Thursday, 4 May 2023

THURSDAY, 4 MAY 2023

THURSDAY, 4 MAY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Speaker’s Rulings

Speaker’s Role under Electoral Act 1993

SPEAKER: I wish to clarify for members the role of the Speaker in relation to the creation of vacancies under the Electoral Act 1993. A seat of a member becomes vacant only if one of the circumstances set out in section 55 of the Electoral Act 1993 has arisen. If the Speaker is satisfied that a seat has become vacant in accordance with that section, then the Speaker publishes a notice of the vacancy. See sections 192(1) and 134(1). There is no other basis on which a vacancy can occur. Representation in this House is central to our democracy. As Speaker, I must be careful to ensure the law is applied correctly in such cases.

As I advised the House yesterday, section 55A(3) is very clear that, for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1993, a member ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member was elected only if a written notice is delivered to the Speaker that complies with section 55B or 55C. I have not received a message that complies with either of these sections.

There is no leeway for the Speaker to declare a seat vacant if they are informed or become aware of the information that a member has ceased to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member was elected in any way other than through such a written notice. Like you all, I have seen media coverage stating that the Hon Meka Whaitiri intended to leave one party and join another. But those statements themselves do not cause the member’s seat to become vacant.

Section 55B of the Electoral Act 1993 provides that for a notice from a member to have the effect of making that member’s seat become vacant, the notice would need to be signed by the member giving the notice and be addressed to the Speaker. It would also need to notify the Speaker that the member had resigned from the parliamentary membership of the political party for which they were elected, or that they wished to be recognised for parliamentary purposes as an Independent member or a member of another political party. A communication that does not comply with these requirements is not a notice that gives rise to a vacancy.

As I have outlined previously, I have received a message from the Hon Meka Whaitiri informing me that her vote would no longer be cast by the Labour Party and that she wished to be seated in the Chamber next to members of Te Paati Māori. It therefore is not a written notice that complies with Section 55B of the Electoral Act 1993.

As Speaker, I must administer the House’s procedures, and this is problematic when a member’s party status is unclear. In practical terms, I need to rule on how to treat a member who no longer sits or votes with the party they sat and voted with previously. Using my judgment and the knowledge I had that the Hon Meka Whaitiri no longer wishes to serve as a member of the Labour Party, I determined that under Standing Order 35(5), the member would be regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. This means that the member will have rights to ask oral questions and speak in debates in proportion to the fact that they are one of 119 members in the House, and the Labour Party’s allocation will be adjusted accordingly. The member also will need to apply to me if she wishes to seek permission to be absent.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your further clarification of the situation. I have two questions: first, are you prepared to release all of the communications regarding this matter, and, if the answer to that question is no, does that decision preclude the Hon Meka Whaitiri herself from releasing those communications, including the communications from the Speaker’s office back to her?

SPEAKER: I thank the member for the question. I was hoping that question would be asked.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Happy to oblige.

SPEAKER: Thank you. As Speaker, I receive correspondence with members daily. It is extremely important that members can trust that all such correspondence can remain confidential, but in this particular case I can reiterate that I have not received any correspondence from either the member or the Labour Party that complies with section 55B or 55C of the Electoral Act respectively. I can also say that I cannot release that information, but the Hon Meka Whaitiri is able to if she wishes to do so.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that. I found that clarifying after the confusion that we had yesterday.

The one bit that I just want to understand is towards the end of your statement, when you talked about the understanding that she would now be treated as an Independent MP, but I understood from the earlier part of the statement that, because the Hon Meka Whaitiri had not notified you that she was resigning as a parliamentary member of the Labour Party, then, essentially, she is still a member of the parliamentary Labour Party. It doesn’t then follow that she can both be a member of the parliamentary Labour Party and also an Independent MP at the same time. Whereas I was following you were saying that she has notified that her vote has been withdrawn and that she wants to sit somewhere else in the House, but that doesn’t change her status as a member of the parliamentary Labour Party. It just means that her vote is treated differently and she sits somewhere differently, but it doesn’t then follow that allocation of questions and so on would move away from the Labour Party, because that would indicate that she has left the parliamentary Labour Party, which she hasn’t notified you that she has.

SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 36, the Labour Party has now advised me that the Hon Meka Whaitiri is no longer a member of the Labour Party.

David Seymour: Speaking to that, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Yes. To help understand that, would it be fair to say that Meka Whaitiri is now an Independent member under the Standing Orders, but a member of the parliamentary Labour Party so far as the Electoral Act is concerned?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Speaking to that point of order, I think I get what Mr Seymour is saying in that particular point of order, which is to make the point that the Standing Orders are the rules of this Parliament, and the Electoral Act are the rules of the land. They are by and large consistent, although, for example, there are things you can say outside Parliament you can’t say inside it and so on. So I think the point Mr Seymour is making there is that there is an Electoral Act that has a particular set of information; there are the Standing Orders that have another set of information within them.

David Seymour: I was hoping that you might clarify, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I thank—actually, I thank both members, because both the question and the contribution actually answered the question: yes.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. It can’t be the case that both positions are correct. One has to be correct. The other, simply, was a notification of what we all know to be the fact: there is a set of Standing Orders; there is the Electoral Act. The thing that’s most interesting is that you’ve just said that the Labour Party have notified you that Meka Whaitiri has resigned from the Labour Party. Now, what’s the standing of that, because anybody could send you a letter from anywhere saying that, you know, so-and-so has resigned from their party. There has to be some basis for you to accept that, and then, when you do accept that, how does that stack up? It’s a notification to you about a member having resigned from the party that they were elected to.

The next point I’d make is: is it possible now for members just to write to you to suggest where they would prefer to be sat inside this Parliament?

SPEAKER: What I will say in response to the point of order is that this House makes the laws—that’s the first thing I’d say. The second thing I’d like to say: if I had’ve accepted and notified yesterday that the Hon Meka Whaitiri—that her seat was vacant, we’d be having an altogether different constitutional discussion right now. The only way the member can vacate the seat is by telling me under section 55 of the Act. Now, as I’ve told this House several times, that has not been complied with. Given that fact, there has to be some way that the Hon Meka Whaitiri is to carry out her parliamentary work, and so I have said—as I have said—for parliamentary purposes, I’m considering that she is an Independent member.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you be releasing, for us all to see, the advice that you’ve had on how you’ve interpreted—

SPEAKER: Sorry, I missed the first part of that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yeah. Will you be releasing, so that we can all see, the advice that you’ve had with regards to that? Because it seems to me somewhat odd that you can determine that someone is an Independent without having left their political party, and that would also then suggest that the trigger for those two clauses that you have repeatedly recited this afternoon is somewhat less than the test that you yourself are applying to them.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to pick up a point that you made: under Standing Order 36, the Labour Party is obliged to write to you if there is a change in our membership. We have done that—that’s what you just said before. So, you know, we’ve fulfilled our obligations in that regard. It is at that point you then make decisions about what you need to do in response to that. It is the identical set of circumstances that occurred when Jami-Lee Ross was both expelled from and resigned from the National Party on the same day. Under those circumstances, Speaker Mallard indicated what he would do in that situation. So we have fulfilled our obligations to do that. How that then relates to the matters within the Electoral Act relates to your earlier comments about what is required for that to happen.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’m going to rule on this, thank you. As I stated before, in terms of releasing information, communications, between myself and members, I think every single member in this House should be wary of that. As I stated before, I receive daily communications from members. That confidence—[Interruption] Who is commentating over there?

Simeon Brown: Oh, look, I made a comment—

SPEAKER: This is the probably one of the most serious things I’ve ever had to rule on, and having commentary from you, Mr Brown, is really not helpful.

Mr Brownlee, so it is really in the interest of every member that the Speaker not be able to release private communications on anything, but it’s entirely appropriate that members, if they choose to do so, can do so.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker; we appreciate your elucidation. I think there is one bit that we’re all interested in, which is: if it would be possible for you to explain in a bit more detail how the communication you had from the Hon Meka Whaitiri did not fit within the terms of the relevant parts of the Electoral Act, because I think many people watching, and in this House, actually, regard the communication as having complied in the sense that it was sent to you, it was a message, it indicated an intent to resign from the parliamentary Labour Party and, in fact, join another party. You’ve outlined what the law is, carefully and deliberately. But you haven’t outlined—and I think it might be helpful if you outline—how what happened didn’t meet with the law, and so the factual scenario and how it measures with the law. That, I think, would be useful for us.

SPEAKER: I can say to you, Mr Bishop, that you have made a number of assumptions about what you think—

Nicola Willis: Well, just clear it up.

SPEAKER: Nicola Willis will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, you have made a number of assumptions that are incorrect. It is not for me, after telling this House that I will not be releasing that information, to then discuss that information. That is private communication between the Speaker and a member. Any member can ask for advice. Any member can communicate with me about any matter they would like. I’m absolutely certain that none of the parties want to know and none of the members want me to tell you things that I get told as Speaker of the House. That would be highly inappropriate. I stand by what I’ve said before. It’s entirely up to the members themselves if they wish to release any communication with me.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just make it clear: I wasn’t asking for that to be released. I think communications between the Speaker and members should remain between the Speaker and the member. I fully accept that. But you’ve read out to the House this afternoon a ruling which clearly would have had some advice provided to you in the preparation of that ruling. That advice, most likely, would have gone to some explanation—more explanation than you were able to read in the ruling that you did read—about how each of those particular provisions interact, and why it is that the conclusion should be reached that has led to your ruling today. Now, that can’t be confidential. That would be between the Office of the Clerk and the Speaker, and I would have thought that that is information that should be available to every member of the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Speaking to the point of order, I suspect the answer to that is that, if the Speaker had received a notice in accordance with section 55—whatever the subsection is—of the Electoral Act that was in accordance with the Act, he would have acted on it and released the letter. That’s not the sort of communication to which the Speaker’s referring.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the point has been missed.

SPEAKER: I would add to the mix that I am capable of carrying out the Office of the Speaker, and when I read things, some things are glaringly obvious to any member. The Hon David Parker is correct also.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Next week, the annual review debate will continue, with appearances from the Ministers of education, health, and justice. Legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Business Payment Practices Bill, and the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill; and the third reading of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. On Tuesday the 9th, the Prime Minister will move a motion to mark the coronation of King Charles III. On Wednesday the 10th, there will be a members’ day.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the House for the update on the business for next week. I wonder if he could advise the House whether the Government is contemplating introducing legislation amending or repealing the waka-jumping provisions of the Electoral Act?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I thank the member for his question. At this point in time, the Government is not intending to do that. I’m sure it will be a subject of rich conversation in times to come.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK: The 2021-22 annual reports for:

Health Research Council of New Zealand

MidCentral District Health Board

Waikato District Health Board.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on:

briefing on the 2021-22 performance and current operations of Immigration New Zealand

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Tertiary education institutions: 2021 audit results and what we saw in 2022

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on:

the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill

the Public Service Commission briefing on the state of the Public Service 2022

report of the Health Committee on the petition of Laura Williams to increase funding for and access to adult ADHD screening and diagnosis

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Charities Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefings and the report are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his commitments on tax, and has he met those commitments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken; and yes.

Nicola Willis: Why, then, when Heather du Plessis-Allan asked him on Monday this week “Are you going to bump up the ute tax?”, did he say “No”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, I invite the member to read the full context of that exchange with Ms du Plessis-Allan. I do note that the member has a tendency to have a word and then just add the word “tax” at the end of it, no matter what the situation might be. So, for example, on this side of the House, if we were to adopt that approach, what we would do is whenever the Leader of the Opposition spoke, we would describe it as a waffle tax.

Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders trust him on tax when on Monday, he told them he wouldn’t be bumping up the ute tax, and then the very next day, that’s exactly what the Government did?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government laid out its plans on what we would do in tax at the 2020 election, and we have stuck to those plans. The Prime Minister has indicated, for example, that in the Budget there will not be major tax changes. When it comes to making sure that we actually meet our climate change obligations, I am very pleased with the way that the Clean Car Discount is operating.

Nicola Willis: Did he or did he not increase the ute tax this week, and did he or did he not know that he was going to do that on Monday, when he said he wouldn’t?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated in the answer to the member’s first supplementary question, just because she throws around the word “tax” in association with any other thing, it doesn’t make it so. I do note that one of the examples of that that the member has used is the so-called app tax—the GST on online services—which the National Party vigorously opposed six months after vigorously supporting it.

Nicola Willis: Will he rule out imposing a capital gains tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been indicated on numerous times, the Government has indicated there will be no capital gains tax in the Budget that comes up in a month’s time.

Nicola Willis: Will he rule out at a later date changing the law to retrospectively impose capital gains taxes on New Zealanders’ assets?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government is in place through till the October election. I thank the member again for her confidence that we will be re-elected, but we have made it very clear that there will not be a capital gains tax in the one remaining Budget of this term.

Nicola Willis: Will he rule out imposing a capital gains tax on New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver nest eggs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have already ruled out a capital gains tax in this term. The Government of the next term will have its tax policy. I look forward to being able to lead that policy when the time comes.

Question No. 2—Education (Māori Education)

2. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What recent announcements has he made regarding pay for kaiako and kaiāwhina working in kōhanga reo?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Yesterday, I announced the introduction of new pay rates for kōhanga reo kaiako and kaiāwhina, which will give them a historic earning boost and pay them in line with roles outside of kōhanga reo. An additional $76 million over five years will be allocated for this pay improvement, which represents one of the most significant boosts for kōhanga reo since the movement began in 1982.

Shanan Halbert: How much more will kaiako and kaiāwhina earn under the new rates?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Once their kōhanga reo has signed up for the new pay framework, which is being administered by Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust, kaiako will receive an average pay increase of around 35 percent. To be more specific, under the previous system, the average pay for a kaiako at a kōhanga reo was $44,000 per year. Under the new rates, a full-time kaiako will start on $59,358 per year. The introduction of these new pay rates could see an experienced kaiako earn just under $100,000 per year. This increase will change lives and aligns firmly with the value that this Government places on workers and our focus on helping Kiwis cope with the cost of living pressures they are facing.

Shanan Halbert: How many kaiako and kaiāwhina are expected to benefit?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: About 2,000 kaiako, kaiāwhina, and kaiwhakarite around the country are expected to benefit from this change as more kōhanga reo join the pay scheme. At the moment, about one-third of all kōhanga reo operating are already in the scheme, with the majority expected to be participating later in the year.

Shanan Halbert: How is this announcement significant for tamariki as well as kaiako?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We know that Māori children do better in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori education, which is why it is essential for our tamariki that we attract fluent te reo speakers into becoming kaiako and make it an attractive career option. Those working in kōhanga reo have been paid poorly for too long, and the Government is committed to correcting that.

Question No. 3—Education

3. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: How many teaching days were lost to industrial action by teacher unions in term 1, 2023, and how many teaching days does she expect to be lost in term 2, 2023?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I am advised that due to the nature of the industrial action and the education system, the Ministry of Education does not hold information on the number of teaching days that are lost due to industrial action. When industrial actions occur, schools are required to remain open for instruction if they are able to. Schools are not required to report if they are closed to the Ministry of Education. The number of schools that have voluntarily reported that they were closed for instruction, closed for supervision, or fully closed due to the 16 March strike by Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) and New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) members was 982. Due to the 29 March PPTA strike, 52 schools reported being closed for instruction. I expect that negotiations under way between the Ministry of Education and the PPTA and NZEI education unions for the various collective agreements will move forward and progress towards new agreements being finalised.

Chris Baillie: With the likely disruption to students because of ongoing industrial action, including strikes, refusal to relieve for absent teachers’ classes, and sending children home on parent-teacher interview days, can she tell parents today what she is doing to end this dispute?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I am unable to discuss the specifics of bargaining, as this is undertaken by the Ministry of Education. However, I expect that the negotiations with the PPTA for secondary teachers, which are under way this week and being facilitated by the Employment Relations Authority, will make real progress. Similarly, I expect that negotiations under way today for the area school teachers’ agreement between the NZEI and the PPTA will move forward and progress towards a new agreement being finalised.

Chris Baillie: Does she consider that student attendance is a priority for her ministry of 4,000 staff when they don’t know how many days kids are losing from school because of teacher absences?

Hon JAN TINETTI: To the first part of that question, yes.

Chris Baillie: Does she believe that the $1 million spent on her “Every School Day is a Big Day” attendance and engagement campaign was good value for money, considering that ongoing industrial action is exacerbating the truancy crisis?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

Question No. 4—Education

4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Education: What milestones have recently been met in the Government’s period products in schools programme?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Today, I had the pleasure of visiting Naenae College to announce that more than 1 million period products packs had been delivered to schools. A total of 2,126 schools have opted into the initiative, and over 213,000 students have access to free period products. This Government can be very proud of what we have achieved.

Sarah Pallett: How is this programme supporting attendance and engagement?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This morning I heard how the programme is benefiting students’ attendance and engagement and their ability to participate in school activities. Every school day is a big day, and young people should not be missing out on time learning in the classroom or other events and opportunities because they aren’t comfortable going to school while on their period. Some students don’t come to school during their period because they don’t have access to or can’t afford period products. Providing them for free at school means students are more comfortable and more likely to want to be there.

Sarah Pallett: How is the period products in schools programme helping to reduce stigma?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Even today, periods aren’t discussed openly and can make young people, in particular, feel stressed and insecure. The programme has an educational element to help young people to understand and embrace their bodies and show them that they’re not alone in going through it. The Ministry of Education is also developing a series of resources to support young people to learn about menstruation and to assist whānau, teachers, and other adults with conversations with young people about periods. The first resource from the series is a comic called “It’s all good!” that can be read by pre- and early menstruating students. It is now available online in te reo Māori and English through the Ministry of Education website, and schools can order printed copies.

Sarah Pallett: How does this programme support the Government’s wider work to reduce barriers to education?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This programme goes some way to reducing costs on families because we know that right now every little bit counts. By supplying period products and healthy school lunches, and scrapping the school donation scheme, this Government is tearing down some of the barriers that keep our kids away from school. We’ve very proud of this work and what it does for student learning outcomes and also student wellbeing.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on electoral law that “There’s absolutely no change to the principle of one person, one vote. Our elections are still going to be one person, one vote for the councils, for general elections”, and does she stand by all her statements on electoral law?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes, and yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement when this Parliament passed the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Act last year, which gives Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two councillors in addition to its members enjoying one person, one vote for all the other councillors—a clear move away from one person, one vote?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Very much in a similar way that members of the previous National Government reconciled those similar statements when they cast their vote for the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. That bill, if this House will recall, did exactly one of two things: first, it ensured that there were democratic representatives elected to Environment Canterbury, and, secondly, it ensured that Ngāi Tahi retained the right and the obligation to appoint two members to that entity.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can she not understand the difference between an appointment made by a democratically elected Government—which is accountable to the voters—on a transitional basis, and a permanent shift away from the principle of equal voting rights in this country, as is brought about by the Canterbury Regional Council bill?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, I fully do understand, and I understand that the previous National Government voted for a model that enabled direct voting and direct appointments by Ngāi Tahu in that circumstance.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her statement during the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill: “In simple terms, voters want to know, and have a right to know, how we as politicians butter our bread.”, and, if so, why did she expect Kiwis to go down to the Companies Office to do research to figure out just how much of her bread the Race Relations Commissioner had buttered?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: To the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Grant Robertson: What a disgrace that man is.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it set a—disgraceful?

SPEAKER: Order! The question—the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it set a good example that the Minister responsible for electoral law only declares a conflict of interest with a political donor after she has been caught red-handed?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Probably just to the latter part of that question first: if the member means caught red-handed by publicly disclosing and making declarations in accordance with the Electoral Act, then I stand here guilty.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I let my colleague finish answering that question, but I’m really struggling with how that fits with the primary question that was put down.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I probably should have stood up and ruled that out of order, and I apologise to the member for not, actually. It is a term that is unparliamentary, and it shouldn’t have happened.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did she recuse herself from Cabinet when the decision was made to award the Human Rights Commission an additional $10 million in Budget 2022; if not, why not?

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. A supplementary question must follow on from the primary question that was asked. I do not believe that that question fulfils that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. My previous question canvassed the issue of voters wanting to know “how we as politicians butter our bread.”, which was perfectly on the question of transparency around donations, and this follows perfectly from that in terms of transparency and conflicts of interest. I’m just—

SPEAKER: Can you read that question again.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which one?

SPEAKER: The one that is being challenged right now.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry, the current one? The current one is: did she recuse herself from Cabinet when the decision was made to award the Human Rights Commission an additional $10 million in Budget 2022; if not, why not?

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Two points: the first is the substantive point I made, which was that that question does not follow on from the primary question, which is what a supplementary question must do. Secondly, I believe that after the exchange we just heard, you indicated that the question that Mr Goldsmith is trying to hang that supplementary off, you would and should have ruled out of order. So on both counts—both the fact that it doesn’t follow from the primary question and from the fact that it shouldn’t have been allowed as the previous supplementary question—that question is out of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’ll rule on it. I agree with the Hon Grant Robertson. That is neither about electoral law reform nor one person, one vote.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point.

SPEAKER: Are you speaking to my ruling or a new point of order?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, I would just point out that it is not unusual in the course of oral questions for supplementaries to go slightly wide of the primary. The question that was answered by the Minister had an element at the end of it that you have ruled unparliamentary, but, having answered the supplementary question, it must be in order for the member asking the question to be able to further explore the answer that the Minister gave.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but it’s not about her statements at all. So have you got another supplementary?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes, it—well, the primary question was: does she stand by her statements on electoral law? The third supplementary, which you did not rule out—

SPEAKER: No, I’m not arguing it. Have you got another supplementary or not?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, I can’t remember how many I’ve had.

Maureen Pugh: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, I haven’t, but—

SPEAKER: Well, then, it’s a no. [Interruption] Order!

Question No. 6—Justice

6. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Justice: What announcements has she made about improving victims’ experiences in the justice system?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The Government is delivering on its promise to improve victims’ experiences in the courts and the wider justice system. In the recess, I announced a series of practical changes to give victims more rights and support in the justice system. This package includes legislative changes, new pilot programmes in the courts, and additional funding for Victim Support and the Victim Assistance Scheme. Since 2017, the Government has made the largest ever investment in victims, including direct support and system changes, with the goal of ensuring the justice system serves all New Zealanders.

Dr Emily Henderson: What legislative changes will be made?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Government will introduce a bill before the election that will make an immediate and meaningful difference to the lives of the victims of some of our most serious and violent crime. Currently, a child sexual assault victim can be questioned as to whether they consented to sexual activity. This is unacceptable and falls well below societal expectations of how the law should work. The bill will fix the law to minimise the risk of this happening. The bill will also provide the courts with greater powers to stop litigation abuse—for example, filing excessive or abusive applications in family related proceedings—and clarify the process to lift name suppression in the criminal court, giving victims a clear opportunity at the time of trial to ask about having their name suppression lifted.

Dr Emily Henderson: What pilot projects will be launched?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Government will launch three pilot programmes in mid-2023 to improve safety and help navigate the court system for victims of serious crimes, strengthen support for child victims of sexual violence, and ensure victims’ views are provided in bail decisions. These will be trialled in the courts in Whangārei and Manukau over the next year, with an aim to test fixes for some of the bigger gaps in the system and provide crucial evidence about what works in order to drive longer-term change. These initiatives will be evaluated, adjusted according to front-line and victims’ feedback, and then, if successful, we can look at how the solutions can be scaled up.

Dr Emily Henderson: What additional resources are being provided to Victim Support and the Victim Assistance Scheme?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Victim Support will receive an additional $3 million in funding, and $2.2 million in additional funding will be provided to the Victim Assistance Scheme. With this, Victim Support will be able to employ an additional 23 front-line staff, and its 187 active volunteers will be able to get better training and support to do their job. With the increase to the Victim Assistance Scheme, an estimated 10,000 more grants will be paid to victims. These services play a critical role in providing front-line support to victims at all stages of the criminal justice process and beyond. This announcement builds on the significant investment the Government has made since coming into office, including tripling the fund for the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubling the fund for Victim Support.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why, when comparing the December 2022 quarter to the September 2017 quarter, were 49,377 more people receiving the jobseeker benefit but 37,551 fewer people receiving case management?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The reason there are fewer people captured under the case management category is due to a change in the way the category is defined. Previously, if someone had been to a group seminar, they were counted as being in case management, whereas now the numbers reflect someone getting ongoing, active support. I am advised that people with complex needs and specific employment support get case management support. Also, it is important to note that there are a range of supports available to those on jobseeker benefits; case management is just one type. To ensure that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had a more focused approach to employment, this Government invested $76.3 million specifically for work-focused case management, and MSD has since ringfenced a number of case managers to focus just solely on employment. We’re seeing record numbers of people go into work and off benefits: in the year to March 2023, we saw 90,693 people moving off benefit and into work. This was 15.8 percent higher than the 78,321 people who moved off benefit and into employment in the year to March 2017.

Hon Louise Upston: How many more case managers has the Ministry of Social Development hired since September 2017?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: It’s both an investment in specifically employment-focused case managers, as I mentioned, but it’s also actually better and more targeted support that this Government has been investing in. I mentioned the figures previously in my answer to the primary question, which was $76.3 million specifically on work-focused case management and a ring-fenced number of case managers on employment alone. The other point that I’d just like to make to the member concerned is the fact that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group found in 2014 that employment-focused case managers engaged proactively with 50 percent of their clients every month to support them into employment at the time. That continued to fall to an all-time low of 19 percent until we started investing in employment-focused case management. Now, we have about 55,000 people receiving ongoing employment case management. So it’s not just about the numbers; it’s about more targeted support.

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I think my point of order is going to be quite obvious. I simply asked how many more case managers have been employed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, the member’s primary question was a fairly general question about the number of people on jobseeker benefit and the number of people receiving case management. To ask for a very specific number off the back of that question, the member can’t expect that to be specifically answered. I believe that the Minister addressed the question in her comments.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, the primary question was very specific about people receiving case management and fewer people receiving case management. The question was “How many more”. It would be perfectly in order for the Minister to say—if she doesn’t—“I don’t know”. We got a very, very long dissertation that didn’t go anywhere near addressing the question.

SPEAKER: To be honest, I’m uncertain, so I’m going to give the member an extra question so that she can further ask.

Hon Louise Upston: Thank you. If the number of increased case managers is approximately 1,500 that have been hired since September 2017, why are 37,551 fewer people on welfare receiving case management?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I will note that that is a figure that the member has suggested; that is not one that we’re able to, or that the ministry is able to support at this point. But what I will say is that under this Government, as I have said previously, we have changed the way, and what it means to get case management is something that is much better and much more tailored to the needs of the people who need it. It is also one amongst a range of supports that people on jobseeker benefit get. As I mentioned previously, under the previous Government’s definition, if you attended a group seminar with a whole bunch of other people, you were, apparently, getting case management, but it wasn’t actually targeted to the needs of those people. On top of that, we’re also seeing engagement with case managers increase as well.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she accept that if more people had had case management, we would see more people move off welfare into work, instead of 50,000 more on the jobseeker benefit?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What I will say is that 55,000 people are receiving the tailored employment case management that they need based on their needs. What I will also accept is that in the year to March 2023, we saw 90,693 people moving off benefit and into work. This is 15.8 percent higher than in the year to March 2017, and it shows our approach is working.

Hon Louise Upston: If the case management approach is working, why is it that there are now more people returning to welfare after 13 weeks and, instead, she’s claiming a great success of exits into work? They’re back on benefit in 13 weeks.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I will say that employment is at an all-time low. I have already outlined the figures of people getting into work. I can also say that there are a range of other supports like Flexi-wage scheme expansions, where 25,581 placements have been seen through that; Mana in Mahi—since 2018, over 5,800 placements; over 10,000 rangatahi have engaged over the lifetime of He Poutama Rangatahi; and 27,168 apprentices have been supported through the Apprenticeship Boost. What we are doing on this side of the House is to support people in ways that they need to get off the benefit and into work, and work that is meaningful.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she accept that if more people had case management, we would see lifetime benefit numbers reduce, instead of the 20 percent increase to 12.8 years under her watch?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I have said time and again in this House to questions from this member, the way that we are supporting people through case management is different. It is more targeted, it is working, and I think I’ve already pointed out the figures to show that.

Hon Louise Upston: Is she not concerned that benefit dependency has exploded, with more people on the jobseeker benefit and staying there for longer, at a time that businesses everywhere are looking for staff?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I have said previously, we are supporting people to move off benefits and into work that is meaningful. Various figures can point to that, and that is work that we will continue to do.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps, if any, is the Government taking to review hardship assistance and civil defence payments that have not been increased in nearly 20 years to ensure these meet the needs of whānau affected by floods, cyclones, and other natural disasters?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: This Government has already made changes to improve hardship assistance. We’ve increased income thresholds permanently for hardship assistance so that low-income workers can access this support, and increased dental grants from $300 to $1,000. As part of the welfare overhaul, we also have a review of hardship assistance under way, and that will include civil defence payments. This Government has acted quickly to support communities impacted by weather events earlier this year, and we continue to do so. Civil defence payments are an important part of this, and over the course of the weather events, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) paid over $64 million in civil defence payments to over 100,000 people. There is a lot of flexibility in the number of grants that MSD can provide in exceptional circumstances and I believe that we have effectively supported people through these tough times, and, as I have mentioned, we’ll continue to do so.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think that current thresholds for civil defence payment eligibility are adequate, and, if not, will she conduct the review with urgency so that families do not have to experience more severe weather events and only be able to receive a payment that is 20 years old?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I think the point to note here is the flexibility of the civil defence payments. They cover a fair bit of ground—a large number of circumstances following the weather events that we have seen to date—and I think it’s also important to note that we are currently looking into the rates of hardship assistance as part of the welfare overhaul, as I have mentioned. It is a priority for this Government to look into this over the next 12 months.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think families should always be made aware of the maximum amount they are entitled to through the civil defence payment, rather than being asked how much they need when it may not match the need that they have?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I mentioned previously, both the flexibility of civil defence payments and the fact that they are based on the needs of individuals and families are important to note. I think I’ve also made it clear that MSD case managers should ensure that people who are coming to them for support get their full and correct entitlement; in fact, there has been a work programme under way to ensure that this happens, and it is now standard practice for MSD to ensure that their clients are receiving full and correct entitlements at every engagement. In fact, during the weather response, MSD staff were on the ground from the get-go, working in civil defence centres, working in the community centres as well, setting up the emergency 0800 number, and responding to thousands of calls per day for assistance. I’ve been on the ground at some of those centres myself, and I have seen that staff are talking to clients about their full and correct entitlements.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that if MSD staff do not proactively and always tell people needing assistance the maximum amount they are legally entitled to before asking how much they need, some families will not be getting their full and correct entitlements?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: While I can’t speak on behalf of every individual MSD case manager, what I can say is that it is standard practice for MSD to ensure that clients do get their full and correct entitlements.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that climate-related natural disasters are likely to result in communities needing greater support through the civil defence payments, and, if so, will she move forward the review of these payments to ensure that they’re fit for purpose?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Civil defence payments kick in when there is a civil defence emergency, and that will continue to happen, regardless of the number of such situations we have. With regard to the review, as I have said, it is a priority for this Government to look into that in the next 12 months.

Teanau Tuiono: Why did Māori receive, on average, a lower amount from the civil defence payment following the recent flooding events?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: On behalf of the Minister, while the average dollar amount per grant for Māori may be lower than for people of other ethnicities, it is more useful to look at the average dollar amount per person. The average dollar amount per person for Māori recipients of the civil defence payment was $630.63—higher than the average for Europeans, and in line with the overall average. I will also reiterate the point that I made earlier that civil defence payments can be accessed multiple times, based on need. The Government has also invested $15 million to accelerate the Māori-led response to Cyclone Gabrielle. The investment is supporting a range of efforts, including providing relief workers, planning and coordination of recovery and clean-up, and purchase of replacement equipment and storage for food and taonga.

Question No. 9—Education

9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: On what date did she first become aware that her answer to an oral question on 22 February 2023 was incorrect, and did she attend a meeting with her staff on 9 February referred to in an email sent by her office to the Ministry of Education stating, “FYI, the Minister’s office are looking to potentially release the Term 3 attendance data early next week. Something we can chat about at our meeting later today”?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, on 1 May 2023, when the Speaker wrote to me regarding the matter, which I accepted and subsequently made a personal statement in the House on 2 May to clarify that. To the second part of the question, no.

Erica Stanford: How could she have been so very adamant in answers to oral questions in this House that her office had no say over the release of the attendance data when emails released under the Official Information Act (OIA) show that her office played an active role in planning the release of the term 3 attendance data to coincide with her political announcement on attendance?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That was my understanding at the time.

Erica Stanford: Why did she state in answers to oral questions on 22 February that the Ministry of Education are responsible for the release of the attendance data and that “I have no say over that.” when the Ministry of Education emailed her office on three separate occasions asking when the data will be released?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the data is the ministry’s data and it is their data to release. That was my understanding at the time, and that is what I stand by in my answer on 22 February. Subsequently, Mr Speaker, you have written to me and I have given a personal explanation, and I absolutely agree with your ruling and stand by it.

Erica Stanford: Is she expecting this House to believe that her staff in her ministerial office didn’t inform her in the six weeks before recess that her answers were misleading, given it was those same staff who were actively planning the release of the data to coincide with her political announcement?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I was not aware of the correspondence the member is referring to before question time on 22 February. My staff informed me about it afterwards. However, I still felt my answers reflected what I was intending them to mean at the time of delivery, which is that the Ministry of Education are responsible for the collation and release of the term 3 attendance data.

Erica Stanford: In relation to the answers she just gave where she said that her staff did tell her after that supplementary answers were incorrect, why at that point didn’t she ask them whether or not they were actively involved in delaying the date of the release of the data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the data is the ministry’s data and it is their data to release.

Erica Stanford: Isn’t it true that in December, when she saw the term 3 attendance data, she actively worked to delay its release, then told this House she played no part in determining its release date, and only corrected her statement 10 weeks later when she was forced to because of an OIA release of emails showing her staff actively planning to delay the data to coincide with her political announcement?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! I’m just going to remind the National Party that they have one more supplementary, should they wish to use it, but I’m almost tempted to take it off them after that little display. Do you—[Interruption] Well, it’s just in case you didn’t realise.

Chris Penk: Not now, thanks.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question No. 10—Defence

10. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcement has the Government made about New Zealand’s support for Ukraine?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Yesterday, the Government announced that we are significantly extending our defence commitments, as well as humanitarian, legal, and economic support for Ukraine, as part of the ongoing international response to Russia’s illegal war of aggression. Since February last year, New Zealand has taken significant and unprecedented actions to support Ukraine, including the deployment of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) troops into Europe, passing the Russia Sanctions Act that has enabled us to impose targeted sanctions for the first time outside of the UN framework, and introducing the 2022 Special Ukraine Visa. This Government continues to condemn Russia’s egregious and illegal actions.

Ibrahim Omer: What defence support has been provided to support Ukraine?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The New Zealand Defence Force has had personnel in Europe for over a year now, and New Zealand’s deployments have been highly valued by Ukraine and our key partners. So far, 440 NZDF personnel have been deployed to support Ukraine, with 279 directly involved in the artillery and infantry training being delivered in the UK. We are extending the deployment for one year of 95 New Zealand defence personnel, who will continue to train and support Ukrainian armed forces through to 30 June 2024. The extension of this deployment demonstrates both our ongoing commitment to the defence of their country against an unprovoked and unlawful invasion and to uphold the international rule of law. In addition to the infantry training, the NZDF has been invited by the United States to support training of Ukrainian personnel and Western-led space operations and increase the interoperability with like-minded partners. This work may also include the training of Polish armed forces personnel.

Ibrahim Omer: What humanitarian support has been provided to Ukraine?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government has already committed almost $13 million in humanitarian assistance to address the humanitarian consequences of Russia’s illegal war of aggression in Ukraine. This package shows our resolve has not waned and our ongoing support for Ukraine and the international response has not diminished. The increase in humanitarian support for Ukraine announced yesterday includes $2 million to the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund to support the provision of healthcare, food assistance, clean water, and shelter; $1.5 million to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, providing humanitarian support to Ukrainian refugees; and $500,000 towards a New Zealand disaster response partnership with New Zealand NGOs on the regional refugee response. I might add that in addition to this humanitarian assistance, we’ve also expanded the sanctions imposed on Russian and Iranian entities and individuals.

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: Can he confirm that of the 4,605 sentenced prisoners in Corrections facilities as at 31 March 2023, over 90 percent did not attend a rehabilitation programme during that month, and what implications does failing to rehabilitate prisoners have for the safety of New Zealanders?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): As at 31 March 2023, 419 sentenced prisoners attended rehabilitation programmes, alongside prisoners taking part in a wide range of other activities, including education, employment, cultural, and reintegration activities. I note for wider context that as a proportion of the overall sentenced population, this is, in fact, a slightly higher proportion than attended a rehabilitation programme in the corresponding month of March 2017 under the previous Government. It is important to note that the member’s question refers to one fixed point in time, which does not provide a complete picture of a prisoner’s rehabilitative journey—for example, prisoners may have recently completed a rehabilitation programme and not yet commenced another programme. In regards to the second part of her question, public safety is a top priority for myself and the Department of Corrections, and rehabilitation is part of that.

Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked whether or not the Minister could confirm that 4,605 sentenced prisoners in Corrections had not attended their rehabilitation programmes, and we got told that 419 had.

SPEAKER: It’s definitely been addressed.

Toni Severin: Why was it that as of March this year, 37 percent of prisoners eligible to attend an intensive numeracy programme and 65 percent of prisoners eligible to attend an intensive literacy programme were not enrolled in any such programme?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’s a well-known fact that due to the shortage of staffing in prisons, it’s been difficult to provide full rehabilitation programmes, but this is a temporary thing. It’s also a well-known fact that there has been quite a substantial recruitment campaign that is seeing quite some success, and we hope to see that situation turn around.

Toni Severin: Is it acceptable that 92 percent of sentenced prisoners did not receive even one of their weekly private visits in March 2023?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I refer the member to the answer I just gave.

Question No. 12—Revenue

12. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Revenue: What were the main findings of the Inland Revenue Department’s report on the effective tax rate paid by high-wealth individuals?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Last week, Inland Revenue released its research which showed the large difference between the tax rates middle-income New Zealanders pay on their income compared with wealthier citizens. The research delved into the wealth income and tax paid by 311 of New Zealand’s high-wealth individuals, including their life partners and dependent children. Their financial affairs are very complex and can involve multiple trusts and up to a hundred companies. The study looked into the tax they paid personally as well as that paid via their many trusts and companies. They had, on average, $276 million of net assets each; $85 billion in total. The study showed that 93 percent of their income comes from investment returns and that their effective tax rate was 9.5 percent, including income taxes, company taxes, trustee tax, and the GST they’ve paid. The assessment criteria were based on similar studies overseas, including by the OECD, and the application of those tax criteria was informed by an external reference group.

Helen White: Why was this research needed?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, as Thomas Piketty has shown, population-based surveys like the household economic—[Interruption] They don’t like it, do they? They just don’t like it. Transparency on everything, except the tax paid by the wealthy! But, as we know, Thomas Piketty has proven surveys like the household economic survey (HES) are inaccurate at the top. The HES has only ever picked up two people with assets of more than $20 million in a country of billionaires. It’s out by a factor of more than 100 at the top. The IRD report used actual data, not an analysis of scenarios based on population-based surveys, so for the first time even the National Party now knows indisputably that the effective tax rate paid by middle-income earners is more than twice or sometimes three times that paid by our wealthiest citizens.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Did that report indicate the effects on New Zealanders with low or high income of increasing GST?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In fact, the study showed that the highest-income New Zealanders pay very low rates of GST relative to their income, compared with middle-income New Zealanders.

Andrew Bayly: Why did the IRD use unrealised capital gains to calculate effective tax rates, unless his Government, which commissioned the report, is gearing up to tax ’em?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not responsible for the phantom tax policies invented by the National Party.

Helen White: What is the effective tax rate of someone whose income is a salary of $80,000?

Hon DAVID PARKER: A Kiwi whose income is a salary or wage of $80,000 pays income tax at an average rate of 22 percent, plus the GST they pay out of their income. They spend two-thirds of their income, roughly, on GST, which means, as a percentage of their income, it’s another 8 or 9 percent. So their effective tax rate is 30 percent, which is three times the effective tax rate of wealthy New Zealanders. A companion study from the Treasury shows that whichever way you cut it, Mr Bayly—whichever way you cut it—whichever families you look at, the wealthy are paying less than half the rate of the middle class.

Helen White: What other insights does the Inland Revenue study provide?

Hon DAVID PARKER: For me, one of the many interesting facts from the study is that on average, the higher the proportion a high-wealth individual owns of a company, the lower the rate of profit and tax of that company. Given that the wealthy are amongst the best business people in New Zealand, it’s counterintuitive. It indicates that high-wealth individuals can borrow more money against their asset base to acquire even more assets. Their interest costs reduce taxable income, while capital income earned from the increasing asset base is often untaxed—exactly as Andrew Bayly likes it.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. [Interruption] Order! Before everyone goes, can I just ask you to go quietly and immediately. Thank you—those who are going.

Special Debates

Local Issues

SPEAKER: Members, we now come to the debate about local issues arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Before I call a member, there is no speaking list. Members, I do have a list as advised by both members and parties, as I am fully aware, but any member can stand. It’s about local issues, not the impact of a general Government policy, and so I’ll be arranging things thusly.

Also, the speaking time is five minutes. You’ve been distributed approximate times for each party. It’s up to each party to manage their own time—I won’t be doing that—but members have up to five minutes, so if they have split it amongst their party, they should monitor those timings themselves.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I move, That the House take note of local issues.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. In the midst of the Omicron outbreak in early 2022, I canvassed local groups in Auckland Central about what services were at risk for our structurally marginalised communities if the pandemic ripped through volunteer teams. Collaborating with Sunday Blessings and the Student Volunteer Army, we established the Omicron resilience team to ensure that hot meals and advocacy support continued to get to those people experiencing homelessness and hard times. Eventually, we ended up getting a small council grant to formalise the structure, the network that that underpinned, and established the Ellen Melville Centre community hub for the fortnight from the devastating Auckland Anniversary floods through Cyclone Gabrielle.

It took days for Auckland Emergency Management to realise that this was even happening. In crises, our systems are tested in rapid speed. We see what works and what doesn’t, and we saw what worked; it was the community.

Our political institutions are supposed to reflect and represent and support our communities—those communities; all of us. It is why it was so galling that, in the wake and recovery of that climate change - charged destruction, Auckland Council’s annual budget went out for consultation, proposing to decimate resources for community, climate, arts, environment, culture, transport, homelessness, and social services. We are talking about permanent cancellation of more than 1,000 buses a day, while also increasing fares; ripping out a third of our bins in public parks; permanently closing 32 citizens advice bureaus, which were also on the front line throughout that flooding; 10 Kauri Kids early childhood centres. We’re talking about the gutting of our libraries, the slashing of water infrastructure upgrades, of arts and cultural programmes, that chopping of local board discretionary spending, and so many more brutal cuts alongside the sale of our assets.

This is not business as usual, and it shouldn’t be treated as if it is. The budget proposal is, in fact, contrary to every foundational and widely consulted policy plank underpinning Auckland Council, like the 30-year Auckland Plan, like the climate plan, and the City Centre Masterplan. This is the most significant and austere local government budget in my lifetime. That cannot be emphasised enough, especially in a House where approximately a third of the seats are made up by Tāmaki-makau-rau - based MPs. Think about a parochial version of the 1984 austerity budget.

And our communities? Well, they’re not happy. So, off the back of coordinating flooding and cyclone support, rehousing people, and coordinating resources, our communities, once again, organised. We saw, in record submissions, the most ever on any annual budget to the super-city council, here on the slash-and-burn budget. The crystal-clear majority of 51 percent of Aucklanders who submitted do not support cuts to regional services. At least 54 percent supported either the council taking on greater debt, greater rates, or both.

These cuts cannot stand. I think it’s really important to note that a different future is entirely possible, that different forms of political leadership are entirely possible. Auckland Council could, for example, follow suit, if the leadership demonstrated here in Pōneke Wellington by Mayor Tory Whanau, who is confronting the reality of infrastructural deficit and meeting community needs with a proposed 13 percent rates increase—or less than the cost of a cup of coffee per household per week. There’s also been proposals from the likes of A Better Budget For Auckland and many other community organisations. A different future is possible, because it turns out that austerity is expensive, especially for those in our communities who can afford it the least. Our communities will not continue to allow the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of cost—the deficit politics which rips the heart out of our cities and out of our services.

Mayor Wayne Brown knows full well my intention to continue campaigning on this. I really look forward to continued engagement with MPs across this House, because, once again, I must say, there are 40 of us who are based in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. I also think it’s critical to note to councillors—Auckland councillors who may be watching—that we are watching, and we are looking forward to their leadership for Aucklanders.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Every time I enter this debating chamber, I do so as the proud member for Coromandel, and I always have uppermost in my thoughts when I’m in this debating chamber the people, the communities, the neighbourhoods, and the businesses of the beautiful Coromandel. But mine is a region that has been pummelled, and pummelled badly, by weather, by nature, and by a range of circumstances that have set the region back many years.

Now, it’s been more than three months now since the devastating impacts of, firstly, Cyclone Hale, and then Cyclone Gabrielle, really bashed the Coromandel Peninsula and neighbouring regions so badly. Now, I don’t want to take anything away from the devastating impact in parts of the East Coast, Northland, or in other parts of the country, but, as I rise and speak today, it is raining in the Coromandel again, and communities are wondering and concerned about what that might mean as autumn rolls on and as winter approaches. So I want to thank the contractors, the workers—the people who go out in very heavy weather events day after day, under difficult, challenging circumstances, to try and keep the roads open and to try and keep communities connected. But they do their best under difficult circumstances more and more frequently.

Strangely enough, often it is at times of great adversity that individuals and communities are often at their best, and that certainly has been the case in the Coromandel. There have been outstanding stories of commitment, of neighbourliness, and of care and compassion for people in circumstances that have been, in some cases, life threatening.

But it’s on State Highway 25, the main arterial route across the Coromandel, that I want to focus some thoughts on today in this debate. That road, from Kōpū on the Thames side of the peninsula, through to Hikuai on the eastern seaboard, has been closed for more than three months now, and still—and still—we are waiting, from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), a decision about what will be their preferred repair option. Now, that’s simply unacceptable—absolutely unacceptable. Now, I know they’re busy—I know that they’ve got a lot on. But for the people and visitors to the Coromandel, not knowing and not having certainty about what’s being proposed, let alone any sense of when the road might eventually be opened, it is concerning and it’s causing enormous angst but also real financial hardship and health risks to the people who live in or visit the Coromandel.

We’re told that it may be more than a year before that highway is open. That would mean a devastating, fourth miserable summer period for the Coromandel and for its businesses. Now, we’ve had two previous summer business periods completely ruined due to COVID, and then this summer just gone has also been impacted by cyclones and weather events. The prospect of a fourth consecutive summer is just too dire to contemplate for businesses in my part of the country, and the reason is simply this: the financial model that works so well in the Coromandel relies very heavily on a summer peak of tens of thousands of visitors every summer. So for many of the visitors and businesses, that’s the time when they spend time and money in the region. But for the businesses, that’s when they do the bulk of their revenue taking, and if they can’t get revenue over the summer period, there’s very little prospect of them making up over the winter months.

So I want to continue to put pressure on the Government, continue to put pressure on our local council, and continue to put pressure on the New Zealand Transport Agency to give us certainty, to give us clarity about what they’re going to do, and then do everything possible to make it happen. There is no sense of urgency I’m getting from either our council, our Government, or the NZTA about fixing State Highway 25 and the other fragile roads around the Coromandel Peninsula. As we go into what will be a long, wet, cold winter, I’m fearful for what that might mean for the people of Coromandel, but I will continue to fight for them every day that I’m in this place.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The rain didn’t stop for 24 hours. Roads closed; schools flooded; dementia homes were evacuated; thousands of homes and businesses were ruined by contaminated water, which included sewage. And, look, this could have been Auckland, 27 January or Hawke’s Bay a few weeks later, but it wasn’t: this was South Dunedin on 3 June in 2015. Now, my heart goes out to the people of Auckland and the East Coast, because they now know all about climate change. But people in South Dunedin have known about this for a decade. We’ve lived with it, researched it, worried about it, and talked about it. People have planned for weather events, but, to be honest, not much has been done about proactively creating a vision for our city. Now, this is part of New Zealand’s highest deprivation levels; some households have got incomes as low as $14,000 a year.

But while they are poor in financial resource, they are hugely wealthy in social cohesion, aroha, community, and love for where we live. The land is flat, so there’s high levels of disability, and there’s a lot of older people. So if you put poverty, old age, and disability into the mix with climate change, that’s a very wicked problem. Insurance payouts were at $28 million at that time. However, the real cost in terms of economic and social damage of those floods was around $138 million, and the flooding wasn’t just severe, it was also in the most densely populated part of the city. So while most of Dunedin is hilly, South Dunedin is flat. It’s made up of fresh water, marsh, and swamps with sand underneath it, and then there’s dunes on the shore that protect, in a way, from sea-level rise. And the flat has become one of the most densely populated parts of New Zealand; it’s got lots of little Scottish houses on tiny little sections, built, basically, on to the sand.

So there’s three elements which make it a perfect storm when it comes to climate change: there’s sea-level rise and the wearing down of the dunes there; there’s the thin water table—so some areas are as low as 30 centimetres from where the water comes, and the hills around make it, basically, like a bath-tub, so the water comes down off the hills in weather events; and the land is sinking by one millimetre a year.

The fifth element is more man-made, and that’s around an issue that’s affecting so much of New Zealand—broken pipes—and this certainly came out after 2015. There was a bit of argy-bargy between the community and the council about what was to do with broken pipes or pipes that haven’t been cleaned; and what was climate change—and that was really divisive. It made a stand-off from the council with the community, and then managed retreat was mentioned. There wasn’t the care taken in to have that conversation, and people got really traumatised. Since then, people have learned from that—there’s been lots of research, bores have been drilled, there’s water forecasting enabled, lots of meetings by the council with locals, and the community does feel like it’s part of the conversation, but what it wants now is action. Eight years of reports and talking and consulting without any visible action is a lot of time.

Since I’ve been the MP, I’ve reached out to the Dunedin City Council several times to say that I think New Zealand needs a pilot for climate change adaptation, and I think that South Dunedin should be that pilot. We need creative, leading-edge urban design, design that can adapt to the water flows. So you could look at street cambers; look at how houses are built—whether they could be removed or moved around. South Dunedin could be a poster child for climate change adaptation, but it needs a scale of ambition that is more than I’ve seen from the local bodies, and it’s more than what ratepayers can provide. It needs political will and co-creation, so not a proposal that’s just put into a budget line; it needs to truly be co-created. It needs a vision that’s exciting and that inspires taxpayers from, say, the North Island to feel like they’re getting value for money from this.

So we are the single biggest community to face flooding from sea-level rise, at least in the medium term. I think that the work that the Dunedin City Council has done around mapping and showing how the housing market will naturally shift to move to higher and safer ground is fantastic—it’s world leading, it’s award winning, and we’ve been shown that, as local MPs. But I’ve been nagging my senior colleagues about this issue, saying, “I think that we need to have a co-created solution”, and I believe there’s political will.

It is crunch time, so we need a vision. We need the people in the city, the city leaders, to reach out to Government and say, “Let’s do something about this.”, because if we don’t pay for this now, if we don’t front foot and invest, we will end up paying with the aftermath. So do we get caught out and pay anyway, or do we invest?

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m here today to talk about the issues that I’ve heard about from so many people in Tāmaki. I’ve been out listening to locals, and what I’ve heard is that what people want are safe beaches, roads that get people places, shop owners and workers not being terrified that they might be ram-raided, and consequences for crime. People have told me that infrastructure is under pressure in Tāmaki. It’s a beautiful, beautiful place. More and more people want to make their home and live in Tāmaki, but intensification means more homes, more cars, and infrastructure under pressure. Our community welcomes growth, but we want to have more say on how it happens. We know what it means for the beaches when it rains. We know what it means on roads that mean they need as much work as the cycleways have recently got. And we know what that means, street by street, for our community.

I have put out a survey to the people of Tāmaki asking for examples of local infrastructure problems, and what I’ve received are lots of examples of where we can do better. In Glendowie, the council storm drains have flooded people’s gardens. In St Heliers, the stormwater pipes are too small and the drains are constantly clogged. In Kohimārama, we have drains that are clogged, especially around Madills Farm. Around Tāmaki Drive, the new cycleway, it doesn’t even drain when there’s minimal rain. Out in St Johns, the drains are clogged, and in Meadowbank and in Mission Bay, the stormwater system is overwhelmed. In Ōrākei, I’ve heard people say that the sewage is contaminating the stormwater system, and in Remuera there is raw sewage that’s overflowing and the pipes just can’t handle the number of people. And in Wai o Taiki Bay, we have sewerage that’s been incorrectly hooked up to the stormwater system. This is not an exhaustive list. There are so many problems. These are the examples that I have and I will be taking to local council.

But I’ve also heard about crime and safety. A few days ago, I visited two shop owners in Glen Innes who were ram-raided. There were young kids in a car who smashed in and burgled them. It’s not OK that our shop owners do not feel safe. It’s not OK that women don’t feel safe walking home from work. And it’s not OK that we have family members in our community who are being attacked at night.

We have to do better so people feel safe in the community, and we have to do better for the local infrastructure problems. I’ve been listening to the community. I’m going to work hard and be a strong voice for the people of Tāmaki. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure, as the member of Parliament for North Shore, to be able to participate in this local issues debate this afternoon. I want to talk this afternoon about the mighty North Shore and, in particular, those communities on the North Shore that were impacted by the significant flooding that occurred at the end of January, nearly three months ago—in particular, the business community based on Wairau Road, in the neighbouring electorate of Northcote, that were impacted as a result of the significant waters that flowed through there.

It also is important to acknowledge that there was the loss of life of two people in the Wairau Valley of the North Shore, and that was again reinforcing the significance of that implication. But the business owners that I have spoken to in that part of the North Shore remain frustrated and challenged about the significance of the impact of the flooding and the damage that that caused, in terms of the urgency required from a number of actors in our society, including local government and central government, in order to try and provide certainty for their resolution and remediation from where they are. A number of members of my community in the North Shore who own businesses in the Wairau Road vicinity have lost significant cash flow. They have the inability to continue to operate their businesses, because those buildings are out of order. Many of them are operating out of Portacabins, using Portaloos, while they’re waiting for builders and assessors still, 90 days on, to be able to come in and provide some certainty.

I met with a number of those business owners at one of those businesses a matter of weeks ago, and one of the business owners there was brought to tears as she outlined and described the challenges and frustrations of not having certainty, in terms of being able to move forward. This is a significant business owner, a business owner that employs a large number of people, and the frustration and stress and challenge that she described, along with other members of her family and other business owners along that stretch of road, was very, very clear. In response to that meeting, I wrote a letter to both Watercare and also Healthy Waters—the two entities which have responsibility within the Auckland region for dealing with waste-water and stormwater.

Right behind the businesses that I am describing sits the Wairau Pump Station. This is the single waste-water treatment plant that provides provision of those services across that area, but also across the North Shore; right up until Devonport does that plant provide services. This is a 1960s waste-water treatment plant. It is a plant in which the pumps failed and, as a result of the pumps failing, a wall of sewage came down the Wairau Creek, which flowed down the Wairau Road, but also into Nile and Alma roads, off Shakespeare Road in Milford, and, as a result, flowed into the ocean at Milford Beach. That is the reality of what happened as a result of that sewerage outflow.

The challenge is that in March 2022, we had a similar flood. That flood indicated that there was a number of issues around the resilience of that infrastructure, and the plant in question actually was designated to be replaced in 2019. But, for reasons that remain unclear, that upgrade did not occur. What that reinforces is that, actually, the failure to take action could have mitigated some of the damage which our communities sustained and continue to sustain right on from now. I want to acknowledge the work by our local board on the North Shore, across both electorates, for the work they have done—also acknowledging a number of the community members: Bronwyn Bound is the centre manager of the Sunnynook Community Centre. She does an excellent job in terms of responding to that community. I want to reinforce that, as a community, everyone just wants to be able to move forward, have a solution in regards to certainty around how that infrastructure can be upgraded, so that these people can get on with their lives, get on with their businesses, and help support our beautiful neighbourhood.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker; good things come to those who wait. This is a chance to talk about local issues and there is no issue more prominent in the beautiful geothermal paradise of Rotorua than our housing situation. It has taken a hit over the past few years, but, actually, it’s been a problem that has been decades in the making. We haven’t kept up with our local housebuilding and, as a result, we are short, which is why media reports as recently as midway through last year were highlighting just how bad the problem had got—our motels filling up.

That happened partly because of what happened during COVID. We took all of our homeless people off the streets and we put them into motels. It was the right thing to do at the time, but it caused a bit of an interesting situation where, when we looked up, actually many of our hotels in a really small space had been occupied by people that had been taken off the streets and moved into that kind of accommodation. The image and the perception of our city took a real hit and it’s only starting to get back on its feet.

Thankfully, something that happened last year was that we signed six months ago—this month, actually—the Rotorua Housing Accord. Now, what that is is it’s a partnership between the Rotorua Lakes Council, the iwi Ngāti Whakaue and Te Arawa whānui, and also Government officials. We bring the best brains to the table to be able to get around there, hold each other accountable, and try and work through some of these issues.

Some of the issues that have been worked through, just to date, are the idea of supply, getting a real idea about how much housing we’re bringing online—public housing, papa kāinga housing—and it’s initiatives that this Government has actually invested in. We’ve had to invest in it for the benefit of the people of Rotorua.

Just next month, actually, we’re going to be opening a 15-unit papa kāinga development just opposite Rotorua Airport. That’s very exciting. It’s something that we’re all looking forward to. We’ve built 200 public homes in Rotorua, but also 300 are still in train, still coming down the pipeline. So we’re definitely trying to build that supply, build ourselves out of this crisis one house at a time.

On top of that, we need to make sure that we’ve got supports in place. And this is something that I hope that people understand. We’ve come up with something really innovative, which is the idea of a bespoke housing hub, and it is situated on Fenton Street in the middle of the CBD. Anybody that needs that kind of housing support can go to one front door, and go and get it from there. Innovatively, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have got people stationed there as well, so if people do need some kind of Government assistance they can get that.

More importantly, the Ministry of Health have also put up a health practitioner in there as well, because, often, people that present have health issues too. It was something that was identified by MSD. They came forward and said, “We’re not social workers; we are an administrative agency that are there to help. But if people have got health problems, we have to send them back out the door and round the corner and hope that they get to the hospital or to a GP clinic.”

Having a one-stop shop like Te Pokapū has helped to fix that. And it’s been done in a very kaupapa Māori way. The organisation is run by Te Taumata o Ngāti Whakaue and they have gone and put over that place a layer—a korowai of aroha and tikanga, actually—around it so that people that go in there are treated with love, with respect, like they should be, because people that are facing housing insecurity, sometimes they need as much help as they can get.

So when we’re looking at the big picture, we are increasing supply in Rotorua. We are making sure that support is easy to access. We’re building papa kāinga to be able to help Māori to be able to create solutions for themselves as well. And we’ve got this thing called “contracted emergency housing”, which, basically, means we’ve still got some motels that are operating with homeless whānau inside them. They look a little bit different, because they’ve usually got a barrier at the front. The difference between contracted motels is that we’re able to put in a bunch of rules and regulations around how those places operate. And it’s really good. The reports are coming back that, yes, although they’re in motels, actually, they’re being supported and they’re being looked after while they’re in those spaces.

So some of our best, brightest brains in this space from back home, they’re the first ones to say, “Don’t take away the contracted emergency housing.”, because that’s still a valid option for people and we just need to make sure that we’ve got tight rules around it. And that’s exactly what’s happening. What we’re seeing is a reduction in the number of motels.

And every month, the Rotorua Housing Accord meet. You’ve got the mayor, you’ve got the chief executive, you’ve got the senior officials from inside the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Kāinga Ora, who sit around that table, and the iwi have put forward their brightest brains, as well as a way to help keep each other accountable and make sure that we’re building ourselves out of the homelessness mess that we’ve found ourselves in.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. One of the great privileges of the nine years that I’ve had as the MP for Bay of Plenty is, to the best of my ability, being an advocate for a community that is growing rapidly. I’ve had a number of successes, and I feel very grateful for them. But as I look to embrace the twilight of my political career, there is an area that I have immense regret about, on behalf of my community, and that is the appalling delivery of mental health services in Tauranga. Tauranga, I think, for many in the Wellington bureaucracy is still the small seaside town that it was when I was a young boy, but, in the time that I have been an MP, it has grown from 140,000 to 175,000. It was 27,000 when my parents bought a Chinese gooseberry orchard just north of Tauranga, and it is under huge pressure in terms of service delivery, not only infrastructure but also health.

I accept that this is an issue that goes beyond a single term and beyond a single Government. But I see across the House my friend and colleague from the other side Angie Warren-Clark, and the two of us, coincidentally, had the same campaign promise in 2017 to our electorate, which was that we would work hard to ensure that mental health provisions were improved in the city—and, in particular, residential—and we were pleased to see that the Government, two years later, announced $30 million to be spent for a residential mental health facility in Tauranga. It’s now 2023. The $30 million has largely been spent. It’s been spent in Whakatāne, and Tauranga still does not have any additional facilities for people with acute mental health needs, and, unlike other cities, it has absolutely no residential options for anyone under the age of 18.

Where this gets particularly challenging is when you have parents ring you and your office asking for help, asking for navigation of the health system, because they are completely at their wits’ end trying to be there for their child, who is still a child but cannot access the support, and then when you have to have, and listen to, the conversation when they ring again and say that the help didn’t come in time and they now have lost that child—this is a reality that my office has experienced, and I suspect it’s been experienced by Angie as well.

We have to do better. I appreciate that this is not a conversation where we spend time finger-pointing; it’s a time, actually, when we reflect, as members of Parliament, on our own local issues and our own communities and how we can do better. We have to do better than seeing a city that is growing at the pace of Tauranga simply unable to be able to be there for our most vulnerable young people—and vulnerable people, full stop. We have a city of 170,000 where we have 24 residential beds to assist people who have acute mental health issues, and that number has been unchanged for over 25 years—four Governments have come and gone in this time. This is not me just unloading on this Government; this is a challenge for a city that simply does not have the support that it needs.

When you come to the conclusion of your political time, you always look and recall the things that you’re the most proud of, and I have many. But this really sits with me in a very uncomfortable way because I feel that I just haven’t been able to break the inertia that sits in our health system—particularly in a Wellington context—to provide the support that the people I was sent here to represent are desperately needing and are not getting. I think, as a House, we must do better because the cries of the Bay of Plenty echo throughout the country. Thank you.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I want to bring what is, for me, an incredibly important local issue to the House. It’s one that has occupied a great deal of my time as a representative, first for nine years as the member of Parliament for Dunedin North, and it continues to be an issue that has occupied much of my mental and other energies in my time representing Dunedin. And it’s one that I know my colleagues from Dunedin and the surrounding electorates also continue to fight for the best outcomes for, and that is the Dunedin Hospital rebuild. It’s now a $1.68 billion hospital rebuild project—the biggest ever hospital build in New Zealand’s history—and everyone agrees that it’s necessary.

I want to remind the House briefly, at the outset, how it has come to pass that this project is where it is, and it really kicked off a long time ago when there was asbestos in the roof, when the operating theatres were leaking. Everybody agreed something needed to be done. I can remember asking then Minister of Health Tony Ryall, in 2014, why there was so much delay in progressing planning for a rebuild, why there was no money set aside, and so I petitioned. I campaigned in 2014 and 2017 on a hospital rebuild for the people of Dunedin, and was in the fortunate position then, in 2017, as the Minister of Health, to carry that project into Cabinet to get the initial $1.2 billion set aside, to get the sites secured. Much like the Mayo Clinic, it’s recognised that part of the medical training magic in Dunedin is that people can teach, they can research, they can operate in an operating theatre, they can go and grab coffee, they can get to a green space, they can collaborate with academic colleagues, all within walking distance. That is part of the magic that needed to be preserved and so dictated the local site.

Then along came Pete Hodgson as the local advisory group chair, and I want to acknowledge all of Pete’s work over the years. I want to acknowledge the clinicians right from the outset—the likes of David Perez, an oncologist of some note; psychiatrist John Adams; all of those in the clinical area who have driven this project from the outset to make sure that Dunedin and the Otago-Southland region get the very best possible health outcomes. We deserve it in the South, we deserve the best health outcomes, and we deserve the most modern hospital in the country.

It will be a state-of-the-art hospital when it’s completed. Concerns have arisen late last year about some of the cost savings, and I want to briefly address those and also pay tribute to the local MPs who fought to make sure, again, that the interests locally were well served. Rachel Brooking has written articles for the newspaper on this. Ingrid Leary has been outspoken on this issue too; so too Rino Tirikatene and Liz Craig. They have all joined together to make sure that this project moves along in a constructive way, working with the Minister to make sure that the clinical outcomes that are at the core of this project have been at the heart of decision making around additional funding that has come through. And, again, there was an extra $110 million late last year; there was another $10 million recently, as Ayesha Verrall addressed some of the concerns that had been raised.

So it is a huge project. There is ongoing work. There is a review around mental health beds. There’s a review around space for pathology. There’s recently been $97 million in additional funding coming through for data and digital infrastructure because it will be the most modern, state-of-the-art hospital in the country and so it jolly well should be.

So I want to also say thank you to Dr Ayesha Verrall. On her second day as Minister of Health, she showed up in Dunedin—actually, because of the way ministerial writs are handed over, it was actually her first full day in the job—recognising local concerns. She came back soon after Easter and announced changes, and it really is something of a credit to her as a Minister that she immediately identified the issue, stood up, and said, “I’m going to own this and I am going to find a solution that addresses the real clinical concerns that sit behind it.”, and I want to acknowledge and thank her for that.

I do also want to acknowledge my successor, Rachel Brooking, who will be the Labour candidate in the upcoming election, and the leadership that she is showing in taking this cause forward: questioning how we are going to make sure we have the adequate training and attraction for the necessary health professionals in the future; asking the question about the critical interprofessional learning centre that will be built—how that’s going to be progressed, and where the funding is coming from. This is an amazing project. It’ll be much bigger and better than the old one: 70,000 square metres in the old site, 90,000 in the new; 367 beds in the old, 410 in the new. It is a bigger, better, state-of-the-art hospital and I’m very proud to have been associated with it.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you so much. I want to talk about how Wellington was built as a city around excellent public transport and walkability. We had electrified trams, regional rail—and, in fact, the rail was electrified more than half a century ago. We have a beautiful human-scale urban form that allows a lot of people to live within the city, to walk to their destinations, and we are surrounded by a beautiful town belt. Wellington absolutely was a paragon of excellent transit-oriented development, living in harmony with nature.

In the electorate I live in, Rongotai, people use the bus more than anywhere else in the country to get to work. That’s right—Rongotai is number one in the country for bus use. That is despite the appalling and shocking situation with cancellations and ghost buses that we currently have. So, despite the current dire situation of bus cancellations, patronage is up: it’s back to 97 percent of what it was pre-COVID. People want to take public transport, particularly in Rongotai. Rongotai is also the fourth-highest electorate when it comes to people using a bike to get to work, and that’s before the explosion in cargo bikes carrying children that I often see on my commute to work on a bike.

What I want to say right now is that Wellingtonians deserve better public transport, just like every other community in Aotearoa New Zealand. We can afford to have excellent public transport. It can be fully accessible; it can be very affordable. It benefits our people and our planet and our climate. But, currently, decisions that previous Governments made are leading to the situation where people can no longer rely on public transport to be reliable. You know, I’ve talked to so many people in the past few weeks who’ve missed appointments or been late to work because of bus cancellations, and this is a result of subsequent Governments underfunding public transport. Everybody here knows that before I came into Parliament I worked in transport and urban planning; I am passionate about public transport and that’s why I got involved. Under the last National Government, public transport was a poor cousin; it hardly got any investment. During that time, decisions were made by the regional council to make long-term plans around bus contracts that had no—they did not build in population growth or growth in patronage. So we’ve had several decades of languishing public transport, which means that despite people wanting to take it and needing to take it, they can’t.

There’s a further element that I don’t think is fully appreciated, which is the housing affordability side. We also need more affordable and sustainable housing within Wellington and particularly within Rongotai, and we have the potential to provide that. How do we recruit bus drivers when housing is unaffordable? How do we recruit early childhood teachers when housing is unaffordable? There are so many jobs that no matter how much we put up wages, it’s not going to enable people to live in the area unless we increase the housing supply. And we do that through public housing, so that it is really about the people, not about profit. So that is something we can do.

The Greens have long been the champions of public transport in this country. Our campaigns have led to electrification of the rail network in Auckland, after many decades of it not happening. We’ve won the City Rail Link. We’ve been campaigning on light rail for Wellington since the 1990s, when James Shaw was in high school and first joined the Green Party. If the Greens are in Government, we will prioritise light rail because we know that Wellington—and, in particular, the Rongotai electorate—wants high quality, frequent, reliable public transport. Light rail will enable not only more people to move at peak time with fewer drivers—and that takes the pressure off the system—it means cleaner, quieter streets and it means more capacity for affordable housing within our city, which will make it even more vibrant. And of course we can have those fully complete streets, which mean protected cycleways so that people trying to get around on their cargo bikes with their kids—because it’s the most convenient way to get around Wellington—can do so and not feel in danger of being hit by a car. All of this is possible, but the Green Party is the party that can deliver the leadership to provide the public transport that all of New Zealand deserves, particularly the Rongotai electorate.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want to acknowledge the work that my colleagues in Auckland have done over the concern over the budget cuts that are proposed by our council. There’s actually been a lot of work on this during the recess to support our councillors and to bring to the public attention the issue about wellbeing in our community and how important it is that the budget reflects those priorities in Auckland. We held a forum, and it was really well attended and got that message out there, as to what’s important and what the basis of local government is.

I wanted to talk about, today, the new role I have as the Labour list MP based in Mt Albert. It’s a place that I live, and one of the issues that has been really big in that community is, obviously, the impact of the floods in Auckland. I saw that myself, because I live there. I woke up in the place I live and it was in fact a lake below my house. I had three people in my house who were refugees from that flood, because they’d been flooded out. My colleagues David Parker and Jacinda Ardern were both impacted directly, and they’re in the same suburb. I know that David Parker got in and worked really hard in his own area because one of his neighbours had been flooded out. He did the hard work of actually repairing that basement. I know that Jacinda Ardern turned up to the local cafe in her gumboots and got in and helped. Her own street, I know well, is one of the areas which is really subject to flooding. It’s been subject to flooding for a very long time. I’ve lived there for 34 years, so I know. It’s an area that’s got a lot of State housing in it, and those houses get flooded regularly. This was the worst I’ve ever seen. That housing is going to be rebuilt, and it will be rebuilt mindful of the flood risk. So, actually, the pipes that are going in the ground are the pipes that the Labour Government is funding. There is $3.8 billion worth of funding in that infrastructure area, and it goes into the pipes in the ground; it goes into the infrastructure. Then we build the houses that actually will be resilient in that situation.

We can see that that’s happened in places like Hobsonville and Stonefields, where the houses were built with this in mind, and they fared much better in the floods. But right now, in Mount Albert, there’s a lot of areas that we need to be very careful about, because the price that people paid was very real. There were dramatic slips. There was, obviously, a lake in my garden, and those kinds of things are fun to engage in for a few minutes, but then you realise that you’ve got sewage that’s going into that water and people are playing in the water. So it is a very big and real risk. I was really impressed that in that period, with the engagement that I got from people like Ginny Andersen, who had just become the small-business Minister, we went to those businesses that were massively impacted. She saw what was going on. But we also engaged with the leaders in that community. So the response that came out was actually well supported by evidence and understanding of what was going on.

Thus there was $5 million worth of support by 8 February. That was just days after that flood—$5 million to small businesses—and that was available to those small businesses. It involved things like mental health support for those impacted, and advice on how to run a business given what had happened—the catastrophe to those businesses. So those were real things that came out of real, grounded understanding of what was going on on the ground.

I just want to spend the last few minutes acknowledging how terrible it was and how stressful it was for people, because there have been so many catastrophes, and we have such a good reason to focus on some of those other catastrophes. But nobody has forgotten what happened in those areas of Auckland during those floods. They are not forgotten. The support continues, and I wanted to say that even today there was an announcement about tax relief for flood-affected businesses in the North Island. That will give people relief, with regard to the money that is paid by insurers, so that they’re not paying tax on money that will rebuild their businesses. That’s this Government: it’s grounded, and it’s doing its job.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Northland—been there for 33 years. They say, “Come to Northland and have a holiday via the holiday highway”. Well, good luck, I say, to anyone south of there going through the Auckland isthmus north. If you couldn’t get blessed north—gracious me, I get into my car when I depart Parliament and I sit in that car for 4½ hours just to get home routinely. One road, one lane either way, and that’s assuming its state of repair is such that you could actually have a vehicle on it. Northlanders tell me they feel like a metaphorical poor cousin in their own country. Why are they second-rate citizens, they ask of me, and I cannot answer.

Cyclone recovery: “Comedic”, they say. Fixing the problems in Northland—places like the Mangamuka Gorge, shut for years now; thousands of people feeling isolated in their own country and that Wellingtonians and bureaucrats are not listening to the needs of the regions and outcomes. Gracious me, the Brynderwyns—every Northlander knows if the Brynderwyns goes down, we’re really stuck. The Brynderwyns, culminated with the Mangamukas—that part of New Zealand is unequivocally on its own. That’s our link to the hub of Auckland. And how do we ameliorate the worries therein? Farmers in Northland are also saying, “What of localism and local issues?” Trying to arrest all the issues around freshwater drainage and the stopbanks that were so heavily eroded in the latest cyclones.

Crime. I don’t know if many members of this House have spent a lot of time in Kaikohe or Kaitāia, but I can categorically tell you those good people don’t like going out on to the streets at night. Now, I am a Northlander; I have lived there for a long time. I don’t generally have issues with going to the theatre, you might say, in Whangārei. That was the reality of old; it’s certainly not a reality nowadays. If you are lucky enough to have a good evening out, the likelihood of having either your car stolen or having a shop window frontage stoved in by a whole lot of ram-raiders is an ever-increasing reality.

We have to address these issues. Why is Northland always one of those regions that seems to be, for reasons inexplicable to me, left behind? Certainly, ACT has a voice in this Parliament. We will certainly address those issues, and we will be taking them beyond this election. Thank you very much.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my privilege to talk around the Epsom electorate, where I’ve been based for a number of years now, focused, as always, on the party vote.

I want to talk about three issues that are top of mind. Many local issues have been canvassed across the board, and in Auckland, obviously, you heard a lot about the impact of those dreadful floods at the start of the year, but I wanted to highlight three areas.

One is crime in the area. I spent a bit of time with the owner of a superette in Parnell, on the main road there, who had been ram-raided twice and—well, smash and grabbed, rather than ram-raided. There was a ram raid and then a smash and a grab, and $40,000 of damage was done in his little shop and $15 worth of chocolate and confectionery were stolen, so the conclusion he drew was it was all about the excitement of the smash. But the consequences for him—now, the people were caught and he was told that they had been doing this on many other occasions. The frustration on this dairy owner’s face, and the look of sheer frustration on the face of his wife, stuck with me, because these are people who are working hard to develop their lives and support their families in this part of Auckland, in Parnell, trying to make a living, and they are being battered and assaulted and having their businesses turned upside down and made, frankly, unviable by what is widely regarded from their perspective as young criminals facing no consequences for repeated serious crimes.

We’re not talking about minor crimes. We’re not talking about shoplifting; we’re talking about stealing a car and smashing it into a building and running off in, again, more often than not, another stolen car and crashing that somewhere else—so tens of thousands of dollars of damage. Now, that all flows through to insurance costs and to the cost of the business and the cost that everybody pays. So that is why we think it’s so important, if you’re responding to the real issues on the ground in Epsom and in many other electorates across the country, that we deal more effectively with the out-of-control youth crime that we’re seeing in our city right here, right now.

The second issue I want to deal with is the growing pressure that the retail and hospitality sectors particularly—and I’m thinking in terms of Newmarket, but also Parnell—are suffering. You walk down the main street of Newmarket, which is one of the greatest shopping areas and precincts in Auckland and New Zealand, and it has magnificent shops in the big developments. But it also has shop after shop that is empty and boarded up and not trading. A lot of those small businesses and small operators are really struggling under the cost of living pressures that their customers are facing, but also there are the costs that have been imposed on those small businesses by what we think has been a rather thoughtless Government, which seems to believe that a Government can keep on imposing very significant increases in the minimum wage, extra sick leave, extra this, extra that, extra holidays, and bring in fair pay agreements, and somehow these small, family operated businesses out the back of Broadway Street and Teed Street, or something like that, can just soak up the costs and continue to thrive, and that is not the case. Any Government that cares about small-business owners, in particular, and the flow-on effects on New Zealanders who are just trying to buy things in an effective way needs to be much more disciplined in its approach to adding costs.

The third area, which was raised with me a couple of times when I was out door-knocking in the rain in Mount Eden last Sunday, is the slow irritant of what appears to be a war on motorists in our city, in Auckland, with this strange desire to make us crawl around at 30 kilometres an hour in modern vehicles that have never been safer, and the epidemic of speed bumps everywhere. People just want to get to where they want to go and they don’t want to have to crawl around. I suppose the only point is it’s a very strange priority of any Government to try to drive the people of Auckland and Epsom crazy by making them go so slow when they’ve got places to go.

So I just wanted to raise those issues around crime and around the pressure in the retail area.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, may I take the opportunity to encourage the people of Nelson and Tasman to prepare for the potential of heavy rain events over the weekend. Yesterday, I joined a briefing call with our local civil defence emergency management group (CDEM) and councils, as our local teams prepare for the potential of heavy rain.

The events of August 2022 still hang heavy over many people in our community. I wish to acknowledge that for many people, it may be an anxious time. In order to get prepared, I encourage households to take the following steps. If it’s safe, check your drains and gutters for any debris that could cause surface flooding on your property. Make a plan with your family; agree where your meeting point will be if you’re separated from each other. Keep your phones well charged and have a battery-powered radio available. Put together a grab bag, including water, snacks, medication, warm clothing, and rainwear; don’t forget to add food and medication for your pets. If you’re on social media, follow and check the Nelson Tasman Civil Defence pages and the Nelson City and Tasman District Council pages. Finally, consider whether you need to be out and about on the roads, and drive to the conditions. If you can work from home, please do so.

I know that some Nelsonians may be feeling anxious about the potential for a severe event, especially following the significant event we faced last year. If you are feeling concerned or anxious and would like to speak to someone, please text or phone 1737 at any time of the day or night to speak to someone. I have had reports from locals who were affected by the August 2022 floods that they’ve found this service very helpful.

My thanks to our local CDEM and emergency response teams who are using their expertise and skills to ensure our region is prepared. You are our heroes. Kia kaha.

Now, to the local issue that I want to speak to in the House today—and that is what I call the Richmond transport mess. Richmond is in the western part of the Nelson electorate and is the largest urban area in the Tasman district. Over the past few years, there has been a massive growth in housing, leading to urban sprawl and congested roadways. Unfortunately, there was no plan by the Government of the day, or the local council, about how increased transport would be accommodated.

What has transpired is a very congested set of intersections that intersect between State Highway 6 and local roads where we have a number of different road users competing for access to our transport network. The area is a State highway that connects some of our biggest industries to the State highway network, such as Nelson pine industries and numerous horticulture and other primary industries. This is the only legitimate road access for industry to get their goods by truck to Nelson port for export.

The intersection at Lower Queen Street and State Highway 6 is also the main intersection where vulnerable young children and older adults cross the road from the Berryfields development, to visit the Richmond Library, the supermarkets, the local mall, the council buildings, the Ministry of Social Development, a number of other service agencies, and to get to school. It is often unsafe for people to cross the road at this very busy intersection. With a growing number of residents in the area, and limited public transport options—although not for long—we’ve had a significant increase in car traffic in the area. Right next to the intersection is the Great Taste Trail, our region’s premier cycleway for tourists and commuters, right next to busy roads with trucks and a growing number of cars. It’s been my long-held view that this is the most congested and unsafe part of the transport network in our region. With a growing number of homes being developed, it will only get worse.

Since early 2020, before I became the local MP, I have been working with the council and Waka Kotahi to push for progress on a transport plan for this area, because we didn’t even have one. I’m delighted that a transport plan for Richmond has now been agreed between Tasman District Council and Waka Kotahi and that my advocacy for this has paid off. It’s the first important step to getting the Richmond transport mess sorted out. Now we have to get it funded, consented, and on Waka Kotahi and Tasman District Council project plans. As the local MP, I will continue to advocate and push hard for this important project, so that we can get around our region safely and using multiple transport modes.

As the local MP, I will continue to fight to fix the Richmond transport mess. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to get up and speak as the member of Parliament for Whangaparāoa, and the proud member of Parliament for my electorate.

I want to raise several issues. The first one is the Pūhoi to Warkworth road of national significance that I fought hard for as the local member. It was started under a National Government whilst the Labour Government the whole time referred to it as the holiday highway and stood in firm opposition to it. Why is that road not open? The road should be open now. It was open temporarily when we had the weather events and the flooding, because it was a safety issue when we had people trapped in Northland. The best thing that we can do for the people of Northland is to open that road and it’s better for the economy and it’s safer. So I want to know why this Labour Government hasn’t already got that road open. It should be open; one that they stood against.

Kāinga Ora, Housing New Zealand, the wrecking ball—I want to support Housing New Zealand, Kāinga Ora, because, actually, they’ve got a very important job and an important role to make sure that we can provide the housing that we all want to for Kiwis in New Zealand. But Kāinga Ora are a wrecking ball through communities at the moment. I’ve had two incidents in the last 12 months. One in Weir Lane, where Housing New Zealand came in and decided it was good to put Mongrel Mob associates in there. People felt like they were under siege in their own homes. It impacted the retailers and it had a massive negative effect on the community. Then they came into Bonair and they decide that it’s a good idea to come in and buy a piece of land where they’re going to deliver 37 social houses, and try to avoid consulting with the community. So we had to get involved in that. That’s been stopped, thankfully. But Kāinga Ora are showing their true colours by actually not just forgetting to consult with the community but actually trying to purposely avoid that consultation.

And then we’ve got crime. In the last four years, we’ve seen the Hells Angels move into, and buy, commercial property in Silverdale and set up a pad. We’ve had aggravated robberies. We’ve had ram raids. I had a meeting organised by Destination Orewa and Hellen Wilkins, our business association, two weeks ago with our Police Area Commander Matt Laurenson. He was surprised to hear the feedback around the frustration on the 105 line, the fact now that there’s underreporting with retail crime because it’s happening so regularly.

I had the manager of the Whangaparāoa Mall call me two days ago saying that he’d just handed in his resignation. We had the 55-year-old trolley boy out of New World there that was threatened with a knife by juvenile offenders. He said he can’t deal with it any more. I have a public meeting next week in my patch, because we’ve had so much—we’ve had assaults and intimidation and disorder at the Silverdale bus station.

We had the weather events where we learnt very quickly that we couldn’t rely on either central government or the council to actually have a proper response for us. I want to acknowledge Roger Small, our Acting Area Police Commander. I want to acknowledge Matt Laurenson, the Acting District Police Commander. I want to acknowledge Shaun Pilgrim and Don McErlich, our local police chiefs, Andy Everiss from St John’s, and Faron Turner from Surf Life Saving, who all came together. We came together and we recognised very quickly that we had to go to a local response to those weather events, and that’s what we did. We set up a local command and control centre at the Silverdale Fire Station. St John’s brought in their mobile command and control centre, and we pre-positioned inflatable rescue boats and surf lifesaving assets up there, which meant that we had the right people at the right time in the right place. And it worked. But we had to take it back to a local response.

I want to talk about Penlink. I was a young 17-year-old shepherd working on Whiti station when the first stake went in the ground for Penlink. And this Government who has come out and made the announcement that they are going to build it—it still hasn’t started. Two lanes! Two lanes is not acceptable. It has to be a four-lane Penlink. It is ridiculous. Anyone that understands and knows the area would know that it has to be four lanes, and it’s just cutting corners. Nothing has happened. Nothing has been delivered. It’s frustrating for me because in 2017 I got buy-in and sign-up from my Government at the time to build a four-lane Penlink. It would have already been well under way.

The only piece of serious infrastructure that’s been delivered for us is from Pūhoi to Warkworth, and that was started under a National Government. We have had nothing poured into the electorate other than, under this Government, an increase in crime, social issues around Kāinga Ora, and no serious infrastructure having been delivered at all into the electorate.

So there’s a clear choice. There’s a clear choice this year for the country. Do we want to continue down that pathway or do we want to have a change?

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely delighted to take this call as the member of Parliament for Ilam. Before I get into the nitty-gritty of my speech this afternoon, I just want to highlight and celebrate the fact that the University of Canterbury, which is undeniably the very best university in the whole of Aotearoa New Zealand, is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. In order to celebrate, its offering 150 Te Kakau a Māui scholarships to students, primarily from low-decile schools in Te Wai Pounamu—full scholarships, for the entire duration of that student’s degree. The first 150 have been allocated, but if anybody is interested in applying, please do reach out. And, equally, if anybody is interested in making a donation, a substantial donation to the very wonderful University of Canterbury, can I direct their attention to the vice-chancellor, Professor Cheryl de la Rey, who will be more than happy to talk with them.

I’ll move on to the issue I’m going to be talking about this afternoon. I’m going to talk a little bit about students, but primarily how they fit into the electorate in terms of housing capability. One-third of our electorate in Ilam are renters—one-third of households; that’s 8,000 households—and many of those households in the very wonderful surrounds of the University of Canterbury are students. Labour has, in fact, made great strides in helping renters get a fair deal. We’ve limited rent increases to once a year. We’ve introduced healthy home standards and banned unfair letting fees.

This is really personal for me because two of my daughters have recently been students. One of them was a student before I entered the House as the member of Parliament for Ilam, and when I was going around the properties that she was renting—and she was a great tenant—she and the other young people, like many students in the very wonderful University of Canterbury, are responsible tenants who really looked after their properties and gardens. But I have to tell you that some of the properties that they were living in were appalling, covered in black mould, not even meeting basic building standards, and they were afraid to complain because at the time the no-cause termination policy for tenancies was in place. They didn’t want to complain because they thought that they might be on the receiving end of a no-cause termination which would flick them out into the community with nowhere to live. It was very hard at the time, post-quake, to actually find somewhere to live because housing stock was so limited.

The National Party plans to reintroduce no-cause evictions, which will cause families who’ve been in their homes for many years potentially, paying their rent on time—great tenants, tenants like my daughter and her colleagues—and with children settled in school, to be evicted for no reason except on the whim of the landlord. I have to say that we know that there are many fantastic landlords in the electorate, but some are not so great. It surprised many people that 33 percent of households in Ilam were renting households. But it also surprises people when they hear that we have the second-largest social housing area in Christchurch. I’m so incredibly happy to have 34 new warm, dry homes for people in need—social housing homes, mostly two-storey, one to five bedrooms—just around the corner from my electorate office, and they are one of many planned in Bishopdale, Bryndwr, and Burnside. There are 114 new, warm, dry units planned across 14 sites, replacing 39 older units.

In Christchurch, this Government has delivered 1,821 additional public houses, whereas under the previous National Government, before 2017, Christchurch had a net loss of 341 homes, and National planned to sell off another 2,500 State houses, a policy, incidentally, that was enthusiastically supported by the then city councillor and now leader of the Opportunities Party, Raf Manji—just by the way. Can you imagine the mess we’d have been in if those 2,500 houses had been lost to our housing stock? I’m incredibly proud to be part of this Government, which has actually increased the number of houses in my electorate.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. West Auckland has a problem: successive Governments have broken the deal that Westies like me thought they had with their Government—that is, you pay your taxes, you pay your rates, and you get good infrastructure; homes and businesses and lives are protected from flooding, and we don’t have sewage on our beaches. That’s the deal we thought we had. But the deal’s broken. Those networks simply can’t cope with the housing growth we’ve had over the past 20 or 30 years: 387 waste-water overflows alone in Henderson Creek, and 241 in the Whau Creek in the year to July 2022. After the terrible floods and storms of January and February 2023, I imagine those numbers would be much, much worse for this year. Waka ama paddlers, rowers, multisport clubbies, water skiers, and the kids swimming off the pontoon at Taipari Strand are all exposed to unacceptable health risks as a result of those waste-water overflows.

I want to acknowledge the work of Alan Clist, Peter Nelson, and the RiverCare group, which is highlighted to Auckland Council and to Watercare and is pushing to bring forward the necessary upgrades to the waste-water network to minimise the number of overflows that are currently occurring and stopping us from enjoying our awa. Around 311,000 people call West Auckland home. That’s 70,000 more than in 2006. All of those people have an expectation that their homes and their lives will be safe from flooding. That’s why I want to acknowledge the work of Lyall Carter from the West Auckland Is Flooding group. He’s been advocating, and the group’s been advocating for people displaced by floods and storms in January and February, and driving for rates relief for people and rapid action by council and by Government to give them certainty that they can either return and rebuild or that they will be able to leave those properties and receive adequate compensation.

I also want to acknowledge the work that Michael Coote and Kent Xie do as part of the Friends of Harbourview, bringing the community together to restore wetlands and provide habitat for the endangered fern bird which lives on Te Atatū Peninsula. It’s the tireless work of these community advocates which shows what can be done and, if councils and Governments held up their end of the deal, imagine what we could do to support growth, housing, and deliver a better environment. These long-term problems can be solved with better public policy and bringing forward the funding to fix our infrastructure investments. That’s what I’ll be campaigning for in 2023.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very proud to work hard to serve my North Shore community. It’s a special place to live, with great local businesses, yet, frustratingly, we have, of course, seen a high number of crime issues in our area, including ram raids. There have been ram raids on jewellers in Birkenhead, and vape stores and dairies in Hillcrest, and other examples, including students being robbed of a significant amount of cash by offenders who went to great lengths to impersonate police.

As the local MP, I stand to speak to this to acknowledge the issues that my community face, but what is important here is the response to crime in our community and how further incidents can be prevented from taking place, and that is what we need to talk about. I’ve particularly been impressed and grateful at the work that the New Zealand Police are doing locally to catch offenders when these issues take place, and the work that they’re doing locally to prevent crime in our area. This has had a tangible impact on our offending rates. However, we need to lock in and sustain this progress, and we need to continue to introduce innovations in combating crime and keeping people safe in my community, making our communities safer with the roll-out of state-of-the-art tools and training to front-line police staff.

I receive regular briefings from our local community policing team in Glenfield and the area commander, and it is important to note here that police staff numbers in the Waitematā district are up 15 percent—that’s a 15 percent increase—since 2017. That has enabled my community and the New Zealand Police to re-establish community policing teams across the North Shore and the Kaipātiki, Northcote, and across to Takapuna as well. People like having their local community constable in place and present around the community, and they’ve also, in modern day, extended this service to our online community. Police actively investigate every ram raid and the issues and incidents that we have had locally, and work hard to hold offenders to account.

I’m pleased about the work being delivered in the community, including better street lighting, CCTV systems installed by the Birkenhead Business Association, and the support being put in place to strengthen glass and to install street bollards and fog cannons into our local shops. This is work that has been put in place through the double investment from this Government into the retail crime prevention fund, and then some.

This year, the police commenced a nationwide roll-out of the tactical response model. To be clear, this is important because it’s not the armed response teams in place; it’s the tactical response model. Smart policing can anticipate dangerous and high-risk situations before they arise, and we need more focus on community programmes that we see locally to support youth justice.

While there has been a small increase in police proceedings against children in 2021-22 compared to 2020-21, the numbers show that high-risk children with complex needs are committing much of the offending. Those youth are who we need to continue to work with to reduce their offending, and, yes, they are young people impacting my community when it comes to ram raids.

I want to acknowledge not only the work that is ongoing in my community but the youth programmes that have been established out in West Auckland and in South Auckland, because it’s not just young people from my community that choose to do ram raids locally; it’s an Auckland-wide challenge that we’re trying to overcome. This work is difficult work. It’s tough work that we are all trying to get on top of. But I believe that the work we’re doing with young people is working and that it has to work, and we need to focus on long-term solutions while we deal with the day-to-day challenges that we’re seeing. This includes the decline in youth offending through programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro, which has seen only 27 of the 147 children engaged in the programme reoffend. That’s an important piece of work that is supporting not just individuals—children and young people—but their families too, and, as the local MP, that’s what I stand for, for long-term challenges.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call Mr Penk, I’d just indicate that there will be seven unallocated minutes at the conclusion of Mr Penk’s speech, provided he goes his full five minutes, in which case I will then open the floor to bids. Chris Penk—starting now.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the local issues debate. It’s a fine innovation, I think, of this House and the opportunity to speak about issues that are near and dear to our hearts as local MPs and list MPs based in the area too. Speaking as the MP for Kaipara ki Mahurangi—the rural north, north-west, and west Auckland—I’d be remiss if I didn’t make my contribution something along the lines of infrastructure that has not kept up with population growth in those areas. More particularly, I want to raise, for the attention of the House, the issue of transport infrastructure. It’s not the only example of where additional attention, planning, and indeed investment is needed, but it is perhaps the most obvious one—and it would be, I suspect, the one most frequently raised with me in my office, by some margin.

Within the transport space, we could choose the infamous Hill Street intersection. We could look a bit further north on the way to Wellsford, namely the Dome Valley route. That route was recently beset by a slip, notwithstanding that a huge amount of money was recently spent, and goodness knows, plenty of road cones and time and energy, and disruption in the service of seeking to upgrade that road along other lines. We could also look across to State Highway 16, State Highway 1, or indeed further north to the Brynderwyns, where, as another member has pointed out, constituents from my electorate heading north—and, of course, Northlanders heading south—require that access to safely traverse that arterial route that is the motorway north. But, actually, I’ve decided to focus on a particular issue that relates to the area of Kūmeu and surrounding areas in north-west Auckland. It is to do with the fact that notices of requirement have been set in motion—or sent out—with letters sent to households advising that certain works are contemplated, and I’ll get into the detail of that shortly, if I may, because this is the crucial bit.

We’ve got a so-called rapid transit corridor in the area, which, from my perspective, is the wrong project, the wrong place, and the wrong time. We’ve also got an alternative corridor—so called—often referred to as a “Kūmeu bypass”, where the whole north-west area of Auckland will benefit from the fact that they will have an opportunity not to go up the main drag that is deeply and highly congested on that main arterial route which is known as the main road, but also State Highway 16 through that heavily populated part of the world. So the problem is that we’ve got residents—by which I mean households but also businesses—who have received letters to say that works will take place at some point at an unspecified time. It’s unclear to the people who have received those letters how they might be affected, or whether land will be required to be acquired from them in a “willing buyer, willing seller” arrangement, or perhaps compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act. So there’s a lack of clarity, but also, more fundamentally, the issue is that these projects haven’t been funded. They are not certain either as to timing or even necessarily whether they would go ahead, and you can forgive the cynicism when you think about the longevity of these projects as projects that have been discussed but not yet delivered, or even indeed subject to detailed planning.

So for some years now—and I think it must be at least three years—residents in the area have received letters which sit on their property file, form part of the knowledge about what is affecting their property, and say that land may be required for the alternative highway. Well, this is unacceptable, because this is hanging over people. They’re not able to sell the property except with the sword of Damocles hanging over the potential buyer. They don’t know if they can make good decisions to remain in the area and attend local schools—which is another story for another day—and so forth. So for people to be in limbo to this extent without the certainty or without the ability to be bought out, really, frankly, isn’t good enough. When you place that in the context of a lack of delivery—and, yes, that’s been a longstanding issue; it’s not a recent phenomenon, and I don’t seek to make a partisan issue of it in that sense—but the reality is that the people of north-west Auckland as well as further afield—but I’m focusing on this particular aspect today—have been very poorly served. They have been rendered uncertain and fearful in some cases about what may happen to them. We need to get on and provide them the certainty. We need to build the infrastructure, if it’s to go ahead, and put these people out of their misery.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just indicate that maths has never been my strong point. There’s actually only going to be a three- to four-minute call. What I will do is: ACT were actually shy one minute—they’re owed one minute—so I will halve this call. So it is 1½ minutes for ACT and 1½ minutes for Mr Glen Bennett.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m proud to stand for Christchurch East. It is an area that is still slowly rebuilding after the quake. We still have potholes in our areas. You drive around our local street and sometimes you may actually disappear in these potholes. We have not had these fixed for so many years. It’s not an exaggeration; in some areas, they are that deep. It is amazing that we have not been able to get these repairs done.

We have huge numbers of people moving into our area because there’s been a huge influx of building within that Christchurch East area, which is great, because we have a mixed-medium sort of houses. But our roads still need repair from quake. We’ve been spending so much money around putting 40-kilometre zones and red paint on our roads. I would like to see those roads fixed before we try to drop those speeds. We can’t do that speed anyway, otherwise we’ll end up with flat tires or our rims stuck in those potholes.

So, Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of my Christchurch East people that are having problems, still, to this day, of getting around our roads within our lovely electorate of Christchurch East. Let’s hope we don’t have too many rains, because these holes will open up even bigger during our winter months, and it will be interesting to see if trucks fall into those holes.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I stand as the MP for New Plymouth, a wonderful part of our country. Recently I was at Ōwae Marae, which is a significant marae in our region in Taranaki. It’s the home to Sir Māui Pōmare, a member of this House and also a significant doctor in terms of championing the health of our nation, of our globe, of indigenous people, and of Māori. I was at a dawn service just recently, for the opening of the new wharekai, Ko Tamawahine, which, with support from us as Government, with support from our communities, we were able to build a brand new, state-of-the-art wharekai facility.

This is more than just a place for eating, for sharing, for manaakitanga; this is also a place for civil defence. The awesome thing about it was they were able to come together and not just look at what this would mean for the marae, not just at what this would mean for that community around food and hospitality but also what that means on a day like today where the rains have opened in Taranaki. There is a base there in Waitara that can support the local people all around that part of the country.

I am grateful for the passion and drive of the people of Ōwae Marae and the community of Waitara for ensuring that they have a state-of-the-art facility that will host not only Prime Ministers and musicians from all around the world during World of Music, Arts and Dance but will support tangi, it will support kōrero, and it will support our community in our region. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 3 May.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Enough has been said about this legislation. I know there is vast support, and I commend it to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): There is efficiency and then there’s that. I get paid by the word; this is going to be longer. We often get asked—actually, don’t we, as politicians?—particularly when you’re in Opposition, why don’t you do stuff with the Government? Why do you always oppose them on everything? Well, on this bill, on this issue of national security, we have done it together. We commend this bill. We commend the Government for taking the Opposition along with their thinking, which was informed by tragic events and the need to balance protection of our people with civil liberties. The National Party believe it’s been a robust process, good thinking. We’ve landed in the right place and we commend the bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): I commend this bill to the House—but I also do feel as though I should say at least a little bit more. The point, I think, has been well made, if briefly, that much has been said about this bill already—obviously, at previously readings, and including as recently as last night—so I won’t take longer than is necessary, I think, to draw the House’s attention to a couple of points that I think are significant in what we are looking to achieve. Others have described the mechanism that is at play here, and we’ve heard described quite movingly and importantly the reasons that it is needed, in the context of a couple of terrorism incidents quite specifically. Of course, when we are making law, we can’t make it for particular persons or entities—except in a private Act, of course, which is separate, but certainly we don’t want to do that in any negative way. So, while we do very much have in mind the atrocities—or certainly the atrocity of March 15th, and obviously also the deeply adverse events of the New Lynn Lynnmall terror attack—nevertheless we have to make a law that, of course, will be robust and reasonable across other people at other times.

So I do just want to draw attention to the fact that the Attorney-General report on this matter gave thoughtful consideration to some of these big-picture issues. It talks about the fact that there are substantial limits on freedom, using language like “a significant limit on the freedom of movement”—and, of course, that language is from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and the Attorney-General seemed to conclude that a 12-hour detention time would, in fact, not really amount to a detention per se but would be sort of more in the nature of a curfew. It talked about the pressing social objective of enabling the police to prevent acts of terrorism—so, obviously, that’s the main public policy objective that we start with, before we then start saying, “Well, are limits on it justified?” And obviously the House as a whole—and I accept not all parties, but the House as a whole—has agreed with that position of Mr Parker. It’s talked about a justified and proportionate limit on freedoms. Often, we hear the discussion in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports about doing the minimum thing necessary to reduce rights, given the aims in a policy sense. Well, in this case, the Attorney-General is saying quite explicitly—and quite rightly in my view—there are high public utility values, which is the risk of terrorism, and therefore the measures undertaken in the bill are justified for that reason.

So, with those reflections on how the bill operates in our more general human rights framework, and acknowledging the arguments that have been made the other way, nevertheless National has supported and will continue to support, including in our final vote in the third reading—in just a few moments, I suspect—this bill, and we commend it to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Mr Speaker, thank you. It is a pleasure to take the final call on the third reading of what is a very important bill for this Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. May I just begin by acknowledging the Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, and the Justice Committee and officials, who have done a large amount of work on this bill.

I’d just like to begin my short contribution by acknowledging the context that has led to this bill being developed. Everyone in this House and those watching will be mindful of the work programme that this Government put in place following the terror attacks in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, and the need for us to ensure that we have a robust system in place in order to protect New Zealanders but that also balances the rights of individuals. I just acknowledge the comments from the previous speaker Chris Penk around the importance of this Parliament getting that balance right, and, in my view, this bill does exactly that.

But further to that context, we will all also remember the horrific events that occurred at the Lynnmall supermarket, and that, following that, there needed to be a review from Cabinet about how the control order regime could be strengthened. As a former organiser of supermarket workers, can I just acknowledge many of my former members at Countdown supermarket, those who suffered as a result of that terrible attack, and also all those who witnessed it—those who were shopping that day, going about their business, and who, rightfully, will be asking what more could Parliament and this Government do to ensure that we have as many protections as possible for people.

So what the bill does is it amends the regime for imposing control orders in the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Act 2019. These amendments will strengthen the control orders regime, and include some lessons learned from the one control order made to date in New Zealand. The bill includes the following changes to the control orders regime. It expands the eligibility criteria for those who can be covered by a control order to include if the person has received a conviction for objectionable publications that promote torture, extreme violence, or cruelty. This is in addition to the current criteria, which includes a conviction for objectionable publications that promote terrorism.

Further, it expands the eligibility criteria to include people sentenced to home detention and community-based sentences. Currently, it is only limited to sentences of imprisonment. It allows sentence conditions and control orders to exist concurrently for these offenders, to ensure a consistent approach to risk management.

The bill allows for greater judicial discretion when setting control order restrictions, to ensure they can be more closely tailored to risk. It provides, in more detail, requirements of the following kinds: requirement that the relevant person reside at and remain at a specified address, and electronic monitoring requirements. And it makes name suppression requirements more flexible so that an appropriate balance can be struck between preventing the glorification of terrorism activity and reassuring the public that a known terrorism risk is being appropriately managed.

I want to just note some changes that were made by the select committee during the process that this bill went through at select committee. It originally applied to young people designated as terrorists, serving a sentence of imprisonment in a youth justice residence. This was on the basis that youth justice residences have similar restrictions to adult custodial settings. The committee received additional advice from officials demonstrating that youth justice residences are more open environments. This means that the Prime Minister would be able to more accurately assess whether a designated young person continued to pose a risk carrying out terrorist acts. As such, the select committee has recommended that the bill should only apply to young people who are in a Corrections facility or police custody.

Since the bill was introduced in October, the security information and proceedings legislation has been passed and will come into effect later this year. These Acts provide designated persons with the right to request a summary of classified information when it is used to inform a decision about them. The committee has recommended changes to align the bill with this legislation as it will commence prior to those Acts coming into force.

I think we can all agree that in this country we need to balance the freedoms of people and their rights, while also ensuring that we protect against the growing risks of terrorist acts as a result, particularly, of the exposure of people to extreme materials on platforms like social media. This is an excellent bill that balances the rights and protections and the need for protection of New Zealanders and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 May 2023. Have a good weekend, everyone.

The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.