Thursday, 22 June 2023

THURSDAY, 22 JUNE 2023

THURSDAY, 22 JUNE 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill together with all stages of the Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill, the first reading of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, second readings of the Therapeutic Products Bill and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the committee stage of the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill, the third readings of the Charities Amendment Bill and the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, and the remaining stages of the Deposit Takers Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day, and, as advised to the Business Committee, there will be an extended sitting of the House on Thursday morning.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I know we started this year one members’ day shy, given the events of December, and I’m not entirely sure we have caught that up. So, notwithstanding that and knowing that the Government has an ambitious plan to get its legislation through before 31 August, can he reassure the House that there will be the requisite number of members’ days between now and then?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his intervention. I’ll certainly go back and check where we’ve got to, and I’m happy to have a discussion about that matter at the Business Committee next week.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of MyMahi requesting that the House take action to make opening a bank account more accessible for people aged under 18 years old.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education Review Office, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2023

report of the Health Committee on the 2021-22 annual review of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence for the year ending 30 June 2023

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Long-Term Insights Briefing is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Agriculture

1. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Has he seen the call in the Climate Shift plan, released last week, to “Transition intensive dairying to low emissions farming by phasing out synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and imported animal feed, reducing herd size, and banning new large-scale irrigation schemes”; if so, does he support it?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): To the first part of the question, yes, I have seen the Climate Shift 10-point plan released last week. To the second part of the question, the Government is already committed to supporting our primary producers to reduce their emissions and lift sustainability credentials on farms. That’s why we’ve invested more than a billion dollars over consecutive Budgets to develop emissions reduction tools for farmers, to fund over 200 catchment groups to restore water quality within a generation, and to research innovative on-farm practices to improve environmental outcomes.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with Rod Oram, who in a recent article said, “The call is to cut agricultural emissions in ways that improve farms and the ecosystems on which they utterly depend. For example, reducing stocking intensity, diversifying crops, increasing soil carbon and rebuilding biodiversity will make them more sustainable.”?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I don’t agree with everything that Ron Oram says, but a lot of that article I do agree with. Yes, we do have to work with our farming sectors to develop the techniques—the technology—to reduce emissions from our agricultural systems. That doesn’t necessarily mean cutting stock numbers or cutting production. We think we can do both—that is, increase the profitability, the production, and reduce emissions.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree that overuse of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser is leading to water pollution, and, if so, will he consider stronger measures on fertiliser?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Government introduced a cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser of 190 kilograms per hectare. The sector seems to have addressed the challenges of that. We’ve seen a lift in gross export earnings from our productive sectors, including the farmers, at the same they have cut back on their use of nitrogen. I don’t believe that we should cut it out completely, as that report suggests.

Teanau Tuiono: What support, if any, will he provide to organic farmers to maximise the benefits of the organic products Act changes?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This Government facilitated the passage of the Organic Products and Production Bill, which ensures there’s consistency and accreditation for organics production in our country. That will boost certainty and confidence in the organic sector. There is, I understand, a challenge at the moment with their lead organisation facing some financial challenges. We’re happy to sit down and talk with them. In the end, though, the industry has to be able to grow up and to fund itself into a sustainable future.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree that farming in Aotearoa cannot possibly be sustainable as long as it relies on imported PKE feed that can lead to deforestation overseas and further undermine climate progress, and, if so, what will he do about it?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The use of PKE—palm kernel expeller—is a very small part of the total feed budget in our country. It was originally introduced off the back of a drought, and so there will be, from time to time, the need for supplementary feeds like PKE. The overdependence on that is something that Fonterra sought to intervene on, and that is limiting the amount of PKE that can be fed to a cow per day. So, I think, over time, we’ll see a reduction in the reliance on that and a move back towards more sustainable systems on farm. I think that’s good for us all.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): We know 2023 is a challenging year for New Zealand, the global economy, and New Zealanders. However, there are reasons for optimism. New Zealand continues to produce the goods and services that the world wants. This is shown in the new Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries, which is forecasting that primary industry exports will reach a new record high of $56.2 billion by the end of June—above earlier estimates. The growth is led by dairy, seafood, and processed food exports. Looking ahead, the report is projecting primary industry exports to grow to $62 billion by 2027.

Shanan Halbert: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Statistics New Zealand has reported that employment rose for the fourth month in a row, with filled jobs rising by 13,193 or 0.6 percent in April, taking the total number of jobs to 2.37 million. The services industry has continued to drive the gains, with the rest mainly coming from the goods-producing industries. On an annual basis, the biggest gains were in accommodation and food services, followed by healthcare and social assistance, manufacturing, transport, postal and warehousing, and administration and support services. By age group, the largest gains, in terms of the number of filled jobs, were for 35- to 39-year-olds, followed by those aged between 30 and 34 and then 15- to 19-year-olds.

Shanan Halbert: What reports has he seen on net migration and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, Statistics New Zealand reported that there was a net gain of 5,800 people arriving in the month of April and 72,300 people for the year. I believe our immigration reset is working and attracting the overseas workers with the skills that businesses need to help rebuild the economy. Yesterday’s announcement around changes to the skilled migrant category will simplify the pathway to residency and further support businesses to recruit internationally and fill vacancies.

Shanan Halbert: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The World Bank is forecasting the global economy to slow from 3.1 percent in 2022 to 2.1 percent in 2023 and then bounce back slightly to 2.4 percent for 2024. This emphasises that it is a difficult time for the global economy and that this will flow through to New Zealand. But we are well positioned to face the challenges ahead, with unemployment near record lows, growing exports, and public debt levels well below those of countries that we compare ourselves with. Inflation is high, but it is heading in the right direction. We know New Zealanders are doing it tough, and the Government is striking a balance to support them in the here and now while continuing to invest in public services and a resilient infrastructure network.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because those Ministers have worked hard to see us in a position where we have 77,000 fewer children in poverty; delivered 12,000 new public homes, after a decade of cuts and neglect; hired more than 4,200 more nurses; reduced class sizes for years 4 and 8; supported 1 million New Zealanders a year with the cost of their power bills with the winter energy payment; scrapped the $5 prescription co-payment; delivered 63 million free lunches, to 950 schools and kura, to over 220,000 learners; increased Pharmac funding by over 40 percent; delivered 1,800 extra police; concluded four free-trade agreements and upgraded existing agreements with Singapore, China, and ASEAN member States; achieved record levels of R & D expenditure, up 67 percent since 2014; tripled the number of electric vehicles coming into New Zealand, including Teslas; consistently achieved record low unemployment; established fair-pay agreements—I could go on, but I won’t unless I’m asked to. I’m very proud of what our Ministers have achieved.

Nicola Willis: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Finance when he has allowed the cost of living crisis to drag on for two years while presiding over the biggest drop in per capita GDP since the last Labour Government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I am really glad that that member has asked that question. It gives me an opportunity to say why I have trust and confidence in our finance Minister. That Minister led us through a global pandemic and has taken us to a place where we are much better placed than many other countries are. Globally, inflation has gone up. That member continues to ignore the fact that New Zealand is not alone in this, but our economy is better placed now than what it was before the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is still at near record lows, at 3.4 percent. And just one other example: that Minister of Finance delivered, alongside his favourite Minister, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, a wage subsidy that saved thousands and thousands of jobs and businesses. I am very proud of our Minister of Finance.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister think the Minister of Finance has the enthusiasm and determination needed for the economic fix-up ahead when, when asked about the recession, he has nothing but excuses, blaming a cyclone that didn’t hit the country until four months after the recession had started?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Can I thank that member for giving me the opportunity to speak more about our Minister of Finance. As I said, we are doing comparatively better than a lot of the world at the moment, but we acknowledge—and the Minister of Finance on a daily basis acknowledges—that New Zealanders are doing it tough at the moment. We see it. We’re in those communities. We know it. That is why that Minister of Finance delivered a Budget where we saw the $5 prescription co-payment removed. We saw 20 hours’ free early childhood education (ECE) applied to two-year-olds.

Chris Bishop: How does that apply?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Bishop said, “How does that apply?” That applies because childcare is one of the most expensive in-work expenses that families have. That finance Minister has ensured that our children get free public transport and young people under 25—or between 13 and 24—get half-price public transport. I want to thank that finance Minister, and I hope that member gives me another opportunity to talk about him.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister of Education is taking seriously enough concerns raised by the educational watchdog the Education Review Office, who highlight that student attendance and achievement is plummeting and of serious concern; and does Minister Tinetti have enough time to focus on this in between sessions at the Privileges Committee?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have absolute confidence in our Minister of Education. I am really grateful that we have a person in that position who intimately understands how the education system works, has committed her life to children and the education system, and now has an opportunity to serve in this Parliament and in this Government to make decisions on behalf of that education system that she cares so deeply about. I could go on about the number of achievements that have been attained under Minister Tinetti’s watch, but I’ll just give a couple: firstly, the reduction of class sizes for years 4 to 8—that Minister is responsible for that. Secondly, I want to point out, again: 20 hours’ free ECE for 2-year-olds—thank you very much, our Minister of Education.

Nicola Willis: How many schools have actually got an extra teacher out of the policy she just listed as the major achievement of the Minister of Education?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If that member wants that level of detail, she should put it in writing or perhaps ask the Minister of Education that question herself.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Revenue, who, while overseeing a huge increase in the tax take, is busy designing new taxes and allowing his department to spend $30 million redecorating and refurbishing its offices?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t really understand how that member could expect me to criticise our Minister of Revenue for doing his work. That is what he is there to do: to look at the tax system, to explore options, and to provide advice and inform his Cabinet on what he thinks the lay of the land is and where we could go potentially. He’s doing a great job—he’s doing his job.

Nicola Willis: Well, could the Prime Minister then please tell us what he’s told him the lay of the land is and where he might take us on tax?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Right now, we don’t have a tax policy at this point in time. We have said on a number of occasions that it will come in due course. That member will just have to wait. She will find out at the same time the rest of New Zealand does.

Question No. 4—Immigration

4. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: Can football fans from non - visa waiver countries wishing to take advantage of this month’s release of additional tickets for the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup come to New Zealand to watch games that start in 28 days, and how many days does it currently take Immigration New Zealand, on average, to process 90 percent of visitor visa applications for non - visa waiver countries?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): To the first part of the member’s question, yes, provided they have the appropriate visa when they board their flight to New Zealand. And to the second part of the question, in May 2023, over 49,500 visitor visa applications were received by Immigration New Zealand. Of those, on average, it took seven working days to process visitor visa applications—75 percent were processed in 20 working days and 90 percent were processed within 35 working days.

Dr James McDowall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Regarding the second leg of the question, I asked how many days does it currently take Immigration New Zealand on average. On every day, there’s a rolling figure of 90 percent, and the Minister referred to the previous month.

SPEAKER: Can the Minister remind me what you actually answered for that part.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yeah, so I’m happy to repeat the second part. In May 2023—so the latest figures for the latest month of figures available—49,500 visitor visa applications were received, and I said it took seven working days to process, on average, across all of them. It took seven working days to process visitor visa applications—75 percent were processed in 20 working days and 90 percent were processed within 35 working days.

SPEAKER: That actually answers the question.

Dr James McDowall: Point of order.

SPEAKER: New point of order?

Dr James McDowall: Yes. Specifically, Mr Speaker, I’m asking, and it’s on notice, about non - visa waiver countries. The Minister, by using visa-waiver countries in that total, is skewing that information.

SPEAKER: It’s not really for me to judge the quality of the answer. It definitely has been answered. You can use your supplementaries to get more information out of the Minister, so I suggest you do that.

Dr James McDowall: Has he seen the comments made by a FIFA boss in a Newstalk ZB article this afternoon where she states, “this is going to be the biggest sporting event this country has seen.”, but they’re keeping a close eye on New Zealand as there are still concerns about empty seats, and is he confident that the Government has done enough with our immigration settings to welcome fans from non - visa waiver countries in the three years since the games were announced?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I haven’t seen those particular comments from that representative of FIFA, but there are two comments I would make. I stand by and applaud the work of our Minister for Sport and Recreation for the outstanding leadership that he has provided in working with FIFA and, indeed, Australian authorities, in an enthusiastic and energetic application to ensure a great tournament. But the comments of FIFA that I am aware of are those on its website, where FIFA says, “Fans are encouraged to complete their respective visa applications as early as possible”. FIFA goes on to say on that same website, “The Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Governments expect a higher-than-normal number of applications, as such processing times may take longer than usual.” I’m very thankful that FIFA is sensitive to the demands placed on the immigration system of Aotearoa New Zealand, which they have reflected in their advice to fans.

Dr James McDowall: Is he aware that FIFA has stated that, in addition to the 250,000 tickets released this month, further ticket allocations may be released over the coming weeks, and, if so, will a single fan from a non - visa waiver country such as China be able to buy one of these tickets today, apply for a visa, and attend the game here in New Zealand, or will our immigration system just not let them?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I am confident that FIFA knows and understands is that they deal with Sovereign countries and the systems that those Sovereign countries run in the interests of that Sovereign country and, indeed, in their national security interests. That’s why they give warnings to fans, if they have to travel and require a visa, to give themselves an appropriate amount of time to do it. In the end, the release and allocation of tickets is a matter for FIFA, an international private body, and does not override the Sovereign obligations and requirements of a country like Aotearoa New Zealand.

Dr James McDowall: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: You’ve run out of supplementaries.

Question No. 5—Women

5. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: How will Budget 2023 deliver for women?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Budget 2023 signals the Government’s ongoing commitment to creating a fairer, safer, and more equitable future for women and girls. Our Government is committed to improving outcomes for everyone, but this Budget will create a real positive difference for the lives and wellbeing of women and girls and their whānau. Investment—into such areas as childcare assistance, KiwiSaver, training and employment pathways, and family violence—provides women and their whānau with more targeted support and more opportunities to thrive and get ahead.

Sarah Pallett: How will Budget 2023 help women with the cost of living?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This Budget helps ease the cost of living pressures by significantly reducing the cost of early childhood education (ECE) for parents by extending 20 hours free ECE to two-year-olds. We are removing barriers to early learning and to allow parents to return to work or take on more hours if they can. We’re also investing $35.2 million into childcare assistance to expand eligibility, duration, and improve access for families. These investments increase eligibility and will help approximately 30,000 women currently accessing childcare assistance.

Sarah Pallett: How will Budget 2023 support the long-term economic outcomes for women?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We are continuing the Training Incentive Allowance in Budget 2023, with $80.1 million over four years to support sole parents, disabled people, and their carers to study towards higher-level qualifications. Since 2021, 90 percent of those who received this allowance were women. Supporting women into higher education and higher-paid employment helps to reduce gender pay gaps and creates intergenerational benefits. A $19.7 million investment into KiwiSaver will mean the Government can match employer contributions to paid parental leave recipients. This helps parents, particularly women, save for their retirement on a more equitable level and recognises the unpaid nature of childcare.

Sarah Pallett: How was gender budgeting utilised in Budget 2023?

Hon JAN TINETTI: To support the Budget process and improve outcomes for women and whānau, we’ve introduced gender budgeting, a powerful tool to help understand how Government spending and initiatives will impact people differently depending on their gender. Manatū Wāhine—Ministry for Women and the Treasury have led two gender-budgeting exercises to support public sector agencies to analyse how their initiatives will impact women and girls, with a particular focus on wāhine and kōtiro Māori. The exercise was expanded to including 15 public sector agencies for Budget 2023.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many more people are on the jobseeker benefit today compared to September 2017, and how much higher are jobseeker benefit numbers expected to climb, according to Treasury’s forecast from the Budget?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In September 2017, there were 64,299 people receiving a jobseeker work-ready benefit, and 56,427 receiving a jobseeker health and disability benefit. As at the end of last week, which are the most recent numbers that we have, there were 98,262 people receiving a jobseeker work-ready benefit, and 71,220 people receiving a jobseeker health and disability benefit. In Budget 2023, Treasury forecast jobseeker numbers to 200,600 by January 2025, decreasing to 179,200 by June 2027; this is due to challenging global conditions affecting our economy. However, at the beginning of the global pandemic, Treasury predicted main benefit numbers would rise to 487,500. Because of our quick actions as a Government, the number of people receiving a main benefit never went above 400,000. We have come through the pandemic in better shape than Treasury predicted, and while the global environment remains challenging, we are still much better placed than we were following the global financial crisis.

Hon Louise Upston: With 50,000 more on the jobseeker benefit today, can she explain how her Government has failed to bring jobseeker numbers down anywhere close to where they sat under the previous Government despite businesses up and down the country crying out for staff over the last couple of years?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s really important that we keep this in perspective. As at March 2023, three years after the beginning of the global pandemic, 11 percent of New Zealand’s working-age population was receiving a main benefit. The comparison: in March, three years after the global financial crisis, 12.3 percent of the working-age population was receiving a main benefit. So we are still better placed. Compared to 2017—the same period—we are still seeing more exits off benefit into employment: in the 12 months ending March 2017, there were 58,785 exits; in the 12 months ending March 2023, there were 75,033 exits off benefit into work. We are prioritising this and always have. We want to support New Zealanders to get into the upskilling and training opportunities and to get into employment, and we’re seeing that focus actually work.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree that, with the economy now in recession and unemployment forecast to increase, her Government has completely and utterly wasted a golden opportunity to reduce benefit dependency and support people off welfare into work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe that any family depending on someone receiving a jobseeker benefit should live in poverty, and if not, when will she lift incomes so that no one in Aotearoa is living in poverty?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are focused on reducing poverty, particularly for our children—but, of course, the wider impact is for the whole family. We see 77,000 fewer children in poverty now because of the actions that we have taken to address income adequacy. That includes consistently lifting the minimum wage. That includes significantly lifting benefits. That includes things like getting rid of two ridiculous and unnecessary sanctions that were having an impact on children. There is more to do, and we’re absolutely committed to doing that mahi.

Hon Louise Upston: Will it be easier or harder to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit now that New Zealand is in a recession, and if harder, how many more children will be in benefit-dependent homes?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What makes it easier for getting people into employment is actually investing in the upskilling and training programmes that support them to take up the jobs that are available. We have made record investments in that space, including with Mana in Mahi, Flexi-wage, and the thousands of people that have taken up the Apprenticeship Boost opportunity. Those are only a few examples, but that’s what makes it easier to support New Zealanders into work.

Hon Louise Upston: If the programmes the Minister has just talked about are so successful, why are there 50,000 more New Zealanders on a jobseeker benefit, and why has she cut funding to all of those employment initiatives in Budget 2023?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said earlier, if we look at the raw figures, it doesn’t tell the story in the same way as looking at the proportion of working-age New Zealanders that are on benefit. In March of this year, that was 11 percent of the working-age population. Three years after the global financial crisis, it was 12.1 percent. We are better placed than we were then. There is still much more work to do, and we are committed to doing that work.

Question No. 7—Tourism

7. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Tourism: What recent announcement has been made regarding the tourism industry’s transformation to be more environmentally responsible?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): Last week, the draft Tourism Environment Action Plan went out for public consultation. The draft plan is the second pillar of the Tourism Industry Transformation Plan. The draft plan sets out actions to further shift the tourism industry to a regenerative model that gives back more than it takes. We have a critical window of opportunity to create and courageously unite behind a new vision for tourism in Aotearoa, something the sector is giving great feedback on. If we are going to contribute to global efforts to create a balanced and sustainable climate, we must act now.

Tāmati Coffey: Why is it important for the tourism sector to move to a regenerative model?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Tourism touches every part of the motu and has a major influence on New Zealand’s brand. Consumer awareness of environmental issues is increasing and the Government is listening. This plan was created in partnership with the sector, iwi, unions, and environmental organisations. It is important that we continue to preserve our natural environment as one of our key attractions in a world-class destination. This plan shows that tourism can lead the way to ensuring that culture and nature are our best offerings.

Tāmati Coffey: Can the Minister tell us what the action plan is about?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The plan outlines six Tirohanga Hou for ensuring that tourism in Aotearoa New Zealand protects and restores the climate and environment. One of those Tirohanga Hou is the decarbonisation of tourism journeys. Last week, I announced that the Government would be co-funding, alongside Air New Zealand, two studies that will test the feasibility of establishing and operating a sustainable aviation fuel production facility in New Zealand. Stats New Zealand data shows that aviation contributes up to 60 percent of tourism’s total emissions, and these studies are the first step in the right direction.

Tāmati Coffey: What is he hearing from the sector?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The sector is aware of the gravity of this piece of work, with Tourism Industry Aotearoa Chief Executive Rebecca Ingram saying, “It’s important that the industry feeds into this draft plan, which will help us develop real, practical actions to protect and improve our environment at this critical time”—

Chris Bishop: Just make a plan. All we need’s another strategy—that’ll sort everything out.

Hon PEENI HENARE: On the aviation fuel studies—Mr Bishop—Air New Zealand Chief Sustainability Officer Kiri Hannifin said, “Sustainable aviation fuel [was] in very high demand but limited supply. Commercially producing it … locally will not only help lower the country’s emissions and create jobs, but also provide fuel security in New Zealand”. This Government is taking transformational steps and Mr Bishop can pine all he wants, but that side did absolutely nothing. Kore. Zero.

Question No. 8—Health

8. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that reported waiting times for children seeking mental health treatment in the Wellington region increased from 28 days in 2018 to almost 70 days in 2022, and does she agree with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission’s statement that “There are persistent workforce shortages, and we are yet to see a clear strategy and roadmap to grow and develop the workforce we so desperately need”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Firstly, I want to acknowledge the impact waiting for mental health treatment has on young people and their families. Wait times are longer than I would like due to a range of factors, including increased demand for services and workforce shortages. In answer to the first part of the question, in relation to specialist services, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the mental health workforce as a whole has grown substantially under this Government due to the introduction of the Access and Choice programme. I am advised that the child and adolescent mental health services in the former Capital and Coast district have recently succeeded in filling some of their vacancies. There are currently lower vacancies when compared to last year. I disagree there is a lack of a plan.

Matt Doocey: Why does the Minister use the excuse of the Access and Choice programme when a large majority of their workforce does not necessarily have a qualification, when the increasing vacancy rate is actually in the specialist workforce of psychiatry—just to give the Minister one example, last year psychiatry increased 125 percent in vacancy rates—psychologists, and nursing?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Because there is overlap in the skilled professionals who work between hospital or specialists—

Matt Doocey: No psychiatrists work in the Access and Choice programme.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is correct. Psychiatrists don’t, but other mental health professionals with qualifications work both in specialist and in the primary Access and Choice system, and there has been a movement of trained workforce from the specialist and hospital-based services to the community services that we have set up. It is not an excuse, and we have a number of measures under way in order to grow the workforce. This includes promoting new entry to specialist practice changes for nurses, with 127 additional places; further training for nurse practitioner programmes, with 80 places; funding for additional clinical psychology internships, with 26 additional places; four new psychology training hubs; entry to specialist practice for social workers being supported with 42 additional practices; further work to attract people to psychiatry with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists; and 70 additional bursaries for young people who are interested in training and mental health careers who are Māori, 65 for Pacific, and 11 for Muslim people.

Matt Doocey: In light of that answer of so-called announced initiatives, what is her response to 14 of the 16 regional health authority risk registers identifying workforce problems including understaffing as a major risk, with one risk register stating, “The pressure on mental health services treating children and teenagers increases the risk of an increased number of attempted and completed suicides.”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I’m aware of the risk posed by these vacancies and that is why we are taking action on multiple fronts to address them. Some of the specialist skills cannot be developed overnight and we do have to invest in our training programmes to get there. We are doing that work. I’ll also note that, over the pandemic, we have seen here and around the world an increase in the mental distress expressed by young people, and there is no health system in the world that would have already had a specialist trained workforce in order to meet those needs.

Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister’s answers of addressing the workforce crisis on multiple fronts, what responsibility does she take in light of Dougal Sutherland’s comments today, a clinical psychologist at Victoria University, who said, “The government’s singular focus on one or two new mental health initiatives has been at the expense of training programmes.”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am very happy to engage with anyone from the sector on how we might improve our training programmes. I am not aware of Dr or Mr Sutherland’s background, but we have work under way with the college of psychiatrists to make sure that there are further psychiatrists trained, including in the area of youth and adolescent mental health.

Matt Doocey: Why, then, had no money been spent of the Budget 2022 announcement of $18.7 million for child and adolescent specialist mental health by 31 March of this year?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am advised that that money will begin being spent in the coming month.

Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs

9. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcements has she made in response to Iran’s ongoing human rights abuses?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you for the question. Recently, we have announced an extension to travel bans on individuals responsible for the Iranian Government’s violent response to protests, particularly in the wake of Mahsa Amini’s death in police custody last year. This extension of the travel ban increases the number of banned individuals from 37 to 55, covering more senior Iranian officials involved in human rights violations and the violent suppression of protests. We have taken these steps to condemn the continued harsh repression of peaceful demonstrators and the severe human rights abuses in Iran, including the unjust execution of individuals and the strict enforcement of the Islamic dress code on Iranian women and girls. We stand with likeminded international partners in expressing our deep concern over these actions.

Ibrahim Omer: What criteria have been used to identify the individuals to whom the travel ban has been extended?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The individuals selected for the travel ban are predominantly those who have played significant roles in the egregious human rights abuses in Iran. These include high-ranking Iranian officials involved in the violent suppression of the protests, members of the Iranian judiciary responsible for issuing death sentences in unfair trials, and members of both the law enforcement command and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). By extending the travel bans, we are sending a clear message that these gross human rights violations will not be tolerated and that those responsible will face serious international consequences.

Ibrahim Omer: What additional measures are under consideration to further pressure the Iranian Government, particularly with regard to its execution of death penalties and the imposition of strict Islamic dress codes on women and girls?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We are continuously reviewing and assessing our stance and actions regarding the human rights situation in Iran. As I’ve mentioned, additional individuals and measures remain under consideration. These measures could include further diplomatic actions. We are also working closely with our international partners to coordinate a unified response to the situation. The enforcement of the Islamic dress code on women and girls is indeed concerning, and we’re exploring ways to exert pressure on Iran to respect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens.

Golriz Ghahraman: Has the Minister spoken with Prime Minister Hipkins since he became Prime Minister about exercising his discretion to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, or morality police, a terrorist entity, pursuant to existing legislation, which would allow not only travel bans but, importantly, the freezing of assets and banning of funding mechanisms of most individuals who are responsible for terrorising Iranians?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The position of the Government remains the same, but, in light of the particular question regarding the conversation, no, that has not taken place. New Zealand has not designated the IRGC as a terrorist entity, as the IRGC is still considered unlikely to meet the definition of a terrorist entity, including because it’s not clear that it would meet the Act’s definition of an entity. The Terrorism Suppression Act was never intended as a means to respond to human rights violations. Aotearoa New Zealand has other measures against the IRGC, and these include travel bans, sanctions under our Russia Sanctions Act specifically for their role in supporting the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and other UN-mandated sanctions of the IRGC role in nuclear proliferation activities.

Ibrahim Omer: With the recent extension of the travel ban, how does New Zealand plan to ensure the effectiveness of these measures, and what actions will New Zealand take if Iran continues to resist this course?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand is committed to upholding human rights and freedom as a nation. We are continuously monitoring the situation in Iran and are prepared to adapt our approach and escalate our actions as necessary. While a part of our response, these travel bans are by no means the limit of our actions. If Iran continues to ignore these calls for respecting human rights, we are prepared to consider more severe measures in coordination with our international partners. Our goal is clear: the Iranian Government must cease its human rights violations, and we will continue to apply pressure until this goal is achieved.

Question No. 10—Education

10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What is the unaudited draft financial surplus or deficit for Te Pūkenga for the financial year ended 31 December 2022?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): As projected, the deficit is both unaudited and draft; it is subject to change while the auditing process is under way. As at 16 May 2023, when I wrote my letter of expectation to the chair of the Te Pūkenga board, the draft deficit was $86 million for 2022. That letter is publicly available. Audit New Zealand and Te Pūkenga are working towards completing the auditing process by the end of this month, and I will receive the final figure after that.

Penny Simmonds: So is the Minister saying that, against a budgeted deficit of around $68 million, the actual Te Pūkenga deficit for 2022 is likely to be $86 million—half as much again?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I said in the primary answer, the projected deficit is both unaudited and draft, and it is subject to change while the auditing process is under way.

Penny Simmonds: What specific factual evidence supports the Minister in select committee yesterday stating, regarding Te Pūkenga, “We have something that is developing really, really well, and I feel a lot more comfort.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As the Minister responsible for a Crown entity, I have set my expectations to the board very clearly. In the next 12 months, I have outlined three urgent strategic priorities, which I expect Te Pūkenga to focus and deliver on: (1) delivering quality education and training for all learners; (2) developing a plan towards financial sustainability, including a viable operating model; (3) strong leadership and governance. I have confidence that Te Pūkenga has the leadership and tools to realise the benefits for the new model for students, staff, industry, and communities. But rest assured, I’ll be monitoring this progress very, very carefully.

Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider that Te Pūkenga, the Government’s mega-merged polytechnic, with a draft deficit of $80 million, failing to meet its financial statutory obligations, failing to meet its unification of programmes target, failing to present a sustainable operating model, failing to be responsive to regional needs, falling student enrolments, and hundreds of redundancies signals an entity in serious trouble?

SPEAKER: The Minister can answer any part of that—or not answer it, if she doesn’t want to.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I’ve been very clear that the progress in the last three years has been slower than anticipated. But what we aren’t doing here is running a “bums on seats” model. What we do want is a high-quality education that is responsive to market conditions and sector needs. Would I like it to be faster? Yes, of course. But I understand that the level of transformation that we’re talking about takes time, and it must be done well.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that, in 2018 when the Government came into office, 80 percent of New Zealand’s polytechnics were facing losses on current trends, that a Cabinet paper was required to bail out Tai Poutini Polytech to the tune of $33 million, and that was followed by another bailout for Unitec in the margin of around a hundred million dollars?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Absolutely I can. That is why this Government wasn’t prepared to put their head in the sand and do nothing about it. We wanted to take action, we did take action, and we are starting to see that now turn around.

Penny Simmonds: At what point will the Minister accept that Te Pūkenga, the Government’s mega-merged polytechnic, has reached such a precarious state that she must intervene and disestablish Te Pūkenga?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Change is always hard, and in particular during times of economic challenges. Overall, the progress has been slower than anticipated over the past three years. However, Te Pūkenga has now transitioned all former institutes of technology and polytechnic subsidiaries and the arranging training function from nine transitional industry training organisations into Te Pūkenga. I have confidence that Te Pūkenga has the leadership and tools to realise the benefits of the new model for students, staff, industries, and communities, and we will be watching this very carefully.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In your review of oral questions, I wonder if you would reflect on whether Mr Robertson’s supplementary question recently met the terms of Speakers’ rulings 183/7 and 191/2, and, if they did, whether there’s going to be a sort of a further Speaker’s ruling in that regard.

SPEAKER: I will do. I will point out that I will look at the whole question and all of the supplementaries and make a judgment on—as I have sat here in real time doing that, I can point out the number of legs in the supplementaries; the assertions, imputations. I’m taking all of that into consideration, and not interrupting another question in the same vein. But I will go back and have a look.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, and accepting it entirely, the House, I think, supports the interpretations of Standing Orders 390 and 396 as it relates to the number of legs; no question. This was different.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You may speak to it—I’m not going to change my ruling, though.

Hon Grant Robertson: No, no, Mr Speaker; I just wanted to make the point that Standing Order 390 obviously includes a great deal more than just a matter of legs of a question. It includes imputations, inferences, etc., which is what the Speaker ruled about, and that has been a consistent feature of virtually every Opposition question today.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What progress has the Government made for Kiwi consumers this week?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): A lot. This week, we have made three big steps for consumers. First, I have initiated a Commerce Commission study into retail banking to ensure Kiwis can have faith in banking services and that bank profits are appropriate and justified. Secondly, the Grocery Industry Competition Bill passed through the House last night. The bill advances the interests of Kiwis at the checkout, and it supports local suppliers in the face of a supermarket duopoly that has been making profits well over the odds for years. Thirdly, today, we take a big stride in consumer choice as we publish a draft bill on consumer data rights. This framework will ultimately allow people to shop around for goods and services, including banking, at the touch of a button. It’s been a big week for New Zealand consumers. I am incredibly proud of the progress that this Government is making.

Terisa Ngobi: How have you prioritised your efforts?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: On this side of the House, we prioritise making the most difference for the many, not the few, and in particular for those that need it most. That’s why we focused on things like fuel, groceries, building supplies, and now personal banking services. We found market studies to be a powerful tool to get to the bottom of competition issues, and that’s why we’ve asked the Commerce Commission to shine its spotlight on markets that have the greatest effect on the most people.

Terisa Ngobi: What are some signs of progress?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There are lots of signs of progress. The green shoots of competition are visible, and major legislation only passed yesterday. Over 140 pieces of prime land have had their anti-competitive arrangements removed by the supermarket duopoly. Two major supermarket chains have announced they’ve set up wholesale business units, international supermarkets are entering the country, new online Kiwi grocery retailers are growing fast, other retail chains are expanding into groceries, and there are new price innovations like a winter grocery price freeze. This Government addresses long-term problems in a bold and meaningful way, not one that looks for quick political wins—and this makes all the difference.

Terisa Ngobi: What else is the Government doing for consumers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh, but wait, there’s more—and this one’s for free: this week, we made progress on the consumer data right to help Kiwis compare and switch banks and other services at the touch of a button. The draft bill was released today, and we’re on track to introduce that legislation this year. The Government is well advanced on the code for supermarket suppliers and on a system of unit pricing for groceries and on the appointment of the new Grocery Commissioner. We are progressing on the issue of anti-competitive land agreements in the rest of the economy and ensuring an affordable pricing regime for water. This Government is doing everything it can to get New Zealand markets working. We’re the only ones who can be trusted to keep doing this come October this year.

Question No. 12—Children

12. HARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Minister for Children: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions regarding Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Let me start by saying any instance of allegations of harm at Oranga Tamariki residences is one too many. It’s disappointing and saddening and totally unacceptable. I requested the role of Minister for Children to make a difference to tamariki and to enable communities to make decisions about and for their own children. I stand by the fact that children do better with whānau and the work that is under way to make this happen. What has allegedly happened in Oranga Tamariki residences is incredibly disappointing and deeply concerning, and I know every party in Parliament feels the same on this. Every child deserves to feel safe and secure in these residences, which is why I agree with the decisions announced yesterday.

Harete Hipango: Who informed the Minister on Wednesday, 8 June about the sexual abuse allegations at an Oranga Tamariki youth justice residence?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I can take the House through the time line of events if they wish. I was first informed of an incident at one of the care and protection residences on 8 June. I was advised that it was an isolated incident and that the staff had been removed from the residence. Police were immediately notified and there is an active investigation under way. I made it clear that this was unacceptable and that Oranga Tamariki needed to do better. So that was on 8 June. I think my adviser was the person that told me after she’d been contacted by Oranga Tamariki’s chief executive.

Harete Hipango: Why did the Minister for Children not immediately inform his chief executive of Oranga Tamariki of the sexual abuse allegation on 8 June, or within 24 hours of the Minister being notified?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It was the chief executive that informed my office—i.e., my adviser—who immediately informed me.

Harete Hipango: How could that be when the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki in a media release dated Wednesday, 21 June—yesterday—said, and I quote, “Over the past week”—which is Wednesday, 14 June to Wednesday, 21 June—“I have been informed of two serious allegations involving staff acting inappropriately towards young people at Oranga Tamariki.”, when the Minister has disclosed to this House that he was notified on 8 June?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I think the member is confused. On 8 June, I was notified about the first issue. Last Friday, I was advised of the second issue at a separate residence. On Sunday, I met with Oranga Tamariki, where we discussed the situation and made the decision that there needed to be a review.

Harete Hipango: Why, when there were children clearly at risk, did the Minister fail to act on 8 June and fail to notify his chief executive at the earliest for immediate action to be taken to either remove the children from the place of alleged abuse or remove the alleged abusers from the youth justice residence?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The chief executive of Oranga Tamariki informed my office on 8 June. At the same time, he informed us that the alleged perpetrator had been stood down and that the child protection protocols had been put in place. So Oranga Tamariki found out and acted immediately to address the situation.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. When the Minister said in the House yesterday that the decision to appoint Mike Bush was the right one, why did he think a former Police Commissioner was a suitable person to conduct an independent rapid assessment, as opposed to the Children’s Commissioner, whom the children felt safe enough to open up to?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The former commissioner, Mike Bush, has all the skills necessary to investigate what went on and to make the necessary changes.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What does the Minister say to survivors of State care abuse and long-time advocates, such as Paora Moyle, who called for all residences they refer to as “children’s prisons” to be shut down in 2015, 2021, and today?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So there are two types of residences: a youth justice residence is where children and young people who have committed crimes go to; then there are care and protection residences, which Oranga Tamariki is in a process of transferring out of. There are seven five-bedroom community-based residences planned to be built, but this all takes time—not just to build the residences but also the model of care that’s needed, which will be different. So it just takes time; I’d like it to happen sooner rather than later, but it is starting to happen.

Jan Logie: Does he agree with the Children’s Commissioner that residences are “not fit for purpose and they need to be closed down”, and instead we should have “smaller, home-style remand centres or places in the community” and, if so—to what he’s discussed just earlier—when will we see that happen?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I do agree with the Children’s Commissioner, which is what I just said in the answer to Dr Kerekere. In terms of the when—like I said, I would like it to be sooner rather than later, but it is something that Oranga Tamariki is working on.

Harete Hipango: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Sorry, there are no more supplementaries—well, there are in the room, if other members want them? No? OK, very well. That concludes oral questions.

Urgent Debates

Ministerial Resignation—Hon Michael Wood

SPEAKER: Members, I have received letters from David Seymour and Christopher Luxon seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the resignation of the Hon Michael Wood as a Minister. The applications were received on Wednesday, 21 June, but I indicated that I would consider them today, in light of giving priority to another urgent debate application yesterday.

This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The resignation of a Minister will not always lead to an urgent debate—Speakers’ ruling 207/5. After weighing up the circumstances and the public interest in ministerial probity, I have decided to grant the application. David Seymour’s application was received first. Therefore, I call on David Seymour or another member on his behalf to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT) on behalf of David Seymour: I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

The wheels are falling off this Government. When I look across the House, I feel like I’m watching an episode of Looney Tunes as wheels, one by one, fly off the shambolic car bouncing down the road towards the cliff of 14 October. The car doesn’t have any wheels left. Kiritapu Allan, Meka Whaitiri, Stuart Nash, Meng Foon, and now Michael Wood—at least five wheels have fallen off this year. They’ve even lost the spare tyre.

This is a conversation that I’m sure Chris Hipkins doesn’t want to be having. It’s a mess of a year for Labour. His Ministers just can’t seem to sort out their conflicts of interest. The Cabinet is more conflicted than James Shaw at a steakhouse.

We had Stuart Nash playing Cabinet Manual bingo, trying to break as many different rules as possible. He interfered in active cases with the Commissioner of Police. He tried to interfere with the judiciary. He gave donors his preferential ear, and he broke Cabinet confidentiality and collective responsibility. Now, ACT is usually pretty opposed to collectivism, but when it comes to Cabinet, even we think that it’s pretty important.

But we’re not here to talk about Stuart Nash; we’re here to talk about Michael Wood. Stuart Nash had three strikes and was barely out, but Michael Wood has had 12 strikes and he’s still not out. The whole thing has just beggared belief. Michael Wood, for all of his faults, previously never would have been accused of a lack of diligence, which is why everyone has been so taken aback to see him go down in a tailspin of lazy incompetence. He held on for his dear life to his shares in Auckland Airport, despite being reminded by the Cabinet Office to sell them on 12 separate occasions—12 times over two years—and by the Prime Minister’s office, actually by two separate Prime Ministers.

Michael Wood’s Auckland Airport shares lasted longer than Jacinda Ardern. Was he playing a game of chicken with the Prime Minister? Did he think, “If I can just hang on to these shares until she resigns, then the problem will go away.”? Who knows? There aren’t too many people who can claim to have so tenaciously taken on the Prime Minister’s office and the Cabinet Office for such a length of time.

But of all the possible issues over which to go to war with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and at the altar of which to ultimately sacrifice your career, a few Auckland Airport shares is actually a strange one. To be honest, a part of me felt sorry for Michael Wood when the story first broke. I imagined him buying shares as a teenager, going to the stockbroker with his parents and spending his savings on some Auckland Airport shares because he liked planes. Then later, his aviation enthusiasm journey coming full circle as Minister of Transport, and being too sentimentally attached to those shares to sell them. I mean, he seemed like a diligent man. Reckless incompetence just didn’t seem to work as an explanation.

But after yesterday’s revelation, reckless incompetence is the only explanation. It turns out Michael Wood also had undisclosed shares in Chorus, in Spark, and in the parent company of the Bank of New Zealand. In his various roles, Michael Wood has been involved in decisions directly affecting these companies. As Minister of Immigration, he put telecommunications technicians on the Immigration Green List, the same Green List that medical professionals spent months begging to expand to nurses and in-demand medical specialists, and, just this week, Cabinet announced a Commerce Commission investigation into the banking sector. How ironic that the banking sector inquiry, Labour’s latest attempt at a distraction from its last scandal, has ended up being fuel on the fire for the next one.

Labour was desperate this week to distract Kiwis from the fact that they’ve been racially discriminating when prioritising surgical wait-lists. So they announced their pointless inquiry into the banking sector, and what’s that going to do? The grocery sector market study is already all wrapped up, so is the fuel market study, and what have they done? Fuel importer margins are the same; in fact, they’ve gone up in diesel.

Kiwis are still feeling squeezed at the pump and their groceries still cost an arm and a leg. People are coming up to me, telling me that when they do their weekly top-up shop, it feels like they’re doing their weekly shop—that filling up their little Suzuki Swift is the price they’d expect to pay to fill up a four-wheel drive. You can do all the market studies in the world, but they won’t make up for Labour’s utterly incompetent economic management, and they won’t wind back the inflation that Grant Robertson’s borrow-and-spend approach to problems has created. But they went ahead and announced a banking market study, and all that’s managed to do is add another conflict to Michael Wood’s rap sheet.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to have one undeclared financial conflict of interest may be regarded as a misfortune, to have two looks like carelessness, to have three looks like incompetence, and to have four looks like a head on the ministerial chopping block. ACT supports Michael Wood’s decision to resign his ministerial portfolios. Given the duration, significance, and total inability to manage the conflicts in question, we say stepping down was the right thing to do.

Some people have said, “It’s just a few shares. What’s the problem?” This issue goes to the heart of our democracy. The power held by the Government comes with an enormous degree of trust from the New Zealand public, and it’s of paramount importance that citizens can have trust that those wielding the decision-making power do not have financial vested interests in the outcomes of their decisions. People developing new subdivisions need to be able to trust that the independent hearings commissioner doesn’t have interests in competing subdivisions. Pub owners applying for a liquor licence need to be able to trust that the licensing committee members don’t have investments in a competing pub. Miners applying for permits need to be able to trust that the responsible Minister hasn’t invested in a company that mines. This is the trust that Kiwis need to be able to have in a Government. Michael Wood has broken that trust, and his Government has broken that trust—really, that’s what this debate boils down to.

Citizens place their trust in a Government to uphold the rule of law, to provide core services as efficiently and as effectively as possible, and to create fair policy and regulations. Any perception of a conflict of interest erodes that trust, and this Government is burning through trust at a startling pace.

What is it with this Government and conflicts of interest? Michael Wood is symbolic of a wider problem—a rot within this Government. It seems anywhere a light is shone a conflict is found. We had Kiritapu Allan, the Minister of Justice—she had received over $10,000 in donations from Meng Foon and his wife. But wait, wasn’t Meng Foon allegedly a non-political appointee reporting to the Minister of Justice? Apparently so. But it’s all in a day’s work for Labour’s tight-knit family. Fortunately, they don’t need to worry about that one any more, after Foon was cast asunder for another conflict. Foon was strewn on a June afternoon, or was he? He came out swinging, saying he hadn’t actually resigned. News of Foon’s doom was communed too soon, and the Prime Minister’s office had leaked his resignation. Far out—what a fiasco!

In response to Michael Wood’s resignation, Chris Hipkins has announced more rules and more bureaucracy. That’s this Government in a nutshell. The problem is not with the rules; it was with Michael Wood’s failure to follow them and Stuart Nash’s failure to follow them. Hiring more people to say Ministers should declare their conflicts of interest is not going to solve the problem, just as every other swollen bureaucracy they’ve established hasn’t solved the problems. They just make life harder and more expensive.

Chris Hipkins has lost control of his Cabinet. I’m sure he’s sick of playing Cabinet clean-up, and I don’t blame him—but Kiwis are going to have a chance to clean up the whole Cabinet soon. On 14 October, Labour won’t have a choice but to listen to Kiwis, who are fed up with a Government who has broken their trust. ACT is looking forward to it; I’m not so sure that Labour is. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It is obviously with a heavy heart that I stand to speak in this debate. The resignation of our colleague, Michael Wood, is obviously the right thing for him to. The Prime Minister’s acceptance of it indicated his frustration and anger at the situation. New Zealanders do deserve better than what the saw from Michael Wood, and, therefore, it was appropriate that he resigned.

I do want to say, though, as I begin my contribution, that I sat on the other side of the House one day when a member of the ACT Party walked in here and told New Zealanders that he’d stolen a dead baby’s identity. I sat on that side of the House when we learnt that Rodney Hide, the great perk-buster, had been taking perks to travel overseas. So it does happen in this House, from time to time, that people do things that they regret, people do things that are wrong, but I do think it’s important that we all remember our history in that regard.

When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday about receiving Michael Wood’s resignation, he indicated that he had been alerted to additional shareholdings that Mr Wood held in the JM Fairey Family Trust of which he is both a trustee and a beneficiary. The Prime Minister indicated that these new shareholdings raised significant concerns around whether Michael Wood had identified and managed his potential and real conflicts of interest properly.

Obviously, we had had the earlier incident involving the Auckland Airport shares, but this set of new shareholdings draw into question a number of other decisions in roles that Mr Wood had. Obviously, members will be aware of the earlier discussions of the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s office had had with Mr Wood around the management of his shareholdings, and because he had failed repeatedly to identify, disclose, and appropriately manage those conflicts of interest, this is the reason why Mr Wood took it upon himself to resign, and the Prime Minister accepted that resignation.

I say it is with heavy heart for two reasons. The first of those is that Michael Wood has been a good and valued colleague. He has been a competent Minister, a hard-working Minister who has achieved a lot in the portfolios that he works in. As has been stated by members from across the House, he is a person who they have seen as diligent, who they have seen as hard-working, and, from time to time—I know members across the House won’t always say it inside the House, but they have worked with him, particularly in his role as immigration Minister to achieve good outcomes for their constituents, as well as for the country as a whole.

Michael himself released a statement yesterday where he made clear that he understood that his actions meant that he needed to resign and he apologised to the Prime Minister and to the New Zealand public for the fact that he had not managed his conflict of interest effectively and he took responsibility for that in doing so.

So I have a heavy in the sense that he is a colleague that I have valued and someone who I do think genuinely believes in public service and in serving New Zealanders.

The second reason I have a heavy heart is because it is important that, as Ministers, we uphold the Cabinet Manual and the oaths that we take and the undertakings and commitments that we make upon becoming Ministers. We need to engender confidence across the New Zealand public that Ministers—and, indeed, members of Parliament more broadly—are behaving in line with the undertakings that we make. And so whenever a situation like this occurs, it causes distress to all of us, I think, in the House to see this kind of thing happen.

The Prime Minister has responded in terms of how to make some systemic changes in the wake of Mr Wood’s resignation to ensure that we are able to have a tighter disclosure regime for Ministers.

The first of those changes is that Cabinet Office would move to quarterly reporting of conflicts of interest to the Prime Minister. Currently, we do that as part of an annual review or on an ad hoc basis as particular issues arise. Moving to quarterly reporting will create a consistent time frame and a consistent process for which conflicts of interest can be identified and then disclosed and then managed.

Secondly, there will be a new escalation process if a Minister is not fully engaging with the process or following the advice of the Cabinet Office on the management of a conflict of interest. The Cabinet Office will now be able to escalate the matter rapidly and directly to the Prime Minister to avoid a situation where a Minister would repeatedly ignore their guidance.

Thirdly, there will now be in-person annual reviews with each Minister to discuss their conflicts. At the moment, the annual review of Ministers’ interests is conducted by way of letter at the end of the financial year. An in-person meeting will ensure that any issues that arise can be more directly addressed and resolved.

Fourthly, each Minister will have to nominate a dedicated person in their office to support them with their conflict of interest processes. This means, essentially, there will be another set of eyes in an office around making sure that all conflicts are managed appropriately.

And fifthly, conflict disclosures will now become—and, in fact, already, have become—a standing item at the start of each Cabinet or Cabinet committee meeting. The Institute of Directors recommends this approach, as it means it’s a standing item and, therefore, nobody can argue that they weren’t aware that they needed to declare those interests at the beginning of a meeting.

So that set of initiatives that the Prime Minister is undertaking and putting in place with the Cabinet Office will tighten up the process significantly. But nobody is making any excuses. The rules are clear: the failure of Mr Wood to keep to the rules is the reason why he is no longer a Minister today.

It is worth noting—and the Prime Minister noted this in his comments about Mr Wood’s resignation yesterday—that in Australia, there is a code of conduct for Ministers that requires that they divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business. That is, that other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where the Minister has no visibility or control of decision making—a “blind trust”, as it is commonly known. Ministers in Australia are unable to hold shares in any other way other than that. I know that the Prime Minister has said he wants to consider whether that approach would be appropriate. I’ve had some conversations in recent weeks with Australian Ministers who indicate that that very clear line has made it much easier for them. Many of them have had shareholdings in the past but, on becoming a Minister, they know exactly what the rules are, they make the shift to the managed trust or the blind trust or keep things within their superannuation, and there is simply no way one way or the other. That is, obviously, something the Prime Minister is seriously considering, and I think all members in the House might want to think about whether that is a good idea to make sure that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

I want to reiterate the fact that I don’t believe that Michael Wood has acted at any point during this process with the intent of personal gain. That is simply not in the character of the name. What has happened here is there has been an extremely large oversight and poor exercise of judgment in the management of conflicts of interest. As a result of that, Mr Wood has resigned. He will be searching his soul, and he will have a heavy heart too. I want him to know, on behalf of his colleagues, that we love him and that we continue to do support him, acknowledging that he has done the right thing by resigning in this instance.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the Prime Minister here, Chris Hipkins. In the four or five months since he has been the Prime Minister, there have been many issues that New Zealand has had to deal with, including the severe weather events, including dealing with the ongoing impacts of the global economic crisis that we’re seeing, making sure that New Zealand rebuilds its way out from that. The Prime Minister has been doing an excellent job of leading the country. He has been internationally out there, ensuring that trade agreements have been finalised, making sure that New Zealand is well-represented, and this weekend he will go to China for a very high-level and high-profile visit. The Prime Minister is doing an excellent job of leading a Cabinet that is completely committed to the work that we have to do to build an ever-stronger, more prosperous country where we include people. We have made great strides on that in the last few years and, indeed, in the time that Mr Hipkins has been in charge of the Government. The Government remains fully focused on that work and we look forward to continuing it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, New Zealanders tuning in to this debate might well wonder why on earth all this fuss about a Minister and his shares at a time when the economy is in recession and where we are having high inflation and people struggling to keep up with the cost of living; when we’ve got a rise in violent crime and a plague of ram raids and real issues around trying to restore law and order; where we’ve got an education system where a large number of kids are not attending school regularly, and when they do, the results of their studies are not keeping up with where they were in the past; and in the health system where we’ve spent billions and billions of dollars and, notwithstanding all the talk and the promises around mental health, we just hear today waiting times for children in mental health have gone from 28 days to more than 70 days in the Wellington region. So there are many, many challenges—serious challenges—for this country that we need to deal with, and yet we are talking about the resignation of a senior Cabinet Minister over failures to do the basics in terms of managing the conflicts of interests.

So we take no joy in this on this side of the House. We don’t get excited or happy about it. What we see is a Government that is losing its coherence. It’s showing itself to be incompetent and not focusing on the real issues of the day at a time when New Zealanders have real challenges.

So what happened—what happened with Michael Wood? It started off with the fact that he became Minister, he became the Minister of Transport, and it turned out he also had a substantial pile of Auckland Airport shares. Now, the Minister of Transport sets regulations that affect the value of those shares. He also is responsible for Auckland’s public transport plans and spending plans, which also have a real influence on the value of Auckland Airport shares. So the obvious thing he should’ve done right at the start was just sell the shares, and that was his first mistake, because he didn’t.

Then, he didn’t actually declare that he owned the shares for more than a year. He feebly came up with the excuse that he thought because they were in a trust he didn’t have to declare them, which was pure nonsense. Eventually, after more than a year, he got round to declaring the shares publicly in his pecuniary interest, but then he didn’t manage that conflict of interest, because he carried on continuing to make conflicted decisions as Minister, such as those related to the North Shore Airport rules and regulations.

So, three mistakes there, and in the meantime he’d been carrying out a conversation with the Cabinet Office, because he had told the Cabinet Office—not the public and the pecuniary interest, but the Cabinet Office—that he had these shares and he was going to sell them. Then, we had the black comedy, I suppose, that slowly emerged of the six times that he had promised to sell the shares and then it turned out it was 12 times that he promised to sell the shares and then it emerges today that there were 16 conversations and he never quite got round to it. Then, we had the indignity of a Minister of the Crown saying, “I was too busy, too busy doing important things as Minister to focus on this trivia, and it never really happened.”

So we have the image of an ineffectual Prime Minister Chris Hipkins standing in front of his Cabinet colleagues, laying down the law, saying, “You’ve got to get these conflicts sorted and you’ve got to obey the Cabinet Manual.” He sat them down; they all sat around at the table after Stuart Nash’s imbroglio, after Kiri Allan’s imbroglio—he sat them down and said, “We’ve got to get this right.” Michael Wood was sitting there with his fingers in his ears, not listening. So that made the Prime Minister look ineffectual.

I am bound to say this whole episode reflects very badly on the previous Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who ran the shop and was responsible for the Cabinet Office and for more than a year and a half allowed a situation where one of her senior Ministers had a conflict and wasn’t managing it and was refusing to do what he said he was going to do time and time again. That reflects very poorly on her management of her Cabinet over an extended period of time.

Then we got the new Prime Minister, who came in focusing on bread and butter, eating sausage rolls, and being Mr Nice Guy, and he has failed to manage this as well. So what we see is a culture in this Cabinet and in this Government of entitlement. I don’t often agree with what the commentator Matthew Hooton says, but I think he actually got it right on this one, which to say that it appears that Michael Wood had come to the conclusion that all these rules in the Cabinet Manual around conflicts were only written to deal with the filthy Tories and that right upstanding socialist members of the Labour Party would never actually—it’s not appropriate for them to have to worry about such things; they’re only for the filthy Tories. And he carried on confident in his moral great worth and that he didn’t have to deal with this sort of nonsense. That was, I suppose, implicit in his reply at the start when he said, “Oh, well, I was too busy as a Minister doing 70-hour weeks, and I didn’t get around to it.” So as well as a culture of entitlement, it also reflects a culture of slackness when it comes to managing these conflicts.

Why are conflicts of interest important to be managed? Because, ultimately, Governments spend billions and billions of dollars, and they also pass regulations, such as our Minister of Transport, that have a real impact on the value of other assets. So it is very important, obviously, in a country with such high standards that it is clear that Ministers or their families wouldn’t benefit from that spending directly or from the decisions that are made, and that’s why it’s important.

So the Cabinet Manual says that “Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their personal interests and their public duty. Ministers must conduct themselves at all times in the knowledge that their role is a public one; appearances and propriety can be as important as actual conflicts of interest.” That is why, in the undergrowth, we’ve had the implication that Michael Wood, while he never intended to make any money out of this and wasn’t focused on his personal gains—and that’s probably the case, but that’s not the point. The point of managing conflicts of interest properly is so that society as a whole can have confidence that the ministry and the Minister and Cabinet as a whole are managing these things effectively, and the failure to do so is a real problem. So we’ve got the standing-down of the Minister, the distraction that has created, and it reflects a culture of entitlement and slackness in Cabinet.

The other point I wanted to raise was in relation to the Minister who has just spoken, the Minister of Finance, still referring to Michael Wood as competent, as hard-working, and as someone who achieved a lot and was diligent. I don’t like to be unkind but I think that that can be challenged. When we think about it, in the transport space, I think all New Zealanders are conscious of the fact that the roads are in terrible shape. There are potholes everywhere. They haven’t really started and finished an effective major new roading project since they started. They’ve open a few roads that National started—brilliant roads in Cambridge, and one going north of Auckland and one coming out of Wellington. Yes, they’ve opened those but none of them was started by them. In fact, all the extensions were stopped by the Labour Government. We are also conscious of the fact that this is a Minister who managed to spend $55 million on a cycleway over Auckland Harbour Bridge that went nowhere and was a complete waste of time, and did nothing.

We’re also conscious of the fact that this is the Minister that’s responsible for the slow tram down Dominion Road, and they’ve probably spent $200 million on consultants. I don’t know the exact figure but it’s a huge sum, and they achieved no progress whatsoever. This is a Minister that has really not achieved a great deal at all on the transport side. On the industrial relations side, I was talking to him—in fact, I had probably the last engagement with him as Minister at 11 o’clock yesterday. We had the Estimates, and I was asking him why, despite all the promises, the Government had done nothing to deal with the complications of the Holidays Act, which was putting huge problems into both the private and public sector. Nobody can work it out, but he hasn’t done anything about that. He’s spent all his time and attention on an ideological union-friendly fair pay agreements regime, which will be repealed forthwith.

So I just think Michael Wood does need to go away and reflect upon his actions. It is absolutely right and proper that he has resigned and that the Prime Minister has accepted that. I do encourage the ministry as a whole to reflect on this and on the importance of managing conflicts of interest properly.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As others have said, it’s with a heavy heart that I stand to speak in this debate. It is a sad day when any Minister or member of this House has to step down, in particular in the types of circumstances that we see arising round this debate. But this is, in fact, a debate about democracy. The issues that at the core of this debate, to us as the Green Party, are not about an individual Minister but about strengthening public confidence in our democracy, both in the way that we are seen and in fact operate in Government and as members of this House of Representatives.

New Zealand has a proud history of democracy. We often applaud ourselves rightly for being the country that first gave women the vote. We often applaud our very, very high rankings on corruption scales in terms of being free from corruption, and perception is a big part of the way that democracy operates. We know that every time there is a so-called scandal in this House we all lose voters. The public don’t want to see this in any political party. So it is a sad day for us, and it’s a day of reflection.

But what I would hope is that we do that in terms of the changes to come in a holistic view. So we look at trust in our electoral system, in our lobbying rules, in our electoral funding rules as well as the Cabinet Manual. We do support the Prime Minister’s approach in its strength for looking at system change, for looking at more transparency—a further consequence and accountability in the way that Ministers who fall short of their reporting responsibilities are dealt with.

I have heard the Opposition say, “Well, this was a case of the rules being already in place and being broken by a Minister.” But again, having those rules in place is, at its highest point, about keeping our Governments from conflicts of interest, in fact, but also the appearance that we are accountable, that our possible conflicts of interest are transparently dealt with so that we don’t get to this place.

To have an opaque system, I think, has not served us well, and there is vast research now that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders support reform around transparency of the rules for all politicians, starting with political donation regimes—whether it’s lowering the threshold for secret donations; whether it’s actually capping political donations, which I think most New Zealanders would be shocked to find has not happened; setting out rules around lobbyists; whether that’s having a register; or to go further, as other like-minded nations have done, and have a code of ethics for Ministers, members of this House, and also lobbying organisations and individuals to follow, that those rules be made transparent; and to implement rules that show that members of Government, because of course it is most important that the highest-level decision-makers are kept impartial, are in fact impartial and transparent.

So, in particular, I would say that the Prime Minister’s note that he will be seeking advice on implementing a regime similar to that in Australia is welcome. To have clearer rules—and again, public trust in the fact that no Minister with responsibility or visibility in an area of work will be allowed to hold any financial interests in that sector—is a clear signal that we, as a House, and this Government, in particular, at this moment of somewhat darkness, is showing a commitment to changing the rules so that there is a perception of propriety. That there is a notice given to the fact that the public deserve to know that where someone is making a decision, that that person is making that decision based on the welfare of New Zealanders as a whole rather than any other stakes.

Which is why I say the political donations regime must sit alongside this type of reform, because what we are saying is that democracy benefits from trust in the independence of decision makers. That means parliamentarians, as the legislature; as well as Cabinet, as the executive. So they do need to sit together. We’ve had so much research telling us this, including the outcome of the inquiry that came out just this month that that laid out for us just exactly what rules were falling short of that in terms of donations regime; in terms of lobbying. And, now, we have this.

I implore every member of this House to come together, finally, to have some consensus around the fact that rules do need to be updated; that our democracy will only thrive if we do all come together and say, “Actually, we won’t wait for the next crisis.” I do want to remind members from every party that every party will have some form of challenge when it comes to this. Last term, when I raised political donation reform, it was only prioritised when, finally, three different parliamentary political parties got into trouble for donations. It was ranging from the allegation that there’d been overseas political donations received and chopped up to be kept under the limit, to the setting up of the New Zealand First Foundation. These are allegations, of course, and some have been dealt with. This Minister of Justice has finally changed some of the transparency rules along the lines of the Green Party’s policy, and also the previous Prime Minister closed that foundation loophole.

But why does it have to be crisis after crisis that leads us to this reform? It would be awesome if we took party politics out of electoral reform, looked at the evidence in front of us that the experts from the Electoral Commission, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal have repeatedly told us about the ways that we need to strengthen democracy in our nation, because the stakes are high.

I say again: when public trust is lost, we all lose. There is ample evidence that when people lose trust in politicians, they don’t pick and choose between our parties. We disengage them. Ultimately, that means that this House is responsive and responsible to fewer sectors and our society, that our decisions are weakened because of that, and democracy as a whole fails. We are responsible for upholding democracy. We are its representatives at the highest level in this nation; in this nation that has a proud history of democracy.

So we support the Government’s response, but we also ask that we, as a House of Representatives, finally today come together and take an impartial—can I use that word?—approach to electoral reform as a whole to commit to strengthening democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join with many members in this House who have said that that this is never a topic that this House enjoys debating. I don’t think there isn’t a party in here that hasn’t had to grapple with the loss of a colleague who has been forced to resign from one position or other because we as a Chamber—we as a House—do take these matters with the utmost seriousness; it is something, as parliamentarians, that we do view very seriously. I think the tenor of the debate has been one that shows just how seriously that we do, as a collective Parliament, view these matters.

I think one of the things that nobody in this House is going to disagree on is that New Zealanders rightly expect and deserve very high standards from their Ministers and from their parliamentarians in terms of trust, in terms of transparency, and in terms of people following the rules. What we have seen yesterday with the with the resignation of my colleague Michael Wood is that he accepted that he had fallen short of those expectations, and certainly fallen short in his behaviours of the expectations that our Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, has laid out very clearly to us as Ministers as what he expects, and has paid the ultimate price for that. It’s never a nice thing to have to grapple with, though.

As previous speakers have said in this debate, our transparency and our willingness and openness to declare what potential conflicts our parliamentarians and our Ministers may have, given things they own and interests they have lies, at the very heart of building the trust and the New Zealand system. So not only do Ministers need to disclose anything that may be of conflict of interest in their decision making when they come to make decisions in actively manage any of those conflicts as they arise—declare them and manage them.

We do that through a process with the Cabinet Office, and that is laid out in the Cabinet Manual and laid bare. New Zealand has had a Cabinet Manual, as it is now known, but had previous names earlier, since 1979, and this is very clearly laid out in terms of that authoritative guide to central government decision-making for Ministers and indeed for the broader public service about how things operate. It’s endorsed at the first Cabinet meeting of an administration in terms of how it is going to provide for the orderly recommencement of the Government and the expectations around how it is that things are going to operate from there, and it is an important document at the heart of any Government that is formed in this country, and has been for a number of decades now.

But we as parliamentarians also take our responsibilities to declare any interests that we may have seriously, as well—it’s not just Ministers. We need to declare those through the pecuniary interest process so that everybody can see what it is that a particular member, what interests they have and what could possibly be an influence on them.

One of the things that has come through very strongly in this debate, as I don’t think there are members in this House who believe that Michael Wood’s failure to meet those expectations in terms of the management of his conflicts of interest—and not just the expectations, but to actively put in place all the rail guards he needed to do—was for personal gain. I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who believes that to be the case. But I think what everybody in this House is an agreement on is that we, rightly, have these protections because it is so fundamental to the trust that New Zealanders need to be able to put in their Parliament and in their Government, and that is something that we hold dearly to.

Why I’ve been somewhat heartened by the debate and some of the discussion that we have heard over the last 24 hours, which hasn’t been a pleasant time—but I’ve been somewhat heartened to hear some of the agreement that seems to be building. The Prime Minister has sketched out some of the things that he’s going to put in place in terms of moving to quarterly reporting with the Cabinet Office on the conflicts and not just the annual update as it is now, putting in place a different escalation process if a Minister is not fully engaging with the active management of their conflict, having that dedicated person in your office who can be the second pair of eyes and ears that says “Hold on, you probably need to pull back from being involved in this decision because of X”—I think that is an important safeguard that can be put in place—and also those full disclosures before a standing item at the start of a Cabinet meeting or a Cabinet committee meeting, and this is just good governance practice. This is something that you see at a range of governance environments with it as put in place.

But I think also the Prime Minister is beginning that conversation about regimes such as exists in Australia—such as the restriction regime on shareholding for Ministers and the way in which that can be managed—and it’s been heartening to hear other parties wanting to engage in a really mature way with their conversation and question whether that is a system that we also need in New Zealand so that there’s no ifs, buts, or maybes, but you know that when you become a Minister, there is an action that needs to be taken. It’s in black and white that you need to put that those assets into a different form in terms of it being a blind trust or an equivalent so that you’re not actively involved in the management of those assets.

I think that that is a debate and a discussion that would strengthen us, as a Parliament, if we can have that discussion in a really constructive way because we can see how it operates in Australia, because at the heart of this lies the question of trust, and it’s something the all of us as elected representatives need to take seriously. The public need to know that we understand and know the rules and that we will follow them.

What we are standing here debating today is a debate that’s been sparked by someone who has paid the ultimate price for not following those rules and not following the expectations that were clearly set out by our Prime Minister. But I think we also do need to, in the context of having this mature discussion, acknowledge the hard work that that Minister his put in, but also accept that there is a consequence when the rules are not followed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is a really serious topic and a really serious debate. It is actually quite flabbergasting to members on this side of the House who have watched the events of the last month or so since the news about Michael Wood’s shares have become public, because I think, like many members of the public, and I suspect—without being too political—like backbench members of the Government, I think we’ve all just been sitting back and saying, “How did this happen? How did it get to this point?” It is bewildering.

Now look, people have their own views about Michael Wood. Certainly I’m critical of various elements of his discharge of the transport portfolio, but he, I think we’d all agree, is a conscientious guy, and almost pious in his deliberations sometimes. He was about the last person one would have thought would find himself in this situation. But it is, as the previous speaker, the Minister for Infrastructure, said, a really serious matter.

I think there are three things that have struck us on this side of the House. The first is that there’s clearly been a breach of the Cabinet Manual, and, as the Minister who just sat down said, we’ve had that Cabinet Manual for a long time now. The provisions are well understood, and the provisions around the conflicts of interest are well understood. You have to declare them. It’s not that you can’t, as a Minister, have a conflict, it’s just that you have to declare them, and then there has to be a plan put in place around how that is managed. Now, I’ve never served as a Cabinet Minister, but I’ve worked in Cabinet Ministers’ offices, and that’s ordinarily taken really seriously. Many Ministers have conflicts around some things, and it’s just about how those are managed. In this case with Michael Wood, it was not managed, and, in fact, it couldn’t have been managed because there was no proper declaration, and that’s the real point.

What we’ve learnt over the last couple of weeks is that the Minister was told 12 times by the Cabinet Office to divest himself of shares in Auckland International Airport and Contact Energy. Those exhortations fell on deaf ears, and as we now learnt yesterday, there were 16 interactions between the Cabinet Office and his office. It’s just baffling, to be honest. To be honest, I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about the conduct of the Cabinet Office here, because it’s not at all clear to us or the public exactly what happened between the office and Minister Wood’s office, and exactly how much information Prime Ministers—plural—learnt: former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and current Prime Minister Chris Hipkins. Now, again, without being too political about it, in past regimes or past Governments, if a senior Minister or a relatively senior Minister had, essentially, ignored or actually misled, potentially, the Cabinet Office—in the last National Government, that would have been escalated very quickly to the Prime Minister and action would have been taken. It’s not clear that that’s actually taken place in this instance. So there’s a breach of the Cabinet Manual.

The second point—and it’s kind of been glossed over a little bit—is the breach of the Standing Orders, or possible breach of the Standing Orders, which is the pecuniary interests register. Now, the registrar, Sir Maarten Wevers, is conducting an investigation into that, but without prejudging that inquiry, as that would be inappropriate, at first glance it doesn’t look good, because all MPs in this Parliament—this is separate from the Cabinet Office issue—have to declare their interests.

You know, it’s become widely known, but I own 500 shares in Parrotdog Brewery, which I participated in as a sign of good faith in their crowd-funding investments a few years ago, and I’ve held on to.

Simon Watts: How’s that going?

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, it’s going well. It’s a great product, Mr Watts. I was going to encourage you to buy some, but that would also be inappropriate, but it’s going well. But most members—well, in fact, all members are required to declare their interests, and it’s always interesting when the register comes out to see who’s got free clothes and—

Chris Penk: Warriors tickets.

CHRIS BISHOP: —Warriors tickets, in the case of Chris Penk, and various forms of liqueur from Taiwan and China and all sorts of other places. So it’s always very interesting to have a look at. Actually, we sometimes find it a little bit comical, and the media sort of immediately focus on the kind of minutiae of it all—you know, who owns minor shares in craft breweries and things like that. But it’s really important, and, in fact, Parliament has recently recognised it’s so important: we’ve put in place a register for local government as well, because it’s the same principle, which is that people should know what your interests are. Those interests have not been declared, so that’s the second thing.

The third thing is a slightly more esoteric point, which is—and it pains me to say it a little bit—there has, I think, been a degree of contempt for Parliament and the Cabinet Office through this process, and a degree of arrogance that I think people find bewildering. To return to where I started, people are sitting back and saying, “Where does this guy get off thinking that he can just kind of ignore the rules? Do they not apply to Michael Wood?” What is confusing and baffling is that we’re yet to get, really, an adequate explanation. Even in his sort of resignation statement, we saw this kind of backhanded way of essentially excusing himself by saying, “Oh well, I’ve been so focused on my work, I haven’t been able to kind of take care of life administration.”, like that’s an excuse. It doesn’t make any sense, actually.

So that’s the sort of third thing that he is charged with and, I think, guilty of. It is the breach of the Cabinet Manual and the breach of the Standing Orders, but, most importantly, it’s a sort of basic contempt for the rules that apply to all of us in this Parliament.

Why is this important? Because I strongly suspect that there’d be a few members of the public—in fact, quite a few in the last few days and weeks—who have been saying, “You know, law and order is a real issue, and the cost of living. I’m trying to pay the mortgage, and you guys down in Wellington are focusing on whether or not some guy I don’t really know has sold some shares in a company I didn’t even know was listed on the stock exchange.” Well, fair enough, and there’s a degree to which that is true. The reason it matters is that probity in public life is important. We have the regime for a reason, and it’s to guard against Ministers and all of us in the Parliament making decisions in a way that would potentially enrich ourselves.

I’m not, I hasten to add, accusing Michael Wood of that. But the rules are there for a reason, to guard against that. That’s why they’re there, and that’s why they’ve been upheld by successive administrations and jurisdictions.

So the rules are really important. They are part and parcel of our commitment to anti-corruption. We’re all very proud in this Parliament of the ranking in the Transparency International annual indexes, and we proclaim that we’re clean and transparent and that New Zealand is a country governed by the rule of law, and where people here and people in the ministry are not guided by personal enrichment or helping their family members. They’re the guided by the public interest and by what’s right, which is improving New Zealand—and that’s as it should be. I’m not, as I say again, accusing Michael Wood of that, but the rules to guard against that are there, and he, unfortunately, has breached those rules.

So the rules are really important, and the Prime Minister’s done the right thing by removing him from the ministry, because when there are rules that are there for a reason and they’re really important rules and there’s a breach of them, there have to be consequences—there have to be. The right thing has happened here.

Just finally in closing, there is a suggestion that the rules need changing, and, yep, I think there’s some sensible things that the Prime Minister has advocated: things like at the start of Cabinet meetings, just having a quick around-the-room around conflict declaration—actually, that’s no different to what would happen at any board meeting in New Zealand. That’s sensible and that’s fine. But the real issue here is not that the rules need changing; the issue is the rules have been broken.

Actually, the system works pretty well when declarations are made, and it’s not hard to comply. Yep, life’s complicated. Yep, people have got family things, and lots of people in this House have got more complicated financial arrangements than me and some others. But it’s not actually that hard, and it should be the first thing you do as a Minister and as a member of Parliament, in the same way that the Speaker always encourages us to get our pecuniary interests register in on time.

So do the rules need changing? Maybe, but—most importantly—the rules need to be complied with. That’s what hasn’t happened here, and so we welcome the resignation of Michael Wood. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t want to take up too much more of the House’s time on this matter, and it is a most unfortunate matter not just for members on this side of the House and former Cabinet colleagues of the Hon Michael Wood but actually for this House as well, as, indeed, the loss of a member in these circumstances often entails.

I agree with the member who’s resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, in one important step, and that is that probity in public life matters. It is a matter of public trust and confidence in our public institution. And, as I think Golriz Ghahraman also said, a fundamental principle that underpins our democracy is that those in public office and those in public life conduct themselves to a set of standards that maintain public confidence, people know that those exercising power and making decisions in the public interest do so un-conflicted and unaffected by personal interests.

That’s why this is very unfortunate. When I think about the Hon Michael Wood, who I also consider a friend—I’ve known him a long time—he is someone who is ordinarily incredibly diligent, incredibly conscientious, and has acquitted himself as a Minister in that way as well and has done some great things. He has pushed along the transport portfolio, the immigration portfolio, and made some great gains at a time when we most needed it too. But he has transgressed the rules.

The reason we have rules is that, in the conduct of human affairs, there are standards we expect to be kept, we send a clear signal about the standards we expect, and when we transgress them, when we breach them, when we step outside them, there is therefore the grounds to net out a consequence. Michael Wood has met a consequence. He has lost his role as a Cabinet Minister.

It sounds trite sometimes, but being in the role of being a Cabinet Minister is an extraordinary privilege and it is an extraordinary honour, but it carries responsibility and it carries requirements. Being in the role of a Cabinet Minister is an example-setting role that we have in society and in our community. When you don’t meet the standards, then there’s only one course of action, and that is loss of office, and that is what has happened in this case.

The members opposite have quite rightly drawn attention to the transgressions of the rules, of course, and the House should consider that, and that is what we are focusing on in this discussion and in this debate. But the reality is: that transgression having been identified has been met with a consequence. A person has lost their job. That’s what should happen and that is what has happened. It is unfortunate. There have been two or three others as well. But that is the Prime Minister upholding the rules and upholding the standards of public office that he demands and that New Zealanders expect. That is the right outcome and the right course of action in this case.

It will be a distraction to some, but I can reassure the House that it is not a distraction to the rest of Cabinet. We as a Cabinet are getting on with addressing the challenging issues that New Zealanders have: the issues of cost of living, making sure that income support is there; the issues of our health system, adding to the additional 1,300 mental health front-line roles that we now have and didn’t have three years ago, continuing the record investment in upgrading our health facilities; continuing our record of adding more teachers, increasing their pay, adding more classrooms; adding more public houses because those are the things that matter to people. Those are the things that change people’s lives for the better. The rest of this Government is getting on with that work.

Let us stop and reflect and lament about the conduct of this particular Minister and the unfortunate breach of standards that he himself was responsible for but let us also reflect that the right outcome has been achieved and that standards of public office have been properly upheld with a consequence that he has now suffered. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise more in sorrow than in anger, and I reflect on the framing of that discussion by our colleague the Hon Andrew Little, who has just resumed his seat. He spoke of lament, which I think that all who care about this institution of Parliament and democracy must also feel.

I think some helpful discussions have been had about why these kinds of issue matter and, therefore, why the resignation of the Hon Michael Wood as a Minister also matters. I think that it’s right to describe the issues as being significant in themselves, and if we’re thinking about what they signify, we should consider such distinctions as perceived versus actual conflict of interest, the importance of office and institutions more so than the individual, and so forth. But I don’t agree with Mr Little’s characterisation of this as something that is merely significant in itself but which has had no effect on the work of the Government or on the world outside this place, because, actually, it’s been perfectly apparent that the distraction that this has caused the Government is very real, and it would be strange if that were not the case.

If it were the case that Mr Wood’s work programme was not significant, then his resignation would be insignificant, and if this was not a distraction to the Government, then that would indicate that the work that he was doing wasn’t significant. Well, I think it should always be the case that the work of the Minister of Transport, the Minister for Auckland issues, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and so forth, is significant. Surely it must be, even—as we would say on this side of the House—that aspects of the performance of that role we wouldn’t, of course, commend, even as we might acknowledge in other respects that there have been good-faith attempts to improve the lot of New Zealanders, according to the idea of that Minister and that Minister’s Cabinet colleagues of what constitutes improvement for the lives of New Zealanders.

There has been an element of distraction. If I can give an example from my own electorate, and actually it’s a positive one to the extent that it reflects on the willingness of Mr Wood to engage with the people of the Muriwai community. So in his capacity as Minister for Auckland issues, Michael Wood came to that community. He’s been there a couple of times, and I’ve attended on both occasions, along with other parliamentary colleagues, including, certainly, Vanushi Walters. It was as recently as last week that we were all gathered in that place and hearing the very serious and real concerns of a community that has been torn apart by the movement of the ground, and flooding issues following Cyclone Gabrielle, and to lose the continuity, to no longer have that particular Minister in that role, and to lose the benefit of those personal relationships and connection with the community that have been gained, is actually a highly significant matter.

So I lament the distraction and the disruption that has been caused thereby, along with the inevitable impact that changing of Cabinet roles will have, which is to say that Cabinet colleagues will take on other of his work. No doubt that there’ll be an opportunity cost there in terms of things that they should be turning their minds to, to benefit New Zealanders. Again, I say that regardless of whether we would agree with all the decisions being made, it’s an important thing for decisions to be able to be made for progress, and for the view of the Government to be made, and then New Zealand people can judge that on its merits at all times, including in the face of a looming general election.

I want to talk about also, in my remaining time, the importance of perception being almost as equal to reality. So of course we talk about conflicts of interest being perceived or actual, and that’s a fair distinction in the way that my colleague and friend Chris Bishop has explained that as far as he’s concerned—and it’s a view that I share—there’s no suggestion that Mr Wood had acted in a way designed to improve his financial prospects. Indeed, Mr Wood has said that he’s been ignorant of his own affairs precisely because he has a disregard for those. Well, that’s fine as far as it goes, but, of course, if the institution of Parliament and, indeed, Cabinet and our democratic mechanisms of accountability are important, then in the same way that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, so too it’s important that perceived conflicts of interest are considered no less serious than actual. Of course, for that reason and the others that I’ve said and others have said, it’s appropriate that he resign. It’s appropriate that that resignation be accepted. So, more in sorrow than in anger, we reflect on the disruption and the distraction that that has caused.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have followed some of this debate from my office and there’s really not much more to be said. So I’ll just emphasise a small number of points and leave it at that.

I think it is true that members on all sides of this House and the New Zealand public expect high standards from Ministers of the Crown and we uphold them in New Zealand, and that’s one of the reasons why New Zealand ranks highest in the world in the anti-corruption—or, you know, lowest levels of corruption index for the world. We maintain that ranking by, when we find examples of behaviour that doesn’t meet those high standards, people pay a high price for them and that has occurred here. So whilst we don’t believe that Michael Wood acted in any of his decisions in a way that was intended to profit himself or his family personally, and, indeed, these shareholdings are at a level where it’s hard to think that one would be influenced in that way—and I’m grateful that other members in the House in the Opposition have acknowledged that point. I think it’s important to Michael Wood that we don’t overstate what has happened here to the extent of inferring that he did act with personal gain but he did not act appropriately in respect of his conflicts of interest.

Final thing I would say is that I’ve taken over the transport portfolio, and I’ve already had quite a large number of meetings with senior people involved in the quite complex structures that we have around transport, and, without fail, all of them have noted to me that they take no pleasure in this because they have found him a competent and hard-working Minister, as the Prime Minister has said.

But, that said, that doesn’t excuse the events that brought this to a head and led to proffering his resignation in the light that his position had become untenable. And with those remarks I will take my seat.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Water Services Entities Amendment Bill

First Reading

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

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move, That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

I’m pleased to bring the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill to the House. The bill addresses and incorporates this Government’s decisions to refocus the water services reforms. It makes important changes to the Water Services Entities Act 2022 that reflect the feedback and concerns I have heard from communities and throughout my engagement with the local government sector.

New Zealand is facing a bill of up to $185 billion that councils themselves have said they can’t deal with alone. Water is a fundamental resource that sustains life, supports economic growth, and contributes to the overall quality of life for all New Zealanders. However, we cannot continue to overlook the significant issues our water services are faced with, including ageing infrastructure and the need for greater investment. The damage we have seen from severe weather events is a stark reminder that the resilience of our water system will continue to be tested. It is our responsibility to address these challenges head on and provide a robust framework that will ensure safe, affordable, and reliable drinking-water services for generations to come.

The Water Services Entities Amendment Bill aims to achieve these outcomes. Firstly, it will strengthen local voice in the delivery of water services by establishing 10 entities based on regional boundaries, allowing each entity to be able to address and respond to localised issues. This ensures guaranteed territorial authority representation from each council in the entity’s regional representative group. This will continue to be met with an equal number of mana whenua representatives. The bill also introduces a new mechanism for communities to express their views on the priorities for water services in the area. Local persons who have an interest in a water body in their entity will be able to present unique community priority statements to the entity’s regional representative group. Priority statements will be a valuable source of income for entities when setting their strategic direction, in addition to making decisions about infrastructure investment.

Secondly, the bill provides flexibility for the entities to take advantage of economies of scale by setting out a process for entities to merge voluntarily, and proposes shared services arrangements. The 10-entity model of reform does see a reduction in scale efficiencies, compared with a four-entity model. However, the cost per household will still remain lower than under the status quo system. A voluntary, locally led process will enable entities to merge if the regional representative group determines it is the right decision for the communities within the service area. This recognises that, in time, councils and communities in higher-cost regions may wish to see the benefits of further amalgamation in terms of greater investment, increased efficiencies and service standards, and lower charges. Similarly, enabling shared service arrangements between water services entities allows for a reduction in duplications of core services, provides for consistency of service provision, and brings down the overall cost of the arrangements. Efficiency gains are needed to keep water services affordable to consumers as entities take on more debt to upgrade and better provide these services. If scale efficiencies cannot be realised, the geographic communities most at risk of cost increases will be those in rural and provincial areas with relatively small and geographically dispersed populations.

Thirdly, the bill has entity-financing backstop arrangements and enables the establishment of a dedicated Water Services Entities Funding Agency, which, if required, would operate on a similar basis to the Local Government Funding Agency by pooling risk and achieving scale and market access benefits for entities. We want to ensure that all water services entities, large and small, have a range of funding opportunities and mechanisms needed to support the upgrade and maintenance of our water systems.

To action all these changes, the bill provides for a longer window for establishment of the entities, staggered between 1 July 2024 and 1 July 2026. The Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity, entity A, will be established first on 1 July 2024. The configuration of entity A’s boundaries do not change as a result of this bill, and it’s readiness to go live next year reflects that there is a significant amount of preparatory work, to support establishment, already completed and under way. Entity A will provide a useful model for the rest of the entities, as well as learning opportunities for continuous improvement as other entities are established. Councils will continue to have responsibility for water service delivery in their service areas until the establishment of the entity.

I also want to acknowledge the recent period of uncertainty for many councils, who are in the process of preparing their 2024-34 long-term plans. I understand the process for local government planning cycles is extensive and requires a long lead-in time. The decision to provide flexibility for establishment dates will mean that councils will have to include the provision of water services for up to a further two years in their long-term plans. This bill provides certainty for councils for the process of doing this.

In the process of considering changes to the water reforms, we considered many options, including alternatives put forward by Opposition parties. We considered those in good faith, but they did not stack up. There is a clear case for reform when we compare the financial aspects with the status quo. Councils will struggle to meet the costs required under the current 60:40 arrangement for Crown financial support following a disaster, and many will require ongoing support. This highlights the importance of having water service entities with the balance sheet capacity to better absorb these sorts of shocks, as well as entities that diversify natural risk hazards across multiple territorial authorities.

The Water Services Legislation Bill and Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill have been reported back to the House with constructive amendments to improve the legislation. Together with this final amendment bill, the legislative framework for the reforms will be complete. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is committed to ensuring the provision of safe and reliable drinking water at a price ratepayers can afford. I believe the reforms will improve our communities by tackling the ongoing threats to housing, health, and climate change. Every community should have access to safe, clean, and affordable water. I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill at its first reading. A reminder for those watching this conversation: this bill reflects the fourth bill in a long line of reforms undertaken by this Government in regards to three waters—a reform programme that has been broken from the start—and following the announcement of National’s “Local Water Done Well” policy on 25 February, the Government subsequently made an announcement of their reset on 13 April, which forms the basis for these significant changes. This Government has been working on this three waters reform programme for a very long time. Isn’t it ironic that, following the release of the Opposition’s policy on how to deal with water in this country, the Government reflects on their model and makes such significant changes!

The concept that we heard from the first three bills from this Government reflected the fact that only a four-entity model would be the model that would deliver the outcomes required under Labour’s three waters reform. However, subsequently to that, they have now decided to throw that up in the air and move to 10 entities—a model which is significantly different to the reform programme which they said was the only option in order to achieve the benefits that they were desiring. This goes to the heart of a Government that is continually backpedalling on a piece of reform that has significant implications for all New Zealanders, not only for today but going forward for decades to come. The Minister, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, has introduced huge changes, including the establishment, also, of a new funding body, on the fly, and is expecting to pass them in a shortened report-back process, reinforcing the sloppy nature in which this law, and these laws that have been passed already, has become quite accustomed to under this Government.

Yet, despite all of this process and all of the opposition across this country, Labour simply does not get it, because they never bothered to listen to the feedback that was provided by the majority of New Zealanders across this country. The changes that this bill will bring into account are not only in regards to increasing the number of entities from four to 10 but also look to kick for touch the implementation date of this Government’s reform by two years. This in itself is an indication that the Government are not confident in their own legislation and their own reform. Two more years of chaotic uncertainty will result, and the ones that will pay the price of this extension and kicking for touch of reform that is required in order to improve infrastructure of water in this country will fall on our local communities. The pressure will also fall on our local government entities, which are already under significant pressure and strain because of the chaotic nature of this three waters reform. Staff turnover is considerable. Staff are looking for other opportunities. They are not confident that this Government’s reform programme will deliver the improvements needed for this country. There have been multiple opportunities, as we traverse this journey, where the Government could have taken on board feedback, listened to our local communities, and made the changes necessary that could have avoided where we are today.

The Government has also included, in regards to this amendment bill, changes in relation to Te Mana o te Wai statements. One will remember the conversations that were had in regards to these statements, which, of course, are only able to be prepared and input into by members of mana whenua, in regards to three waters infrastructure that crosses over land and, in particular, private land. The feedback on other legislation that has been tabled, in regards to this bill on the Table, has said that that is not right, that is not fair, and that is not appropriate—that only one group has the ability to input into those statements. So, as a result of that feedback, the Minister has decided, in his wisdom, instead of modifying the Te Mana o te Wai statement process and allowing all stakeholders to have a voice, to be able to input into those statements—all New Zealanders—he has instead added a new statement, called a community priority statement. And, as is often the case, what it says on the tin is not what is inside the tin. When you have to add the words “priority statement” to the title, it gives you a little bit of a sign of what will follow!

When you dig into the legislation and you look at the wording in regards to these new community priority statements for water services, you see, under new section 145C, inserted by clause 16 of the bill, where it articulates what regional representatives groups must or may do in response to these statements, subsection (3) says “The group may consider”—may consider—“the statement in preparing, issuing, or reviewing the group’s statement of strategic and performance expectations”. Subsection (4): “The group may consider the statement as part of any comments [in regards to these entities]”. The key point of difference in regards to this is that, when you look at the wording in the legislation under section 131, which refers to Te Mana o te Wai statements, regional representative groups must take into account the feedback within those statements.

There is a significant difference between the words “must” and “may”, and when you try and prioritise in a hierarchy those two words, it is very clear that the community priority statements are second class in regards to the hierarchy that they sit in in relation to Te Mana o te Wai statements. What does that say in regards to all members of our communities’ being able to input into the process to ensure that water infrastructure is appropriate for our communities? Well, I will leave that for New Zealanders to assess for themselves, but the Minister has had ample opportunity to reflect and improve these statements, and the opportunity has not been taken. Actually, some will assess that the situation has been made worse—more complex than what the current state of play is at the moment. The select committee process, which, it has already been articulated, will have a shortened report-back date, will not allow and provide adequate review time or public consultation in regards to that.

I, lastly, want to refer to a new aspect in this bill, which is in regards to establishing a water services funding agency. One would expect, after the many years of planning and review of this legislation, that we wouldn’t at this late stage, on 22 June, be introducing a new funding mechanism in regards to enabling this reform programme. This has been made up on the hoof and reinforces legislation which continues to be destined for failure. National opposes this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 12 to Minister

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question that I gave today in answer to oral question No. 12.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I advised the House that on 8 June the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki told my adviser who then told me about an incident in an Oranga Tamariki residence. This is accurate for the incident I was notified of on 16 June but not 8 June. I’d therefore like to correct the statement and advise the House that on 8 June my office and I were informed of this incident at the same time, directly by the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, in a joint phone call.

Bills

Water Services Entities Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): In 2017, together with the Hon David Parker, I received the second Havelock North report, which had been commissioned by the previous Government—I believe, by the Hon Chris Finlayson. It told a story of tens of thousands of New Zealanders getting sick every year from preventable causes, indeed through being exposed to drinking water that was not up to scratch. One of the things that I found most shocking when I read that report was actually getting into the appendices, where there were lists of headlines from exposure cases to poor drinking water that had occurred during the period in which the report was written. This is a very real issue that we have in New Zealand, and this Government’s reform programme is one that I am proud to support. We’re facing a $185 billion bill to bring our water services infrastructure up to the required standards, and achieving scale is an important part of that reform programme.

This bill is a bill which shows the Government has listened to communities, as a result having 10 entities rather than four. It will mean that every council will also have representation in the entities’ regional groups, and voices will be heard. So it strikes a balance, making sure that local voices are heard and also achieves scale sufficient to make sure that the bills that will otherwise occur are at a local level not so extreme as they would be under, for example, the proposal that the National Party has brought forward. Moving from 67 different water service providers to just 10 means the new entities will have the increased size necessary to improve access to funding and management of water services to secure the benefits of reform for New Zealanders, including affordability.

I do want to say that this listening is important. That is something that the Hon Kieran McAnulty has led, and I find it shocking when the other side of the House argues that we should maintain the status quo. They argue against this bill, and their approach really, in my view, has absolutely no credibility. It is the status quo. There is no council in the country that thinks the status quo is a good idea. National seem content to leave New Zealanders facing rates rises in the thousands while a 67-entity structure is incapacitated by debt, and that is something that no New Zealander wants.

I think ultimately—[Interruption] You can hear them; they are so out of touch. They’re like a bunch of middle-aged bald men driving around in their wives’ Government-subsidised Teslas, looking for an opportunity to reintroduce charges for contraception. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that was a manful attempt by David Clark, but his heart wasn’t in it, and I think we can all agree on that. Let’s be really clear what’s happened here: this is the back-down bill. This is the bill in which the Government tries to pretend that this is what they wanted to do all along, and that they’ve listened to communities and that now it’s time to get with the programme and change around things. But this is a back down because they have faced a wave of hostility from around the country over the last two years as the three-waters roadshow has rumbled on, and they have finally figured out that the public aren’t buying what Labour is selling. This is the back-down bill.

We were told for two years by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and then Kieran McAnulty that it had to be four entities, we had to legislate all the councils to have their assets confiscated, and we had to set up the big four mega-entities—“There is no other way—there is no alternative.” I even think the Minister might have uttered those words in the House: “TINA”—There Is No Alternative.

We were told over and over again—and the Government ran these ridiculously contemptuous ads on TV to tell local government that they knew what was best for them—that there was nothing that could be done: “We had to do three waters.” Local government said, “Well, actually, how about you let us figure it out at a regional level? We’re up for reform, we’re up for the rationalisation, but we just want to keep our own assets and sort it out.” The Government said, “No, no, we know best. We can’t do that. You’ve got to do the big four.” Then they said, “Well, hang on a minute. How about you let us figure it out and you let us sort out the arrangements so that we can get some balance sheet separation, and how about you just remove the mandatory co-governance provisions?”, and the Government said, “No, no, we know best. We’ve got to do it.” Well, now it turns out, actually, they’re prepared to—as David Clark said, “Oh, we’ve listened—we’ve listened.”—and they’ve changed their mind. Well, good on them for listening; it just took two years. But, anyway, we welcome that. This is the back-down bill.

Now, David Clark says that the debate is, essentially, between Labour’s new proposal, the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, which amends legislation we passed only a few months ago—“Water Services 2.0”—and the status quo. Well, that’s not the debate. No one in this Parliament thinks that’s the debate, other than David Clark, and no one in the public thinks that, because everyone acknowledges the need for reform.

So what do we agree on in Parliament? Well, we agree on balance sheet separation so that you can get debt finance to fund the long-lived assets, because councils can’t do it by themselves. That’s sensible. That is across both models proposed by National and by Labour. Do we agree on economic regulation? Yes, we do. These are, essentially, natural monopolies. They’re actually, in some ways, not dissimilar or any different to local electricity lines companies. They’re natural monopolies that require economic regulation to get a rate of return. So we agree around that. We agree on water-quality regulation. In fact, the starting point for water quality started under the last National Government. So we agree on all of that. We agree on regional groupings, and we obviously don’t like the big four entities that the Government started with.

What do we disagree on? There are a number of elements, and that’s ultimately why we can’t support this legislation. We disagree on a few things. The first is that the legislation confiscates the assets of the councils and says, basically, “We know best as central government. We’re going to do it for you.” Yes, the Government has moved away from the big four model and moved to a regionalised model, but it’s still confiscation. It’s still legislation that takes the assets and says that the Government knows best.

Our preferred solution on this side of the House is to allow local councils and local communities to sort out how they’re going to rearrange themselves so that they can meet the Government’s water reform objectives and make sure that we can get improvements in water quality and get that economic regulation in place. That will require allowing local councils and local communities to have a go at working it out for themselves. It’s not to say that central government doesn’t or shouldn’t have the back-stop powers in order to step in and make sure that we get the reforms that make sense, but let’s give them a go at it in the first instance. The Government has completely disregarded all of that. So, yep, we’ve got a more regionalised grouping, but the Government’s choosing the regionalised groupings for them. That, I think, is what many people in local councils and local communities find very offensive. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is: co-governance that is baked into the reforms. There’s no change to that through this amendment bill. There’s no change to the existing Act that is now in law. So the regional representative groups, the representative boards: co-governance is baked in there. We regard that as wrong. We will get rid of that after 14 October if we have a mandate to do so. We regard that as wrong.

Thirdly, Te Mana o te Wai statements. This has flown under the radar. The co-governance stuff gets much of the attention, but, actually, it’s Te Mana o te Wai statements in the Act now that I think many people are waking up to. Only mana whenua can issue them—only mana whenua can issue them—and the water services entities must reply to them. So that actually creates an interesting situation. Only one group can issue them. They’re not mandatory, but I just went and looked it up before: the Act says they can issue them for mana whenua of particular rohe, and the water services entities must respond. The scope of those statements is quite breathtaking, or at least potentially quite breathtaking, in its enormity. I think many people are waking up to what that does, and I think people think it is wrong, and we agree. It’s not to say that Māori do not have rights and interests in water—they do. That actually is accepted—oh, I see Grant Robertson is muttering, but—

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, no; I’m just recording the moment.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve said this many times. I said it in the first, second, and third readings of the last bill—the one that you said was the real solution, until this one turned up. They do, and actually, that goes across the Parliament, because when National was in Government, the Crown accepted through the Mighty River Power litigation in the Supreme Court—which led to the mixed-ownership model solution for the energy companies that the Crown owned—that Māori did have rights and interests in water. Now, the question is how you give effect to that; that’s actually the debate. The debate is not: do Māori have rights and interests in water? The debate is about how you give effect to that. Our view on this side of the House is that allowing only mana whenua to issue Te Mana o te Wai statements is wrong, and it’s not an appropriate way of giving effect to those rights and interests; nor, by the way, is the co-governance provisions that are baked into the legislation. So you do not have to go as far as the Government is going with its proposals in order to give effect to the Crown’s obligations that are shared across the Parliament.

So, to return to where I started, this bill is a back down. There’s no real way of sugar-coating it. It’s been a back down, I think, forced by local communities around the country. It has been quite striking to me when you drive round the place, the “Stop Three Waters” signs that you see all over the place, and who would have thought that what is actually quite a technocratic issue—at the end of the day, we are talking about pipes and stormwater and clean, fresh drinking water. I mean, no one gets worked up about electricity lines—well, maybe we used to back in the 1990s, but no one, really, gets worked up now. It’s been interesting, the reaction, and for that, to be honest, I do blame the Government, because from the start this has been mis-sold, the local government sector has been treated with a degree of contempt by many in central government, and there’s been a backlash to that; there’s been a reaction to that.

So do we need water reform? Yes, we do. Do we need confiscation? No, we don’t. Do we need mandatory co-governance? No, we don’t. Do we need Te Mana o te Wai statements in the way they are formed? No, we don’t. Do we need balance sheet separation? Yes. Do we need economic regulation? Yes. Do we need water-quality regulation? Yes. Do we need more regionalised solutions that we let local communities come up with? Absolutely, yes we do.

Actually, there’s not so much between the parties on this, and there’s still time—there’s still time—for Labour to come to the party of genuine local water reform. Thank you very much.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was the longest definition of a Clayton’s policy—a policy that’s not actually a policy. I’ve never heard so much hot air put out into the debating chamber in the explanation of a policy that is, essentially, a defence of the status quo. Christopher Bishop claims to support all the underlying imperatives, the policy drivers of reform, but actually National doesn’t want to do anything. I’m sorry; I should be surprised by this, but it’s happened too many times.

I want to credit Kieran McAnulty for the refocus that this bill actually brings to the policy. Kieran McAnulty listened to what the public was saying. He listened to what local government was saying. This bill contains some important changes: 10 entities instead of four; longer lead times for all the entities except for Auckland; regional representative groups that will now be able to accommodate every district council in New Zealand; and a locally led, streamlined merger process. This bill contains some important tweaks to the affordable water reforms.

I want to say, as an Auckland MP, that these reforms cannot come fast enough. Where I live in West Auckland, every time there’s heavy rainfall, raw sewage is pumped into Te Wai-o-Pareira, the waterway that runs right through the middle of my electorate. Why? Because for decades successive councils simply haven’t invested in enough waste-water infrastructure. Why did thousands of people in Auckland get hit by catastrophic floods on the anniversary weekend earlier this year? Because our stormwater completely failed because successive councils have not invested adequately in stormwater infrastructure or the designs and the modern approaches to stormwater management that are necessary.

Under this bill, we will see specialist water entities with more robust balance sheets and the ability to borrow nearly three times as much to make the investments that are necessary. There’s a strong legislative mandate to deal with these issues—all three of the waters—and with a regulator looking over their shoulder to keep them honest and keep them focused on the job at hand. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Look, ACT has played a constructive role in terms of the water services reforms. I remember back to June 2020 when I was first invited to a briefing from Department of Internal Affairs officials, who outlined for me—as an ACT candidate, not an MP, but trusted with the information and insights from officials—what the problem was with three waters infrastructure. The officials told David Seymour and I that there is a problem: around New Zealand, there’s an infrastructure deficit of potentially $100 billion—apparently, now, it’s $180 billion; that may have something to do with inflation under Labour—and they said, “Look, we need to fix this infrastructure. Councils haven’t fulfilled their obligations and there’s not enough money to do it, and the current regulatory framework doesn’t make it likely that this work’s going to be done any time soon, and in the meantime, we’ve got waste-water overflows and there’s not enough infrastructure to allow for housing growth and housing densification in our cities.”

As a civil engineer, I thought, “That’s a very reasonable and sensible problem definition.” Then they introduced the Water Services Entities Bill, now an Act, which set up four mega entities and established an incredibly complex co-governance arrangement which allocates 50 percent of the seats—essentially creating water parliaments—on the regional representative groups to iwi Māori representatives, which are complemented by 50 percent of the seats on these enormous boards, potentially being people from local government, but we don’t really know.

If the problem was how do we find more money to fix infrastructure, to repair and maintain the infrastructure we’ve already got, and to provide for growth in our cities—whether it’s green fields, subdivisions, places where young families might want to live, where there’s enough room for the kids to ride their bikes around the backyard or to put a trampoline; or whether people want to live in higher density cities, where you need actually water infrastructure, stormwater, waste water, and drinking water to be delivered before you can connect new homes to the systems. So that’s the problem to solve. We need to find the money and we need some regulatory mechanism to force asset owners of water infrastructure to actually deliver the infrastructure.

The Water Services Entities Act, passed in November 2022, failed that test. It introduced complex, expensive co-governance into water infrastructure management. It introduced concepts like Te Mana o te Wai and requires these water services entities to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai statements. Now, while it’s true that New Zealanders of all cultures understand how important clean drinking water is for communities and how important it is that waste-water treatment plants and the networks operate in a way that doesn’t result in regular discharges of waste water into our special places, it’s not true that only one ethnic group in New Zealand has special insights into how water should be managed—how water resources should be allocated. In fact, it’s engineers and scientists and ecologists. Those are the people with those specialist skills who can tell us whether freshwater wetlands or coastal environments are in fact suitable for recreation or to get drinking water from. There are no special insights that those scientists or engineers have because of their ethnicity, but that is what this Government has proposed by including Te Mana o Te Wai statements as a requirement for water service entities.

It became clear late last year that the high-water mark for co-governance in this Government’s divisive agenda—when it came to allocating different rights to iwi Māori based on their ethnicity, when it came to infrastructure like water assets. The waka had gone a long way up the beach, but the tide had gone out. When Chris Hipkins said that policies were going on the policy bonfire and he was rethinking the three waters policy, I thought, “Wow, maybe they might have listened to all of those councils, all of those communities; all of those New Zealanders who signed ACT’s petition saying, ‘Stop the steal; we’ll repeal three waters.’—maybe they’ve listened?” But no, they hadn’t.

What Chris Hipkins did was announce that, instead of four mega water entities, four new chief executives, and four new bureaucracies, there’s going to be 10. Only Labour could solve a problem of centralisation and red tape of its own making by adding even more bureaucrats and more red tape, hiring more office space and yet delaying the implementation of the legislation by two years so that waste-water overflows into places like Te Wai o Pareira / Henderson Creek—where I live—will continue for another two years or maybe another decade, while all of these things are worked out; and they won’t be worked out by this Government.

We’ve heard today that the Minister responsible for the bill, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, intends that it be reported back from select committee by 27 July, and no doubt they will intend to have it pass through all stages under this 53rd Parliament. Well, we in ACT will do our best to prevent more bad legislation being rammed through the House, but actually, it’s up to New Zealanders. They will get to vote on this legislation in October, and by 15 October we’ll know whether they agree with the former Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, that there is no alternative to co-governance. Well, now, if they agree with Kieran McAnulty that 10 massive border bureaucracies are better than four—or maybe they won’t agree and they’ll agree with ACT, because what ACT says is that there is an alternative. If we want better water infrastructure, we should simply spend more money on water infrastructure. How about that?

Well, I went down to the West Coast of the South Island, and one of the mayors said, “You know, Simon, the reason we’re going for three waters is because we think we’ll get more money out of it, but what we really need to do is—if only central government would share some of their revenue with us. Remember, we have hundreds of thousands of tourists come up and down the West Coast of the South Island every year. We don’t get any revenue out of that. If only they’d share a small amount of central government’s revenue with us, we might be able to fund the delivery of better water infrastructure for some of our most deprived communities.” How practical would that be? Central government sharing some of the revenue it takes from the regions with the regions that need it. Well, that’s what ACT says.

What ACT says is that we should share 50 percent of the GST on all new builds, backed with local government, on the basis that 30-year infrastructure plans between central and local government identify where the infrastructure needs to be built and what the time frames are, and then local government is held to account to meet those time frames. We need to provide for growth by actually building infrastructure well in advance of when the houses come, and that will actually help with delivering service land: not just with water, but also with transport infrastructure. That means, whether they’re for high-rise residential development in existing towns and cities, or whether they’re greenfield suburbs where mums and dads want to be able to put a trampoline in the backyard for the kids, those sections and those land prices will become more affordable. That’s what ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature would deliver, and that is what New Zealanders will have the opportunity to vote for in October.

So ACT will not be supporting this bill; we will be opposing it. We will continue to be constructive, we will continue to offer alternatives, and we will continue to listen to New Zealanders, including councils, the engineers, the asset managers, all of those people in the regions and in our towns and cities who have said, “Simon, there’s a better way. Labour won’t listen to us; thank you, Simon, thank you, ACT New Zealand, for listening. We look forward to seeing a change of Government in October 2023, with ACT at its centre.” Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I cannot understand why the party that has just spoken, the ACT Party, is so opposed to mātauranga Māori being recognised in decisions about water, why it is so anti - Te Tiriti o Waitangi being implemented, and why it stokes up concern about this when we want decisions that are fully informed by all of Aotearoa New Zealand, all aspects of our community, and we want to implement Te Tiriti. So that is a lot of nonsense that Mr Court has spoken.

It is strange, though, to be speaking on the first reading of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill when we haven’t had the second reading of the Water Services Legislation Bill, which has had so many of the issues around the establishment and the transfer of responsibilities of the water services entity, and when this bill makes so many changes, as the Water Services Legislation Bill does, to the original Act that the Parliament passed last year, the Water Services Entities Act. It is really disappointing that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was not given the opportunity to consider this bill and the changes that are proposed here in association with the Water Services Legislation Bill.

It’s also peculiar that this bill is going to the Governance and Administration Committee when it has been members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who have heard all of the submissions on the water services legislation and understand the complexity of the issues involved. Nor does the Green Party support—though we will be supporting the bill, and I’ll explain why in a moment—the truncated select committee process and the report back of 27 July, because of the quite major changes that this bill makes to the three waters reforms, particularly with things like the establishment of the Water Services Entities Funding Agency, and we’re really pleased that the Government has moved to do that, and with the ability, potentially, that entities will have to get access to loan finance at a more competitive rate. The bill makes it very clear that there’s no Crown liability and support, sort of as a backstop, for that entity unless the Minister of Finance has made decisions under the Public Finance Act, but that does mean that Government is recognising the other ways of doing investment, rather than just assuming that all of the infrastructure deficit can be funded purely by debt finance through the entities.

The Green Party is supporting the bill primarily because of the move to 10 regional entities which are much closer to local communities than the big four mega-entities. That was something that the Green Party supported and promoted with the former Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—and we acknowledge all of the mahi that that Minister has done on this reform project. We also support the recognition that there can be some mergers between the entities, that it is more of a voluntary process there, though we do note that the Minister still has quite substantial powers of direction in this bill to direct the entities, if they are not performing adequately, to require shared services, to direct them to develop expertise and capability and to ensure business continuity. So there are still significant ministerial intervention powers.

We remain concerned about the huge degree of corporatisation in these reforms and the limited accountability that the entities have back to their communities. There is an attempt in this bill, as a previous speaker noted, in relation to the community priority statements for water services. I have a major concern, which I hope the select committee will address, with the overlap between this bill and the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. Under the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, communities can provide statements of community outcomes, statements of regional and environmental outcomes, to the regional planning committees for incorporation into regional spatial strategies and regional plans. Those statements of community outcome—surely the water services entities could have regard to those rather than having a separate process under this bill where they identify the issues in relation to particular water bodies. It is the regional councils and now the regional planning committees which have got responsibility for that water management. This seems quite a duplication—the potential for quite a lot of mix and overlapping work here—that’s not really necessary.

The other issue here is that, with the new RMA reform legislation, the Natural and Built Environment Bill already will be requiring water services entities to have regard to the regional spatial strategy, so you get that integration between infrastructure and what the water services entities are doing with their asset management plans. So, when you’ve got that connection there, I’m still to be convinced that these new community priority statements are not just “make work” and that they will actually have any weight and be of any value.

The other issues in the legislation that we’ll be commenting on when we talk about the principal bill include our continuing concern about the transfer of stormwater and the fact that that is completely untested internationally, but we do wish that the Government had remitted this to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and that there was more time to integrate this bill with the water services legislation changes, because this is at risk of becoming a patchwork quilt of ad hoc changes. While patchwork quilts may have character, they can also have significant holes.

The complexity of the legislation requires a good process and, as the Finance and Expenditure Committee reported back on the Water Services Legislation Bill, there was concern that for whatever reason officials had directed Parliamentary Counsel without always coming back to the select committee to ensure that the Parliamentary Counsel was making changes to the bill on the recommendation of the select committee. This truncated process, with only just over a month, means there is potential, with the complexity of the bill, for other issues to arise in terms of real parliamentary scrutiny and limited chance for public submissions.

So, while we support the bill, we have a number of concerns about it and hope that submitters will have some time at least to comment on it and to raise those issues with the Governance and Administration Committee.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It’s my pleasure to speak and take a call on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. I just want to thank the Hon Kieran McAnulty for bringing this important piece of legislation to the House, because this bill is all about improving infrastructure across New Zealand.

Especially after decades-long underfunding, our water network is in a poor condition, and Dr David Clark, in his contribution, raised the point around people getting sick as a result of poor water quality. In 2020—

Matt Doocey: Green sludge coming out of the taps—remember?

DAN ROSEWARNE: Well, I see the member for Waimakariri there has woken up. While he’s been sleeping in the Waimakariri electorate, I’ve been mowing his grass like a Masport lawnmower, picking up all his constituency work.

I just want to raise the point that I live in Woodend, which is in Waimakariri—just for the member of Waimakariri there, it’s just north of Kaiapoi. In my home of Waimakariri, rates would have gone up by as much as $4,900 by the year 2054—$4,900. But, under this new system, we will save $2,470, so it’s going to be half the cost if we go through with these reforms. This is a fantastic bill, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sam Uffindell—a five-minute call.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was good; I wish the member Dan Rosewarne had have kept talking. I was hoping he was going to use up all 10 minutes, but he almost got to two. But that was all right; it was an enjoyable contribution nevertheless. I’d better get straight to the point on this one: I oppose this bill, but I will be using up my full call on this.

This is a back-down bill, let’s be perfectly honest. It is a back-down bill. I had some friends who were in New Zealand recently and they were driving around and they said, “What are all of these Stop Three Waters signs?” Evidently one of them was on my gate! But, when you drive around Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty, there are a lot of them. It’s such a strange thing for this Government to hang its hat on, and it could well have been the thing that started the demise—

Angela Roberts: Affordable water?

SAM UFFINDELL: And the horrible water we hear being called out. I saw the ads, too, where you turn on the tap and all of the green sludge comes out. We don’t have that problem in Tauranga; we don’t have it at all, because our councils have invested in their water services over the decades. We have some of the best water, not to mention the best sunshine and the best beaches in New Zealand. But we don’t need this; we do not need central government coming in and telling us how to manage our water. It’s not just Tauranga that doesn’t need it; there are many councils around New Zealand that don’t need it.

I go back to the start of where this all began with three waters—and I’ll keep calling this three waters, because that’s what it is. It’s just had another lick of paint and a new name, but it’s still three waters, and it will still be repealed as three waters and replaced with Simon Watts’ wonderful Local Water Done Well. I look forward to the repealing and replacement of three waters. Now, we saw what happened when this came in. It is strange; I remember talking on this at the end of last year, and I came in here with “Wattsy” and we were there talking away, trying to hold this up—and he did a magnificent job holding it up—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! In this House, we refer to members by their full name.

SAM UFFINDELL: My apologies, Madam Speaker. Getting a bit too laissez-faire on a Thursday afternoon. I’ll add an element of professionalism for the last three minutes.

It seems that here we are again talking about a bill that was only passed recently. Here we are amending it. Let’s talk about what’s wrong with this bill. Well, there’s no local accountability, because the local people don’t have an opportunity to call out people if they are not doing a good job managing their water services. It takes local assets off local councils, and make no mistake about it: it takes their assets. It upholds co-governance, and those are the two extremely contentious parts of this: that it takes local assets off local councils—and this amendment hasn’t addressed that—and it further continues very divisive co-governance arrangements that we have seen under this Government.

The Te Mana o te Wai statements were talked about quite well by Chris Bishop when he came in here. I’m sure Simon Watts talked about it well, but I came in during Chris’ speech—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

SAM UFFINDELL: Sorry, again. Thursday afternoon. I will not get it wrong in the last minute and a half.

Why is it that only mana whenua can make statements on this? I find that that is the wrong way to be going about it. We are all New Zealanders in this House, in this country, and we should all be treated with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. To say that one set of people, based on their ethnicity, can make Te Mana o te Wai statements and other New Zealanders can’t, I think, is a pretty poor direction for us to be heading as a country.

Now, I’ve heard the other side of the House piping up about all of the financial benefits that this is going to reap. They looked at what they’d done over in Scotland and they got a bit of modelling and they said, “Oh, this is going to save councils thousands of dollars and save ratepayers thousands of dollars.” I mean, what a load of rubbish. When you’ve looked at people that have come in and done peer-reviewed studies on that, that’s not what they have found—that’s not what they have found.

So this Government has used fear. They’ve used fear of green sludge coming out of taps and they’ve used fear of incredible rate hikes that are completely out of touch with reality to try and ram this through. We had the Greens member Eugenie Sage before. She has left the Chamber, but she tried to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! You nearly made it. But the member will not refer to the absence of a member.

SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won’t be posting this one online. What am I saying? There was an attempt by the Green Party at a 60 percent entrenchment. This Government went along with it.

Glen Bennett: When’s your professionalism coming in?

SAM UFFINDELL: Well, we will see plenty of professionalism come October, and we will repeal and replace three waters—

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

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): We have heard it all today from the National Party. First of all, we’ve had Chris Bishop stand up and say, “The National Party supports reform and believes in reform.” Then, we’ve had Sam Uffindell stand up and say—and I quote—“a strange thing to hang your hat on”, and then talk about his community and why his community doesn’t require reform.

Throughout this entire debate around water infrastructure over the past couple of years, the National Party have done two things: they have flip-flopped on their position, back and forth—back and forth—and then they have stoked misinformation and fear amongst our communities about what the reform programme is seeking to achieve. So I’m going to talk about my community of Nelson, because my community of Nelson has done an excellent of job of investing in water services. But—and I’m going to say “but”—a lot of that infrastructure was invested in a very, very long time ago. We saw the impact of that last year in the Nelson floods, where some of our infrastructure failed and continues to fail when we have heavy weather events. It’s not to say that we haven’t invested; we have. However, the cost of continuing to sweat that asset will be far too great for our community and for the people who come in the generations after us.

What this bill seeks to address is one of the issues that was raised around the nature of the entities. We will be moving from four large entities down to 10 entities. One of the critical pieces of this reform is the need—which is something that the National Party have not addressed—for us to have balance sheet separation so that we can actually have a step removed from the councils, who are unable to invest. It’s not that a lot of them haven’t wanted to invest; it’s that the system has not been set up in a way to enable them to do so.

This bill continues our good work of reform to ensure that we do address the thing that we do need to hang our hat on, and that is that people in this country have died from drinking poor quality water. That is actually, fundamentally, what is at the heart of it: affordable water that is safe to drink and that supports our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It’s been a pleasure to be involved in the process of listening to the other submissions, etc., and dealing with the other water entities bills on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’m actually very pleased to see it move to another committee, as it’s time we had a fresh set of eyes on this one. Share the love, I say!

This is the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, and it’s actually really simple. It’s a case of the Minister listening to the communities, taking into account the misgivings over the amount of entities, changing the number to 10 so that there can be more involvement by the local bodies, and making sure that that representation is the expectation. That’s a really good thing because it’s making sure that that balance is right.

When we had the floods in Auckland—I live on a park, and the park is about 10 acres, and it is a zone where floods are supposed to come into the park. I’ve lived there for about 29 years, and I have never seen that happen, but when I woke up that morning it was actually a proper lake, and there were people who came to the park to swim in that water. I really worried about what was going to happen next, because the sewage is not dealt with appropriately there, and so they were swimming in water that was really suspect.

So this isn’t just a problem for Hawke’s Bay; this is a problem throughout our country, and it remains a problem for Auckland, despite having a much better system in Auckland than elsewhere. So the best of the model of water care comes across here to a water reform, which we do sorely need. I think that was conceded today by Chris Bishop, who actually accepted there needed to be change. Sometimes these changes are rough: there are misgivings; there’s fear. Hopefully, this amendment means that people feel that they are actually more involved than they had felt, and it strikes the right balance. I commend the Minister for his efforts here and speaking to his community and coming back, and I support this bill.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure on Thursday afternoon to rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill in its first reading. Not only do I rise on behalf of the National Party, which opposes this ideological bill, but I also rise on behalf of hard-working Waimakariri ratepayers, who, when they were asked for their feedback on whether the council should support three waters, voted overwhelmingly to oppose—95 percent of ratepayers who responded opposed the Government’s three waters.

So the Minister, in his first reading, can stand in the House and say it was in good faith that he brings this bill into the House, but, of course, he knows—and the former Minister that held the responsibility for this work reform knows—that, in the first days, councils were promised the ability to opt out. That’s what they were promised, until Official Information Act documents revealed it was an all-in. So this bill doesn’t come to the House in good faith; it comes to the House in bad blood. People have been misled. This is theft by stealth. No matter how you want to package it up and amend it, if it’s still a dog, it’s a dog. That’s exactly what this bill is.

Can you believe it? Picture the Labour Party caucus this morning, right? They’ve had a car crash of a week; in fact, probably several weeks. Morale is low and they’re thinking about the day and some backbencher who hasn’t read the Order Paper pipes up and says, “Well, at least we don’t have to talk about three waters anymore.” Then the Leader of the House says, “Whoops, we actually do. We’ve got to swallow this dead rat again and again and again.” And they think they’ll quieten this down before 14 October! I’m looking forward to getting on the hustings, because the public oppose this ideological approach.

Even look at the legislative process they’re going through. I mean, I presume, because the bill has been introduced in the House, that it can be under the Standing Orders, but who’s ever heard of bringing a bill to the House that amends not one but two bills that haven’t even been passed into law yet—that are still going through the legislative process. No wonder they’re called the “coalition of chaos”. It’s more like a circus. We are here, six months into the year, in 2023, to amend an Act, the Water Services Entities Act, that was only passed in 2022. I mean, this is an absolute shambles.

To be told by the Minister responsible that this is in good faith—and then we had the audacity of the Hon David Clark standing up and with a straight face, and I hope we get that on the clip of Parliament TV, saying the statement “Listening is important.” They’ve spent the whole time blinkered. They know best, Wellington knows best, Labour knows best, and here they are trying to say they’ve had an epiphany: listening is important. Look, that’s not a flippant comment, because it actually has impacts on this bill.

Read the regulatory impact statement. It outlines—and I quote—“Constraints on timing have limited the amount of research and analysis in the development of options. As a result of these constraints, officials are continuing to work with Ministers and the sector on the impacts of the 10 entity model on transitional arrangements for local government during the establishment period.” The former Minister who was responsible, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, said they’d been working on this policy train for three, four, five years. Now we find ourselves in a position where we’re passing a law that the officials haven’t had time to explore the actions and the impacts and the analysis of, and this is what happens. These guys went into it blinkered. They knew best, and now, they’re paying the price for it.

You’ll have to get up on the hustings over the next few weeks and defend this bill. Duncan Webb’s sitting there—the MP for Christchurch Central. He knows because his former campaign manager—the left-leaning Mayor of Christchurch—wrote a letter to the editor to the Christchurch Press, who said that, because of three waters, not only was he resigning his Labour membership, he would never vote for Labour again.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Rubbish.

MATT DOOCEY: And that’s what it went—rubbish, they say. This is how out of touch—it’s actually in black and white in the newspaper. In Canterbury, it went down like a cup of cold sick.

So you can dress it up about how you want to make good-faith amendments, but the reality is that this bill does not address the issues. Yes, you can broaden it out to a representative group that will represent and give their views on the issue. The issue was never about councils not having representation; the issue was that councils wanted ownership of their ratepayer assets—that is the issue that they’re overlooking. Yes, you can package it up. You’ve gone from three to four and now to 10, but it’s still not going to work, and that’s really concerning. They’ve had years at this. They’ve been wedded to an ideological position that they have failed to move on.

What we get back today is a bill that will amend two current bills before the House and a bill that was passed only last year. So what we’ve got is the “back-down bill”. We’ve got a bill that they were forced, dragging their heels and kicking, to change, because they know that this is unpopular. They know that the public does not want this. So that’s why—let’s be very clear about this bill: undemocratic, unworkable. National will repeal this bill. In coalition, I’d like to think it will be on the first 100-day bonfire. It’s very clear for voters, as they go up to 14 October, when they look at the two options: the National Party’s, led by Simon Watts, Local Water Done Well, which will keep local ownership of water assets, or a Government that is wedded on ideology that Wellington knows best and that will ram through reform. I’m really concerned about this: what this Government will do in the next few weeks of pushing through their legislation, which, in fact, has no mandate.

I’ll finally leave it to say: you can put in that we’re going to have a community priority statement, and you can package it up that you’re going to listen to the community and that you’re going to bring interest groups together, but take a note of this legislation. The representative groups don’t have to take that statement on board; not “must consider” but “may consider”. So, for all the speeches tonight that we hear from Labour—that they have listened and they have responded to the public—this bill is actually no different from where it was before. Will councils own the water assets? No. Will community views be taken into consideration? No. Has there been the removal of co-governance that’s hard-baked into these reforms? No. This is the hill that this Government will die on: the hill of three waters. We will always look back at this bill that actually represented a Government that was out of touch and that thought it knew better than the people they were put in to serve.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Well, this evening, I have heard nothing from the National Party about what they are going to do when they talk about repealing, and this bonfire they plan to have, which I don’t think they’re going to have, around what they are going to do in terms of what we’re going to do with the three waters—nothing. All they’ve presented is negativity and what they’re against, not what they stand for, and that’s all we see time and time again. That’s why we have a plan, and we plan to implement it. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Instruction to Governance and Administration Committee

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The shortened select committee report-back date will ensure that we are able to provide legislative certainty to the local government sector around long-term planning in particular.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I move, That the motion be amended so that “27 July 2023” is omitted and replaced with “19 November 2023”.

The proposal on the Table this evening in regards to shortening the report-back date for the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is completely outrageous. It is indicating to those watching that this Government is not willing to allow appropriate process and appropriate public consultation that will enable complex and significant changes to this bill to be heard by the public and to allow adequate time in order for them to make those submissions.

As we have heard this afternoon, the changes in regards to this legislation are significant. They are worthy of appropriate scrutiny both by those within this House and also by members of the public. The increasing of the number of entities from four to 10 is of itself a significant change in regards to this legislation. In addition to the changes around the number of entities, it is also proposing that it extend the effective commencement date for two years, which is another significant implication that should be appropriately discussed in regards to the implications that that has on our communities, our neighbourhoods, and in particular the local government entities across this country, who will be significantly impacted by this.

The key aspect and issue of an extension of time for this bill, which is needed for people to provide feedback, is because, for the local government sector, one of the most significant issues it faces is uncertainty and staff turnover. This aspect of the bill is a significant change which requires time for input to be fed in. We have seen throughout this bill, and bills that have preceded it, and bills which this bill amends that are not yet passed into law—and, for those that are trying to follow that narrative, there are two bills on the Order Paper pending second reading—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m just going to invite the member to speak more directly to his proposed amendment.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The amendment in regards to the amended report-back date is to allow adequate time for public input in regards to those significant changes.

The other aspect in regards to the motion is the fact that the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which has looked at water services bills to date—and a motion that I have tabled is that this bill is going to be going to the Governance and Administration Committee. This in itself has significant implications: one, because the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee have the continuity of knowledge of the passing of this bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member is speaking to his proposed amendment. Once I have put the motion and the question on the member’s amendment, the debate will open up more broadly to both questions. But, at the moment, the member is speaking to his amendment. He will confine his comments to them.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, as I have outlined, the key issue that we have is in regards to that shortened report-back date that will not allow adequate public input or consideration by members, and all members of this House, in regards to what are complex and significant changes to this bill. We oppose the motion that has been put on the Table by this Government and support the motion that I am tabling that will amend the date from 27 July to 19 November 2023.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I will now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to—that is the Government’s motion. I will also put: the question is that the amendment be agreed to. Now the debate is opened to—I hear Matt Doocey.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, I’d like to rise in opposition to the Minister’s motion about a shortened report-back date of 27 July. When you look at it, for those listening, normally the submissions process is about four to six months. This has been rammed through in a bit over 30 days, and it really makes you wonder: what have they got to hide? The Minister, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, started his contribution in the first reading saying, “This bill comes to the House in good faith; the amendments are in good faith”—but, by the way, we’re going to scurry it through because we don’t want you to look at it too closely. And that really concerns me.

That’s why I think my learned colleague Simon Watts is right on the button. He speaks on behalf of the public to say, “Let’s extend it out to 9 November 2023”—because why would you not give this due diligence, especially when you take the words of the Minister’s own officials? Look in the regulatory impact statement, because it’s just been such a shambles, let’s be honest: “Constraints on timing have limited the amount of research and analysis in the development of options. As a result of these constraints, officials are continuing to work with Ministers and the sector on the impacts of a 10-entity model on transitional arrangements for local government during the establishment period.” So even the officials are acknowledging that, because of constraints of the poorly held legislative process timing of this bill, even they are concerned that the analysis has not been put in place.

Why would we not, then, double down with the submissions process to encourage all those who maybe have some technical expertise to submit as well, just to double check and make sure that what the Minister’s got—what he thinks is the right model—is the correct model, because, as has been pointed out, there’s real concern on this side of the House. This bill is not only amending legislation that’s only recently been passed—with us, the Opposition, calling it the “back-down bill”—but, in fact, is going to amend two bills currently before the House, and that’s why I think it needs a full submissions process for the oversight, and for the public to have their say.

Then, the final point I’d make: this bill kicks out the implementation date by two years. If we have extended the implementation date by two years, why are we truncating the public submissions time frame? It actually doesn’t add up, because what’s going to happen is that, if they get it through, there are going to be errors and there’s going to have to be workarounds. What we know is that they’re rushing this through for political reasons.

There’s actually a lot of public interest in this bill. There were thousands of submissions on the first bill—that, actually, is not good enough, because we’re now amending it because they finally listened to the public and they felt that electoral pressure. But there’s a lot of public interest. The Government is trying to ram it through and talk about it as little as possible. I think, in due process, when you look at those points that I’ve raised—around the officials concerned in the regulatory impact statement, the public interest in this bill, and also this bill amending two bills before the House and the extended implementation date of two years—it’s only right, and I’d call on the other parties in this House this afternoon, to support Simon Watts’ motion of giving the public a say. And why wouldn’t we do that—extending the date out to 9 November 2023? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): There is no doubt that, when you look at the bill that the Minister has just had read for the first time, there is in that an admission that the water reform policy brought down by the current Government is in utter tatters. We’ve had three years, at least, of being told that the four entities, which the Government have set up in legislation, that exist now, is the best way to progress the water reforms in this country. So, having done that, and then latterly listening to public opinion, there’s been a massive scrambling and a running round and a coming up with this bill that increases the number of entities to 10.

It seems just unreasonable that we could have about three years of public discussion on one proposal and then only 30 days discussion on the new proposal. That doesn’t indicate a Government that listens. It doesn’t show respect for Parliament, given that these sorts of reforms tend to become quite deep; they are part of the infrastructure of New Zealand. I’d also just say: look, councils throughout New Zealand, who have objected in large numbers to the previous proposal—the proposal that’s still on the books; the proposal that is still the law—and have rejected that in many of their submissions and efforts to talk to the Government, are now given just 30 days to come up with their consideration on this particular new bill. I think that is totally unreasonable. So I support strongly the motion moved by Mr Watts that would kick that report-back date out to 19 November. Now, I think the other side of the House knows what that means, and that’s the reason why they’ve had to dig their toes in on this very, very disrespectful 30 days to make a submission.

There are billions of dollars of local government assets at stake in this proposal. If people want to know what a total shambles it is, the so-called compensation for—or the confiscation of—those assets has already been paid out. We’ve had a situation where a compensation was paid for the current legal proposal that’s out there—the four waters entities—but now, all of a sudden, there’s a panic because it’s not popular, it’s not liked, and it doesn’t have the level of support that it would need to make a difference. Then we have this trumped-up little bill here that expands it out to 10 entities, with very, very limited opportunity for communities to have a say in their water resources—no greater, in fact, than they would have under the four entities. So a democratic right to be able to speak to your local government about the water situation in the area that one might live in is taken away. Right now, it’s gone because of the four-water proposal; now we have the 10-water proposal, and it’s still gone, because there’s this Mickey Mouse sort of talking to various little groups that are put together, presumably, by the vested interests, and we carry on.

How can it be a bad thing for the House to say, “Look, let’s give the public a little more time to digest this very big change. Let’s give the public a little bit more time to recognise that this is a massive U-turn.”—actually, not quite a U-turn; it’s sort of like a 90 degree turn by the Government, moving away from their four waters proposal, which is current law, to this new proposal, which apparently is put together as a result of listening to the objections that so many local bodies, who are responsible for water at the moment, have made. Well, the question is: why not hear what they think of the new proposal? Why not give them time to be able to come to the Governance and Administration Committee and make those recommendations to the select committee on this particular bill? I think it’s quite simple: the desire to be demonstrating any degree of a democratic approach to such a large shift, if you like, in the way in which water services are delivered is going to be denied to them because they may come back and say, “We don’t like this proposal either.”, and I think that highly likely.

What we have here is a complete muddle, and I think Parliament has a right to try and get it as straightened out as it possibly can—that is the select committee process. It’s what it’s supposed to be there for; it’s why there is a minimum of four months and two days on most bills, with the general proposition being that it should be six months. To cut it down to just under a month seems to me quite unreasonable and unfair. So Mr Watts has come up with, I think, a very reasonable suggestion that the bill report back get delayed until 19 November, meaning that it would be up to a new Parliament—who, frankly, would have to deliver on the aspects of the bill—to make a decision about how that report from a select committee is received. I think it’s worth noting, too, that this Parliament is going to go into election recess. It will be going into that period of about six or seven weeks—before the election—round about the end of August, so even the modest proposal to push it out by a month to 19 November really is only going to make a couple of months’ difference to it. I don’t see why the Parliament would be so keen to vote for a shortened period on something that has been so very, very controversial.

The motion moved by Mr Watts has our support, and I would hope that the rest of the Parliament can offer similar support for the reasons outlined in what I’ve just said.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to make clear the reasons why this truncated select committee process is sought by the Minister. First of all, these are not wholesale changes. It’s a very similar framework, with some relatively minor adjustments, including to the number of entities and some representative body matters. There is a need to get on with this. We want to see this implemented, and it’s absolutely necessary that the local bodies understand exactly what the rules are as they transition and the new entities are stood up. The Minister in this case, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, has very widely and in an exemplary manner consulted on the proposals, and, therefore, the select committee process which is proposed is more than satisfactory to address the issues that will be before the committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT stands in support of Simon Watts’ amendment to the motion that has been put, extending the report-back date from 27 July to 19 November. When we look at the days between now and 27 July, it’s actually 34 days. I do dispute what the honourable member from Labour, Dr Duncan Webb, has just said to us: that it’s a minor adjustment to the number of entities. Actually, going from four to 10 is not minor. When we’re looking at assets that belong to the people of New Zealand, one would think that they actually deserve the time to be heard. I believe, as I presume my ACT colleagues will as well, as National have, that that is not sufficient time. We are having a number of bills come through the House that have been truncated, and this is another one. Because we are talking about issues that belong to the people, they deserve to have that full time.

It is confusing, after all. We now have three bills going through the House, and if it’s confusing for those in the House, it’s got to be doubly confusing for those at home who do not understand what is going on. Having a continuation of bills going through the House with shortened periods of debate time and submission time and hearing time for those people is unethical in some respects, because we’re not allowing those people to have a voice. We really need to have true public consultation when we’re looking at confiscating public assets.

We are looking to implement this within two years, so to actually make this bill go through in a quicker time does not make sense, as one of my colleagues has said before. By moving it out to 19 November, we can get through the election, we still have the bill sitting on the Order Paper, and we can still work through the process while paying respect to the people of New Zealand who will look to have their assets being seized.

So it’s a quick call from me, but I do want to say that, on behalf of the ACT Party, we do appreciate the initiative of our colleague Simon Watts and the National Party. We do get in behind and fully support them and believe that this is something that the people of New Zealand would also expect from the parliamentarians that are representing them, and that is the ability for all of their voices to be heard in a reasonable time, in a reasonable way, and in front of the proper select committee to deal with it. ACT does support the amended motion that has gone through, and we hope that other parties will stand in support as well. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 June 2023.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.