners getting a free ride on the back of the fire and emergency levy system. That’s why, I think, I’ve always favoured a different system of imposing these levies. Obviously, a property-based or rate-based system would be much more appropriate to deal with this because it would capture everybody.

So it’s going to be really interesting to see what does happen in the next few months as this whole disaster unfolds and the number of people who don’t carry insurance is better understood. I’m sure this bill will come back to the House in due course for that very reason.

Todd Muller referred to the extraordinary amount of money being collected by Fire and Emergency New Zealand as a result of the changes made in the 2018 review, I think it was—sorry, the 2016 review, the previous review—and putting in place of Fire and Emergency New Zealand by the National Government, interestingly, and I very well remember discussions at the time, both around the way in which the levy was calculated and about the amount of money they would collect and the accountability as a result of that.

I guess this morning’s hearing in the select committee, whilst it was the appropriate place to be dealing with those issues, the environment we were currently in and the environment Fire and Emergency New Zealand are currently operating in, was probably not appropriate to get too hard into those issues. There are some other issues that they have significant challenges with, though, and one of them’s their culture. That was also addressed by the chairman this morning.

Andrew Bayly: What about the deputy chair?

IAN McKELVIE: Mr Muller’s talked about the deputy chair, and the deputy chair did feature on the news for about five minutes tonight—but that’s quite beside the point. The issue, I think, is that the culture of the organisation has certainly been under pressure. There’s been two reports done on it, and the chief executive—and the chair—did talk at length about that this morning, so I think we can be satisfied they’re going OK.

So back to the bill, and I think the essence of this bill: it’s sound given that I don’t agree with the way we’re levying them, but none the less the National Party certainly will support this bill, because I think the things it does—and the things it resolves—are positive for Fire and Emergency New Zealand. I’m sure this House will take a significant amount of interest in the progress Fire and Emergency make in the next year or so as they try to get their house in order—this bill will certainly help them do that.

They did also mention this morning that they’ve got significant challenges around what they, I guess, thought they’d inherited as a result of the Act that merged all of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteer fire brigades, rural fire, and the professional fire brigades, or fire stations. They were all merged together, and I think it’s fair to say they found some significant financial challenges as a result of that merger, and so this levy situation will help them with that as well.

So I think that’s all I’ve got to say on the bill, other than to thank those officials that gave us significant assistance with the bill and to thank the very good select committee for the very good work they did on getting it to this point, and I look forward to the committee stage.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s echoed around the House, as this bill, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill, has been debated, and as a speaker, again, I just want to thank Fire and Emergency New Zealand for what they do. I know in my region and in my electorate of New Plymouth—in fact, on Monday, I was just meeting with the head of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), checking in, and just to know that we have a strong and robust not only professional but also volunteer FENZ service. Again, as is being said around this House on this piece of legislation, just to say thank you to those who put their lives on the line and give up their time for the sake of the protection of our communities. Of course, we acknowledge the tragedy in Muriwai and the two FENZ volunteers who lost their lives.

This piece of legislation has obviously progressed and has been in the Governance and Administration Committee. The other part I want to say is—to acknowledge, obviously, the new Minister that has this legislation now, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, who now is carrying this piece of legislation. I know that she has been really engaged and connected with the FENZ community in terms of supporting what’s going on. On that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Civil Aviation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November 2022.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve been waiting to take this call since November last year, because that was the time when the second reading of the Civil Aviation Bill began. It has come up on the Order Paper a few times in the last few weeks, and I’ve been ready to take my call, and we’ve never quite made it. But tonight we will get through the final section of the second reading of this bill, which is very, very exciting.

The Civil Aviation Bill is important because much of our aviation legislation is out of date and needs modernisation, and that is what this bill does. I do want to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who have taken a significant amount of time to work through the bill and make a number of practical and good suggestions. One of the challenges that we face—that is certainly the case in my region—is the need for our airports to have modern legislation as they evolve. For example, in Nelson, the runway is currently too short for us to be able to have electric and modern planes come on to the runway, and the airport is currently working through a process locally with the council, with the golf course, and with residents on—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! There’s a lot of noise coming from this side of the House.

RACHEL BOYACK: It’s all good.

Hon David Bennett: Well, she was waiting since November.

RACHEL BOYACK: So the law is important so that airports, like Nelson, are able to make the changes they need as aviation evolves over the coming years. So it’s an excellent bill. I’m looking forward to it getting through its second reading tonight so we can progress it and implement it, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, this bill sort of lost its impetus with a while between speeches, but National supports the bill as well. There are some changes in it that are necessary to upgrade the technology and some of the rules around civil aviation which haven’t been done for a while. But, in essence, it’s a bill that will be without too much debate and it will be supported through the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I just loving standing in this House and being able to present information. Coming back to the New Plymouth electorate, as I always like to do, we have, if you’ve not seen, our airport in New Plymouth, it is the state-of-the-art, most modern, wonderful—and again, Barbara Kuriger gets to enjoy the airport in the electorate of New Plymouth. I know we get to travel together regularly out of that airport and into the airport. Half a million people, at least, a year come and go from that airport.

This legislation is important. This legislation has been waiting a long time. This legislation is being commended to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 110

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

Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Forestry): I present a legislative statement on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon STUART NASH: I move, That the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The question of how New Zealand responds to the issue of illegally harvested timber has been debated in this House for the last 10 years, and it’s good to see this being progressed. It has been the culmination of a lot of work by many groups of people, and I am grateful to them. I particularly acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee and the chair, Jo Luxton, who were steadfast and diligent in their approach to scrutinising this bill to ensure its robustness. I thank the individuals and groups that made written submissions and those that appeared in person before the select committee. Finally, I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Ministry for Primary Industries officials that contributed to this bill.

Under this bill, New Zealand is committing to trading only in legally harvested timber. The introduction of a legal harvest assurance system for timber products is a tangible step New Zealand can take to support the international efforts to curb the trade in illegally harvested timber products, and at the same time it provides importers and our domestic processors and exporters with a Government assurance framework to support their businesses that will demonstrate that they have completed due diligence on the legal harvest of the timber products that they are trading.

The bill is also important because New Zealand exporters need to demonstrate timber legality in an increasing number of export markets. This bill will bring us in line with several of our trading partners in APEC economies, including Australia, the United States, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and China, who have implemented or are developing their own legislation to prevent the import, export, or shipment of illegally harvested timber. We export nearly 85 percent of our timber products to these countries, and with this bill we can continue to do so with integrity.

Twenty-two written submissions were received on the bill from individuals, environmental non-governmental organisations, industry associations, and forestry companies. Eight submitters presented their views in person. Most submitters supported the bill’s intent to assist in preventing the global trade in illegally harvested timber while increasing the certainty of continued market access for New Zealand timber products.

Some concerns were raised through the submission process, and I believe officials did a great job of taking these on board. A total of 35 changes were recommended by officials, and all were accepted by the select committee. Some of these were minor, technical changes, but there were also some more substantive changes that I believe will strengthen and improve the bill. For example, there is now an improved alignment between this bill and the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill. In 2020, under my predecessor, the Hon Shane Jones, the Forests Act was amended to introduce a new professional registration system for forestry advisers and log traders. As log traders will also need to register for legal harvest, this bill has improvements to better align the legal harvest system, with the registration system being implemented for log traders. The purpose of the 2020 amendment Act was to ensure forest owners received better advice and there was more transparency in the market. The bill complements the amendment Act by strengthening the resilience of supply chain and the reputation of the New Zealand forest industry.

Through the select committee process, several technical changes and several policy changes were recommended to help ensure the new regulatory systems work well together and to reduce regulatory burden and compliance costs for regulated parties. We recognise that not all submitters were happy with the bill and that the environmental NGOs thought the scope and approach of the bill were too narrow—especially in comparison to the new deforestation regulations for the European Union. Regulation for sustainability is an emerging issue internationally, and it is broader than forestry products and the scope of this bill. Officials are working on these matters in order to best address these wider issues for New Zealand.

This bill will create a system that will shut the door on illegally harvested timber products and will show the global community that New Zealand is committed to eradicating this problem. Our primary processors, importers, and exporters will need to use their due-diligence systems to assess and reduce the risk of dealing with illegally harvested timber. They need to use information provided by the grower, or person they bought the timber from, to assess whether it has been illegally harvested. This due-diligence system may be streamlined through using an approved template or by being a member of an existing private forest certification scheme, such as the Forest Stewardship Council or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. This is intended to alleviate the burden of a new regulatory system and, at the same time, maintain the integrity of our New Zealand Government assurance.

It is important for New Zealand’s reputation and economy and the New Zealand forestry and wood-processing sector for this bill to maintain momentum and keep progressing through the House this term. As I’ve previously said, it is great to see this bill get to this stage and in this form, and I look forward to debating the bill in more detail during the committee of the whole House. I commend the bill to the House.

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

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in respect of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill at its second reading. This amendment will help to address illegal forestry by ensuring that wood harvesters will have to verify as legally harvested and therefore ensure that imported timber is not illegally sourced.

I should say that forestry is a key contributor to the New Zealand economy, generating $6.3 billion for the year ending June 2021. It employs around 35,000 people and accounts for roughly 1.6 percent of New Zealand’s gross domestic product. So it’s a really important part of the New Zealand economy and also provides significant employment. This bill is intended to help reinforce the integrity of New Zealand timber as legally sourced, on the international export market. National does support legislation aimed at preventing illegal forestry activities and also advocates for an effective assurance system to this end.

The bill was the outcome of a 2019 Cabinet direction on developing a national definition for wood legality. At the same time, Cabinet directed the Ministry for Primary Industries to introduce a compulsory registration scheme of log traders, and possibly forestry advisers, and this bill is a second bill to amend an Act which came into force in 2020 with a strong focus on alignment of regulatory systems.

There is one point I do need to raise: unfortunately, the select committee did not have before it a submission from the New Zealand Law Society, which did identify a clause which the New Zealand Law Society said raised some potential constitutional questions regarding clause 6—protection of persons outside the Public Service. This clause, they said, would extend the protection of Crown officials from personal liability to those outside the Public Service as a result of section 63D of the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Act 2020, which delegates any or all of the forestry authority’s functions or powers under Part 2 of the Forests Act to a forestry industry body or other person outside the Public Service.

The Law Society was concerned that the clause raised constitutional questions about the use of the Crown protection from liability and tort for the benefit of private actors. Because the select committee did not have that before it, the regulatory impact statement does not address this feature of the bill, and therefore the select committee will actually be looking at this matter tomorrow. Ideally, we would have had that considered before this bill was before the House. Nevertheless, I do have confidence that this issue will be addressed. We will be getting advice on that tomorrow, and if any issues should arise from that, I’m sure we can address that at the committee of the whole House stage.

So, with that caveat, the National Party is supporting this bill. It is a positive step, we believe. It does balance a number of considerations, and we do think it is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, we’ll be able to address that specific point tomorrow, and ensure that we are passing a good piece of law that will be longstanding. So, with that, as I say, the National Party supports this bill at its second reading.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a quick call on this Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. As the previous chair of the Primary Production Committee, can I acknowledge other members of the select committee, the submitters, and all those involved with getting this piece of legislation to the point that it is here in the House tonight.

This piece of legislation is specifically about ensuring that we are only trading in legally harvested timber. As the Minister has mentioned in his speech, it simply brings us in line, also, with several of our trading partners who have implemented, themselves, or are in the process of implementing their own legislation to prevent the import or an export of illegally harvested timber. It is a sensible piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn’t really expect to get to speak on this very good piece of legislation tonight, but I will. I thought we might have delayed it a little longer.

The Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill has been around for a little while and been before the Primary Production Committee, and has now come back to the House. Of course, we’re making our way through the second reading. As my colleague Joseph Mooney pointed out, there’s an issue that has arisen, which will go back to the select committee and, no doubt, if there’s changes required as a result of that, it will come back to the House in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper at committee stage.

This bill is a piece of legislation that we need to have in place, and the Minister, the Hon Stuart Nash, outlined it pretty well. We need to have it in place to ensure that we can access, I guess, a lot of our market places around the world. But we also need to have it in place to protect those people in New Zealand. There’s been a very recent case in New Zealand where timber has come into New Zealand under, I suppose, somewhat dubious circumstances, and it’s a very good example of why this bill is required, both from an exporters’ perspective in New Zealand and from an importer’s perspective, because it also protects them. If you’re buying timber in the international market, or any form of wood product in the international market, you really want to know that when you do that, you’re buying something that’s legally harvested and that you’re not going to be questioned about its origin when you get it. And the same thing applies in reverse.

So it’s really important to the New Zealand industry, which is a very big industry in New Zealand now, the total wood industry. Of course, we export, I think, in excess of 80 percent of our wood products. Of course, very topical, I suppose, for the last few years, is the number of logs going out of New Zealand in one piece. There’s a very good reason why those logs go out of New Zealand in one piece, of course, because our timber industry in New Zealand is only capable of dealing with so much wood, and it’s only capable of dealing with some forms of wood as well. So there are some grades of logs which we don’t have a great deal of use for in New Zealand. And the interesting thing about harvesting a forest is you get every grade of timber, whether you like it or not. So you can’t harvest a forest and just take your P grade logs or your pulp grade logs. You’ve got to take the whole lot, and so we’ve got to find a market for those logs. Otherwise, it becomes very uneconomic for the tree grower to actually grow a tree at all.

So that’s the reason why we see so many logs going out through these ports, and for those of us who drive up and down the State Highway 1 and go to Tauranga, or even Napier or, in fact, even New Plymouth—if you can get to New Plymouth because the road is so rough going up there now, with all those tankers, logging trucks, etc., going up the road. But that’s why we see so many of them going out over the port. It’s simply because the industry in New Zealand can’t deal with all of those pieces of wood, or I suppose you’d call them big pieces of wood, of course. So the issue for New Zealand is that we need to protect that industry. We need to ensure that we protect the markets around the world that we want to supply, and to do that we need to have this bill in place.

There are a couple of other issues about this bill which I think the select committee will also be considering. There’s some doubt around the terms as to what is legally harvested, and I think the intention of this bill is to preserve the integrity of the product. It’s not necessarily the integrity of the ownership structures behind it or anything like that, but certainly it’s to preserve the integrity of the product, the manner in which it’s harvested, and the manner, I guess, to ensure the sustainability of it.

So there are quite a few issues involved in the background to this bill, but the bill is a good one, and I think the concern the select committee had at one stage—or that was expressed at the select committee—was around the reasonably significant cost it might impose on the industry. I don’t think that’s the case, although—as I said when I spoke earlier in the night—that will depend on the manner in which the regulations are put together, and, of course, the subsequent costs that are imposed as a result of the enforcement of those regulations. One would only hope that it’s not too significant, because the bill doesn’t require a significant amount of policing to get it to work and get it served. So, Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and I thank you for the opportunity to speak on it.

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.