Wednesday, 31 January 2024

WEDNESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2024

WEDNESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

BARBARA KURIGER (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, noting the mark of respect that some members have put in place for the rural community today. Amen.

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

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

SPEAKER: Papers have been reported.

CLERK:

2022-23 annual reports of the:

Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, and

Cadastral Surveyors Licensing Board of New Zealand

2024-26 statement of intent for Animal Control Products Ltd.

SPEAKER: There are select committee reports?

CLERK: No.

SPEAKER: None today. Introduction of bills—none today. We come now to—

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker—Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon James Shaw: Sorry, just both when the prayer was being read out and then with the Clerk’s notes—I’m not sure that the sound system is operating because we didn’t pick up any of that through your mikes.

SPEAKER: OK, can our techs please just check on that? And just for clarity, can those papers be read again?

CLERK:

2022-23 annual reports of the:

Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, and

Cadastral Surveyors Licensing Board of New Zealand

2024-26 statement of intent for Animal Control Products Ltd.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Justice (Firearms)

1. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): What information, if any, has she seen concerning firearms seizures?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): Data released by Police under the Official Information Act has revealed that only 123 of the 6,571 firearms seized by police between January 2020 to November 2023 could be traced back to permits recorded on the police National Intelligence Application. The fact that the vast majority of seized firearms cannot be matched with a permit is deeply concerning and raises questions about the effectiveness of the firearms registry. These firearms that are legally held by gangs and criminals will not be captured by the firearms registry, yet law-abiding, licensed firearm owners still have to bear the burden of additional regulation.

SPEAKER: Excuse me. Actually, that was a very long answer, so I’ll ask the Minister in future just to contain them slightly.

Cameron Luxton: Was any other data released that calls into question the effectiveness of the firearms registry?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes, 65 percent of firearms seized by police in 2023, and 62 percent of firearms seized in 2022 had no recorded serial number. This suggests that criminals are using firearms that are either illegally imported, manufactured, or intentionally stripped of serial numbers, making them untraceable. The firearms registry would be unable to capture these illegally held or manufactured firearms.

Cameron Luxton: What other data has she seen?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Ninety-four percent of people who were present at or subject to a search by police in which firearms were seized last year did not possess a firearms licence. The gangs and criminals are carrying and using firearms illegally, and they’re circumventing the firearms registry. Licensed firearms owners are not the problem. That’s why the Government is committed to targeting firearms illegally held by the gangs.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will the Minister bring an open mind to her review of the firearms registry, or has she an utterly predetermined approach to the usefulness of it?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The intention of the review is to be able to look at all data that is presented to those that are reviewing it. That would be an open mind.

Cameron Luxton: Why has this Government committed to reviewing the firearms registry?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government has—in the ACT and National coalition agreement—committed to reviewing the firearms registry, starting before June 2024. The registry needs to be evaluated to determine whether it is improving public safety, in comparison to other options such as targeting illegally manufactured or imported firearms. We also need to determine if any changes to the registry could make it more effective in preventing firearms from falling into the hands of criminals. A comprehensive review will improve insights into the effectiveness of the current registry.

SPEAKER: I appreciate that was a primary question to the Minister, but a little more concise approach in the future would be very helpful to the House’s fluid operation.

Question No. 2—Health

2. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Health: What are the Government’s plans in relation to Smokefree 2025?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): The Government is committed to the smoke-free target of less than 5 percent of people smoking daily by 2025. Our plan is to repeal the 2022 smoke-free amendments that have not yet taken effect, namely reduced retailers, denicotisation, and prohibition to those born from 2009. We will also build on what currently works and is behind the recent dramatic decrease in smoking, and continue to work to prevent young people from starting smoking and vaping. In particular, we will work at education and cessation programmes, access to alternative products to aid quitting, and regulating access to related products. What’s also important is that measures are targeted to individuals and communities that will benefit the most.

Tanya Unkovich: What particular challenges does the Government need to address to achieve this smoke-free target?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: New Zealand has done very well in reducing smoking. As of mid - last year, we were down to 284,000 daily smokers from 573,000 ten years ago. Smoking is nowhere as prevalent as it was and we’re dealing with a much smaller group, which is great news. The problem is we are dealing with a remaining group of long-term smokers who are addicted to nicotine, so we need an approach that focuses on them and understands their needs and helps them to quit. The progress we have made means there are clearly some current measures, such as vaping, that work, and I want to build on this and any other practical steps such as other products used around the world and targeted programmes that will help people stop smoking.

Tanya Unkovich: Are there considerations other than health outcomes that the Minister needs to consider?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Improving health outcomes is extremely important. However, all Government policies need to be able to work and they need to consider real-world impacts. We can’t just wish for good outcomes. That means we need to address the real problem we face, which is that current smokers are addicted to nicotine and we need to help them to quit rather than moving to a prohibitionist regime. Cutting supply doesn’t equate to reducing demand, and the last Government’s planned approach was also going to have consequences for retailers, crime, and the growth of the black market.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Mark Mitchell—sorry, you don’t sit down until I’ve called you. Do you want a supp or not?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order. I thought the question was over, but I can wait until—

SPEAKER: I can’t hear you. Your mike’s not on.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I thought the question was over. But if there’s a supp, I can wait till after the supp.

SPEAKER: Oh, thank you, thank you—appreciate that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: With respect to the member’s proposals for other regulated products, are there any of those that would not increase the availability of tobacco and the profits of tobacco companies among her proposals?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: At this stage, there are no proposals, and I’m seeking advice broadly on a range of issues.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Does she accept the Government’s modelling that suggests Māori will not reach the 5 percent national target of smoking prevalence until 2061?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No, we don’t accept that modelling, and it was based on numbers that are not currently reflected.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Given that smoking is the leading cause of premature death in Aotearoa, what is her Government’s strategy to rapidly address the inequity and accelerate smoking cessation among Māori to achieve nationwide targets?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We’re completely committed to targeted programmes rather than the blanket approach of the previous Government and will focus on those groups with the greatest need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Minister’s position that behind this policy is the wisdom of not imposing $8.6 billion of taxation upon Māori since 2011 when it comes to cigarette smoking or having people beaten up at supermarkets on a daily basis in ram raids, all sorts of illegalities, or the black market, but by following this policy we have taken ourselves to number one in the world?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I completely agree with the Deputy Prime Minister.

Question No. 11 to Minister, 30 January—Amended Answer

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct answers given during question time yesterday.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Please go ahead.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In answer to supplementary questions on question No. 11, I stated that the Government’s policy was for the 500 additional police to be delivered over the course of the term, which is three years. I should have been clearer: the Government’s policy is to deliver 500 new police in the first two years of the term. I was reflecting the significant challenges that Police face to drive that recruitment, but the Government is firmly committed to delivering on this target.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I would ask you to reflect on whether corrections of answers are to correct misinformation that is given to the House or to reflect a change of position taken by a Minister. That was not an appropriate use of a correction of an answer.

SPEAKER: That’s quite right, but it was a correction of an answer. I was here for those questions and heard the answers given yesterday, and that’s quite a different position; that’s a different answer that’s given. I don’t think it’s the right place, right now, to discuss the concept the member’s talking about, but the Standing Orders Committee might be.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and particularly given it’s back-to-school week, we actually stand by all of our actions, as I said yesterday, on education. Sadly, this has been a former Government that left us with 55 percent of our kids not going to school regularly. We want to call on all parents to make sure they get their kids to school this week so we can teach them the basics—an hour of maths, reading, and writing starting this year; a mobile phones ban; and an expert panel reviewing primary and intermediate school curriculum.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can Mark Mitchell have been confused yesterday—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We’ll give him an hour’s maths too.

SPEAKER: Sorry, don’t speak while someone’s asking a question. So, please, start again, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can Mark Mitchell have been confused yesterday, when he said on Monday: “Realistically, 500 new staff over the next three years is what we’re aiming for.”; he said on Tuesday, “The Government’s policy is to deliver 500 additional officers over the term of this Government, which is three years.”; and claimed previously that there had been a meeting in December of the three governing parties where they agreed to change the target from two years to three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There is no ambiguity around the target. We’re going to have 500 additional police in two years, and the Minister clarified that in his statement just before.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So was there a meeting in December amongst the three governing parties in which changing the target from two years to three years was discussed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his answer yesterday that he’s not aware of the Government requesting advice on freezing tobacco excise, given Casey Costello’s answer to question No. 9 yesterday that she had requested that advice?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That is deliberate misinformation by Mr Hipkins. That was clarified in points of order yesterday and he’s back today, having ignored that, seeking to assert a falsity the second time around.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d encourage you to go and review the Hansard of the answer that was given yesterday where the Minister did answer to the question: “Yes.” The word “yes” was the very first part of her answer to the question that was asked by my colleague Dr Verrall.

SPEAKER: Well, I will review it, and so we’ll set it aside now. You have another supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, no—I haven’t had an answer to that one yet.

SPEAKER: Well, we’re setting it aside because I’m reviewing it. You can’t have it both ways. [Interruption] Ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ll ask the question again. Does he stand by his answer yesterday that he was not aware of the Government requesting advice on freezing tobacco excise, given Casey Costello’s answer to question No. 9 yesterday that she had requested the advice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was asked if the Minister had sought advice, I answered that I was not aware that she had, which was the case.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that Casey Costello “would have given a bunch of different party policy documents to her officials.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is what I subsequently have understood since question time yesterday. Her office has clarified her approach, and that’s what I articulated this morning in media.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing those party policy documents that were given to officials?

SPEAKER: He has no responsibility—sorry, Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not responsible for other parties.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You haven’t heard from me yet. Just to be clear, the Prime Minister does not have responsibility in this House for party policy documents.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If a Minister gives party policy documents to officials, then the Prime Minister is absolutely responsible to that. Documents given by Ministers to officials, they are, effectively, instructions from Ministers to their officials. The Prime Minister and Ministers are absolutely responsible for that.

SPEAKER: In that context, the member is right. Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Oh, it’s a supplementary question? [Interruption] Wait on, wait on. Sorry. Please resume your seat. So we’re just getting a little bit mixed up here. There has been a question answered. It’s clarified that there is some aspect for the Prime Minister to answer, and that question should be answered before we have a further supplementary.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can he repeat the question?

SPEAKER: Yep—third time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing those party policy documents?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t have responsibility for other party manifestos.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ve got your point of order. I think the difficulty here is that if the party documents have been provided to officials to help formulate policy from this point, then there is a ministerial responsibility.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’re into some difficulty here. We are getting into difficulty here, because although Mr Hipkins is of course completely correct that documents that are given to officials on behalf of the Government are the responsibility of Ministers, the creation of documents in a political party sense is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. In particular, even in his capacity of leader of the National Party, he is not responsible for those if it’s related to a three-party Government. So we are getting into difficulty here, and there’s also the issue of awareness of all of that as well—so how on earth would the Prime Minister be able to comment with any degree of veracity around that?

SPEAKER: Well—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Look, I just wanted to make a comment here. Firstly, I don’t think we are getting into difficulty. So the question is: if a party document is provided to officials, is it part of the official record, effectively? The answer is yes. If there is a question about a Minister’s knowledge of how that document got formulated—and that is the basis of the question today—that is a question that could be relatively easily answered. The member, actually, in his own point of order, made that point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. What’s going on here—

SPEAKER: No, hang on a minute. Just a minute, I haven’t dealt with this—finished here. Is he still going? OK. Point of order—sorry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, this is to be helpful, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The reality is there’s an element of information being made here with no evidence whatsoever. The Electoral Act requires—as we all know—parties to submit a full record, open and in front of the public and under the law, of where they got their party funding. That information is available to that member over there—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s not about funding.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —yes, he does—but, no, he prefers to make these insinuations without a bare fact to back them up.

SPEAKER: No, the point, though, is that the Prime Minister is being asked if he knows the full source of a policy document that was provided by another party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he didn’t say that; it went further than that.

SPEAKER: It is the question, and that’s a relatively easy answer—yep.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As Prime Minister, I’m unaware of what Ministers are actually asking their officials for advice.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it his position as Prime Minister that Ministers should be presenting to officials party policy documents and giving them those documents as instructions for further advice to be prepared?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I think is fantastic is we have an Associate Minister with delegation for reducing smoking. She’s incredibly focused on that goal, and she’s asked her officials for a range of advice to actually lower smoking in New Zealand. That’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed what is actually a very significant question. Generally, when Ministers give party policy documents to officials, it is an instruction for the officials to therefore implement that. I’ve asked him whether Ministers in his Government are giving party policy documents to officials and whether he is comfortable with that approach.

SPEAKER: Well, there is a coalition agreement which is publicly available for people to see what the transfer of policy is. But the Prime Minister may like to answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We campaigned on a set of policies; it’s right that officials would have those manifestos.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is New Zealand First’s policy on tobacco now the Government’s policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why would New Zealand First’s party policy document have been presented to officials as Government instruction?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s not what I said. It’s not unreasonable that officials should actually see party political manifestos in consideration as they think about dreaming up policy advice that actually lowers smoking.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not find it extraordinary that the Opposition that’s raising in the House today this issue nevertheless supported the very same party writing sound policy in 2018-19 which led to the biggest drop in the whole world of cigarette smoking? That’s the fact, isn’t it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think we’re incredibly proud of the lowering of smoking rates. It’s gone from 16.7 percent down to 8.6 percent and to 6.8 percent in the space of the last decade.

SPEAKER: Right, well, we’ll just let the smoke clear, and we’ll have the Hon James Shaw.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given.

Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his joint statement with the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada in relation to Gaza made on 13 December 2023 that he supports “urgent international efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire.”, and, if so, what specific actions has his Government taken since that date to secure a sustainable ceasefire?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have joined with many companies calling for a sustainable ceasefire and we’ll continue to do so.

Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that under article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, New Zealand has an obligation to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure the point of the question that the member is trying to ask or get to.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. To assist the Prime Minister, the point of the question was to ask if he was aware of article 1 of the convention.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Personally not aware, but if he’d like to direct a specific question to the relevant Minister, I’m sure we could help.

Hon James Shaw: What actions is the Government taking to meet its obligations under article 1 of the genocide convention in light of the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that found a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was a provisional finding, and it wasn’t a plausible risk.

Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that the ICJ did find that there was a plausible risk of genocide, which would—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me; when a question is being asked, the House is silent. Start again.

Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that the ICJ did find that there is a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza—

Hon Chris Bishop: And not a genocide.

Hon James Shaw: —and that—

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop.

Hon James Shaw: —and that that would trigger New Zealand’s obligations under article 1 of the convention to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct.

Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a difference between having found whether genocide has taken place or whether there is a plausible risk of genocide taking place, and that article 1 of the convention requires New Zealand to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs—i.e., when there is a plausible risk?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. That is part of a full and substantive hearing that will take place in subsequent months and years.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that the casual, lazy misuse of a word as important as “genocide”—

Hon Member: 30,000 people.

Hon David Seymour: —is not only incorrect but offensive to those victims of actual genocide?

SPEAKER: Just a minute. The next person who speaks while someone is asking a question will be in a little bit of trouble.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that the casual, lazy misuse of the word “genocide” is not only incorrect but highly offensive to those many people who, tragically, throughout history were victims of actual genocide?

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I know you’ve adopted the flow approach for questions and answers, but that was a good example, I think, of the Standing Order that purports to prevent members from using epithets and words in their questions that are likely to lead to disorder. I think, you know, there must be a line somewhere around where those words are going to fuel disorder, because if any words can be used in a question, then there will be regular bouts of disorder in the House.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. Questions are required to be factual, and that was.

SPEAKER: That’s true, except that the lead-in to that question, I’m sure, is what the Hon Grant Robertson was talking about. So what we might do is have the question again without all the epithets on the front of it.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe it is important to use a word as heavy as “genocide” accurately and only when fully justified by the facts, in order to respect those many victims throughout history who, tragically, have suffered from actual genocide?

Steve Abel: Including the Palestinians right now, who are suffering from genocide.

SPEAKER: That is not helpful. Who was calling out there? I didn’t see who it was. [Interruption] Well, can I ask you, Mr Abel, to please just contain yourself while people are asking a question. Sometimes we don’t like the questions—quite often, we don’t like the questions. Just about every day so far, I haven’t liked a lot of questions, but you’ve got to just let people have their say.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure which question I’m actually answering.

SPEAKER: It’s the David Seymour question which we’ve had twice and we really don’t want a third time.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no; OK. Look, the issue here is there have been provisional measures that have been announced in the provisional ruling of the ICJ, and there is a further case that is continuing on, and I’m only going to respond to the provisional measures.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just checking, with that question, the claim from South Africa is specifically related to preventing the crime of genocide, so putting it clear that that is not a casual misuse of language. The claim is to prevent the crime of genocide; that can be taken before the threshold is met. It’s about saying, “Don’t do genocide.”

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, a point of order shouldn’t be a place for a debate on issues like that.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on business confidence?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Earlier this month, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its latest quarterly survey of business opinion. This survey showed a sharp pick-up in business confidence in the final quarter of 2023. NZIER says that while a net 10 percent of firms are expecting a worsening in general economic conditions over the coming months, this is a significant decrease from a net 49 percent in the previous quarter and a net 79 percent a year ago.

Stuart Smith: What sorts of areas are firms feeling more confident in?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The survey shows that firms are feeling positive about hiring and positive about investing in plant and machinery. The report says that “With a new Government formed in late November 2023, it appears that firms are now looking to invest.”

Stuart Smith: What is Treasury’s outlook for the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m advised that the economy is at or near the bottom of the economic cycle, and the outlook is for a slow and relatively subdued recovery, at least initially. In the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, Treasury forecast real GDP growth of 1.5 percent in the year to June 2024 and again in the year to June 2025. However, that is lower than expected population growth, so Treasury expects per person per capita GDP to decline in each of these years. The unemployment rate is also expected to rise to around 5 percent before beginning to fall again. Inflation will continue to fall and, as the NZIER survey shows, business confidence is increasing off a very low base.

Stuart Smith: What is the Government doing to help build and improve the business environment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s 100-day plan contains a number of measures to improve the business environment. For example, the Government introduced legislation last year, which the House passed, to restore 90-day trial periods for all businesses. This provides much-needed flexibility in the workplace that benefits both workers and employers. The Government also introduced legislation, again which this House passed, to end Labour’s workplace bargaining regime that would have forced the views of some union workers on to all workers and all businesses in an industry. No wonder business confidence has risen.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her decision to index benefits to inflation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with her statement, “main benefits will be higher next year than they would have been if we had retained the current index to wage growth.”, and will she make the commitment to beneficiaries that they will be better off under her decision to index main benefits to inflation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Beneficiaries will be better off under our Government because we will be dealing with the cost of living crisis. We will be growing the economy to support more job opportunities as well as improving health and education.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can she say beneficiaries will be better off, when Treasury is forecasting annual wage growth to be 5.1 percent in June 2025 compared with the forecasted 2.5 percent rate of inflation in June 2025, where wage growth clearly outstrips inflation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Forecasts are exactly that. We’ll make decisions based on good data, and we made a commitment ahead of the election that we will index increases to benefits to inflation. That protects the real purchasing power of those on welfare.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on the child poverty implications for reversing the indexation of benefits from wages to inflation, and what is that advice?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve received a large amount of advice around child poverty reduction, including the need to reduce the number of children in benefit-dependent households and how we make sure that they are better off.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she think snatching money away from the most vulnerable New Zealanders to pay for tax cuts is morally acceptable?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That member is incorrect. What this Government is doing is providing certainty for all of those on welfare that benefit increases to inflation—which is the same way it’s been done for 31 out of the last 35 years—will protect their purchasing power, which is absolutely critical in a cost of living crisis that that member contributed to.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports and forecasts, if any, has she seen on the number of people receiving the jobseeker support benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There are now nearly 190,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit, meaning almost 90,000 more compared to September 2017. This includes an increase of 20,000 in the last year alone. The fact that jobseeker benefit numbers consistently increased during prolonged periods of widespread labour shortages means the welfare system has not done enough to shift people into work. Benefit dependency is a major challenge our Government must and will tackle, as these figures show. We will help people move from welfare into work, so people have more opportunities.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has the Minister seen on the number of 18- to 24-year-olds on the jobseeker benefit, and why is the coalition Government strongly focused on supporting young people into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are now 40,000 people aged 18 to 24 on the jobseeker benefit. This represents an increase of 16,000 people, or a 66 percent increase, compared to six years ago. This is important, because the earlier someone moves on to benefit, the greater the risk they become dependent on welfare. Young people under the age of 25 on welfare are estimated, on average, to spend 21.3 years on benefit. By acting sooner to help at-risk young adults, we will break vicious benefit-dependency cycles.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has the Minister seen on the number of children growing up in benefit households, and what’s the implications of this data?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are now 222,000 children growing up in benefit-dependent households, an increase of 44,000 compared to six years ago. Benefit dependency affects not only those trapped on benefits but also their children, whose outcomes are worse when they grow up in benefit-dependent households. We owe it to both adults and children to do more to improve their prospects.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What forecasts has the Minister seen about the number of people on the jobseeker benefit if we continue the same welfare approach?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Concerningly, forecasts predict that by January 2025, there will be 198,500 people on the jobseeker benefit. The current welfare system settings are not helping New Zealanders to reap the opportunities and rewards that work provides. Even though we have a challenging economic environment, we are not content to stand by and allow New Zealanders to languish on welfare, and watch their potential be wasted.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Will the coalition Government aim to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, and, if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, yes. The coalition Government believes a job is the best way out of dependence, best path to independence, and greater opportunities. We will be working hard to help people into work. We will be making changes to the welfare system to enable New Zealanders to reap the opportunities and rewards that work brings.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, in particular those that relate to my absolute commitment to the Smokefree 2025 targets and to providing practical, targeted help so that smokers who are addicted to nicotine can stop.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she say in the House yesterday that her comments to media were “truthful at the time” because “Being offered something and asking for something are two separate matters.” when the document she signed on 20 December shows that she both initiated the advice and accepted the offer to provide that advice by circling an option for further advice on freezing tobacco excise tax?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Mr Speaker, I apologise if this answer is a long-worded answer, but it is an answer around process so I think it’s important to clarify what actually happened. When I received this delegation, I provided a range of information to officials, including things like Hansard records and previous policy positions around smoke-free and vaping to help guide conversations. The health paper came back setting out a number of areas on which I could be provided advice, and I marked that I wanted advice on all of them as I consider it is important to be broadly informed before making decisions. That health briefing referred to proposals and notes. They were not my proposals, to be clear. They were not things that I had written. This was general information I had provided to officials, and I’m sure they can verify this. I haven’t yet received any of that advice, and I certainly did not specifically request a proposal on excise freeze.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did the Minister say yesterday that the truthfulness of her statement rested on a distinction between being offered and asking for advice, when the evidence shows she did both?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think I’ve answered the question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who Radio New Zealand reported as having said yesterday that the Government will not be pausing increases to tobacco excise tax?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister, and it is advice that we are considering, and when we receive that advice we will make informed decisions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister clarify: is the Prime Minister correct that the Government will not be pausing increases to tobacco excise tax, or is she still considering advice on that matter the Prime Minister has ruled out?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think I’ve answered the question, but I am committed to receiving broad advice, and we will make recommendations on the best options to enable people to quit smoking.

Tākuta Ferris: Does she agree that dropping cancer screening for Māori by 10 years is an equitable approach to address the inequity that exists for Māori with cancer; if not, what is her Government proposing to address this inequity that Māori have faced for decades?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m absolutely committed, which is the reason we do not want a broad-brush approach; we want targeted campaigns that will enable the most marginalised and most vulnerable to quit smoking.

SPEAKER: [Interruption] We’re now quiet—we’re now quiet. We’re now quiet—there’s a question being asked.

Question No. 9—Police

9. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on gang convoys?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): I was pleased to see police’s proactive enforcement response to a gang convoy through Whakatāne last year, which included a response by the Eagle helicopter, to ensure that the rights of law-abiding citizens to move about their towns freely are protected over and above the rights of gang members who choose to block roads, intimidate people, and break the law. Police arrested 15 people, of which 14 were associates or patched gang members. I’m proud of the great work that our police do every day to clamp down on activity that puts the public at risk, and, while there is more work to be done, the public can expect to see more of this proactive and positive enforcement action.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How did the reports that he’s seen contrast with earlier reports of gang convoys?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The people of the eastern bay do not need long memories to remember the appalling scenes in Ōpōtiki earlier last year. The town of Ōpōtiki was taken over for several days, during which images of patched gang members rolling through the town, flagrantly breaking laws, closing down roads, and preventing law-abiding members of the public going about their daily business were broadcast across the country. At that time, schools were closed and the public felt extremely unsafe. Having visited shortly afterward, that was reflected very clear to me by the locals there, and I’m proud that, already, these people who did feel unsafe have been able to see such a marked change in response from police in terms of an increased gang presence in Whakatāne.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has he had from locals about police’s approach to the gang convoys?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the outstanding local MP has been very proactive in reflecting to me the positive feedback that she has had from her community when it comes to the recent convoy in Whakatāne. In addition, I’ve continued to receive positive feedback in relation to the change in approach that started with the convoy through to Foxton late last year. I’m proud to be the Minister of Police in a Government that takes public safety seriously and that the public can already see is making a difference—that is, after six years of gang members operating with a sense of impunity.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What further work is under way to ensure that law-abiding citizens have their right to freedom of movement protected over gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of the Government’s hundred-day plan, work is under way on banning gang patches and insignia in public, as well as dispersal notices and consorting prohibition notices. These new tools will enhance police’s ability to break up large gang gatherings and convoys, and will go a long way to sending the very clear message that our police are in control, not the gangs. This is a Government that takes public safety seriously, and we’ll work hard to continue to improve that. After six years of chaos, we know this is a big task but we are determined to do it.

Question No. 10—Police

10. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Prime Minister: “[And so] there were conversations last night as you’d expect after Mark’s remarks. And we spoke with Mark last night, but that’s our commitment.”; if so, who spoke with him?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it correct that, as reported by Newsroom, a meeting was held between coalition parties in December last year and it was agreed to change the delivery of 500 more police over two years to three years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the Deputy Prime Minister correct that a meeting was held last night between the National Party’s chief of staff and New Zealand First’s chief of staff, and at that meeting it was agreed that the Government would return to delivering 500 more police in two years?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I know where this question is going. It’s based on an interview I just did on the way over, and that’s not what I said. I said I wasn’t at the meeting. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just one at a time. So is that the end of that? Thank you. I’m sure that the member has taken that statement to the House, effectively, on board.

Hon James Shaw: To the point of order. That was one of a series of points of order that have been raised by the Deputy Prime Minister that have nothing to do with points of order or Standing Orders. I would ask if we could constrain points of order to points of order as relates to the Standing Orders, as opposed to debating points.

SPEAKER: Well, I thank you very much for the advice to the Chair. I’ll take it on board.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can I ask the question again?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Well, I didn’t get an answer to the question.

SPEAKER: Start the question again because it was interrupted.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Just speaking to the point of order. That—

SPEAKER: Well, are you speaking to the point of order or not?

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ll just say the question again. Is the Deputy Prime Minister correct that a meeting was held last night between the National Party’s chief of staff and New Zealand First’s chief of staff, and at that meeting it was agreed that the Government would return to delivering 500 more police within two years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve got no knowledge. You’d have to ask the Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Mark could have expressed himself better”, and, if so, is the reason he’s struggling to express himself because a 6.5 percent cut to the police front line is unexplainable?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I agree with what the Prime Minister said, so yes to the first part; no to the second.

SPEAKER: No, that’s it. The allocation is all over. [Interruption] Excuse me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like taking candy.

SPEAKER: No, don’t push it. It’s very difficult when a senior member like that puts me in a terrible position.

Question No. 11—Environment

11. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Is she concerned about how many rivers, lakes, and beaches across the country were too polluted to swim in or gather food from over the summer?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes, I am concerned, including with the fact that more than 20 beaches in Auckland in December were unswimmable because of human sewage, which reinforces that polluted rivers, lakes, and beaches are an issue to be addressed by all New Zealanders, both rural and urban. There are, of course, different causes of pollution that range from land use, wild animals, and human waste from infrastructure failures. Pollution occurs in both urban and rural areas, but the evidence does show that urban water bodies are in the poorest state. It is deeply disappointing that six years of the previous Government, Labour-Greens, did not address this, but we are determined to get this right. This Government is committed to improving freshwater quality for the benefit of all, and to do this we need sensible and pragmatic environmental rules. I’m also very pleased to tell you that the beach in Riverton, Southland—the “riviera of the south”—was outstanding all summer.

SPEAKER: Well, can we just keep those primary answers just a little more concise in the future?

Lan Pham: Has she read the open letter last month from 51 freshwater experts and leaders that states: “New Zealand’s rivers, lakes and aquifers are in a dire state.”, and, “If you proceed with your proposals to undo the country’s freshwater policy, they will only get worse.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, indeed I have read that letter from 50-plus freshwater scientists and experts, and I acknowledge the member’s own expertise in this area. There will always be a range of interests and views from academics, from scientists, from commercial and recreation users, and from iwi.

Lan Pham: Why, then, did the Government delay freshwater improvements already in progress by pushing out the deadline for regional council plans to 2027?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Government considers that there needs to be a rebalance of Te Mana o te Wai and a rewriting of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it achieves genuine outcomes.

Lan Pham: Does the Minister agree that progressing and upholding of Te Mana o te Wai would help achieve those outcomes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Te Mana o te Wai is not in consideration. It is the hierarchy of the obligations that we consider needs to be relooked at and rebalanced.

Lan Pham: What assurances, if any, can she provide to Kiwis—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, sorry, just wait a minute. Both sides—a lot of talking while someone’s trying to answer a question. It’s the one thing that I will be quite strict on, so today is the most liberal day we’re going to have in this regard. Please, Lan Pham, if you would ask your question again.

Lan Pham: What assurances, if any, can she provide to Kiwis that their local waterway will be safe to swim in, when 45 percent of the total river length in Aotearoa is currently unswimmable according to the Ministry for the Environment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We agree that the past six years have not addressed this sufficiently. The Government is committed to replacing the national policy statement for fresh water. We are committed to improving the quality of fresh water.

Lan Pham: Will she commit to ensuring that any changes to freshwater regulations are informed by scientific evidence on the health of New Zealand’s waterways?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I can assure the member that we will be consulting widely. We will be consulting with academics, with scientists, with iwi, and with commercial and recreational users. So we will consult widely and take a balanced approach to ensure that we come up with workable solutions.

Question No. 12—Trade

12. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Trade: What steps is he undertaking to progress the New Zealand-European Union Free Trade Agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): Today, the coalition Government will have with the House the first reading of the implementation legislation to start the process to quickly implement the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement (FTA). We will progress quickly with the implementation of this bill so that New Zealand exporters can take advantage of its benefits as soon as possible. You see, the European Union has already completed its part of the ratification process before New Zealand. New Zealand exporters are waiting on the New Zealand Parliament to complete the process so that the agreement can enter into force. This coalition Government is moving quickly so that exporters, particularly in provincial New Zealand, can benefit from tariff reductions of up to $100 million, something that could have been done last year if the last Government had introduced the bill and got it through before the election.

Tim van de Molen: Why is this deal so important to New Zealand exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, until now, many New Zealand products have been, effectively, locked out of the EU market due to high tariffs and restrictive quotas. For instance, duties on mānuka honey production will reduce by 17.3 percent to 0; the kiwifruit growers benefit from tariff savings of $37 million on entry into force. The FTA finally levels the playing field for Kiwi businesses exporting to the EU, where many of their key competitors already have competitive access. These savings would’ve benefited New Zealand exporters had the last Government introduced legislation and got it through before the last election.

Tim van de Molen: What else does the FTA deliver for New Zealand exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, when fully implemented, the FTA is set to provide an annual boost to our GDP of up to $1.4 billion and to our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion each year. For the first day of entry into force, 91 percent of New Zealand’s current goods trade into the EU are duty-free, increasing to 97 percent. Unfortunately, the commercially meaningful gains that the dairy and red meat sector expected by our farmers were not delivered in this deal. Access will not be fully liberalised for these products, but quotas do create some additional market access on improvement of status quo. Overall, the FTA creates jobs and grows wealth for all New Zealanders, which is why we want to get it into force as quickly as possible.

Hon Damien O’Connor: When does the Minister expect to sign the free-trade agreement with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, long before that Minister would’ve when he was in Government, because the Labour Party said it wasn’t a priority, a deal wasn’t being done. I would say, however, there is great interest across New Zealand, of all New Zealanders, in a Government looking out on the world stage, and I know that that member is very keen to join the rest of his colleagues who have left the Parliament on the world stage soon.

Tim van de Molen: What are some of the specific benefits of this deal for the agricultural sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, a number of key agricultural products will benefit from significant tariff savings from day one of the agreement: 99.9 percent of New Zealand’s current horticultural trade will enter the EU tariff-free at the entry into force—a tariff saving of $46 million for our growers. Tariffs will be eliminated immediately on kiwifruit, onions, apples, and other hort products; 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s current fish and seafood trade will enter the EU tariff-free from day one, which is why the coalition Government wants to so urgently get this agreement into force. This is a Government of action, not talk.

Business of the House

Government Orders of the Day, Variation to—Leave Declined

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 to proceed immediately to a vote on the third reading, with no debate, immediately following question time.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 30 January.

SPEAKER: Members and the gallery will leave as silently as possible. Can we check that the mikes are on for all those who call.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in this Address in Reply debate. Can I take this opportunity, because I don’t think I’ve taken this opportunity yet, Mr Speaker, to congratulate you on your ascension to the role of the Speaker of this House and thank you for your very wise and judicious oversight so far and, no doubt, for the coming years.

I want to also thank the voters of the Pakuranga electorate who re-elected me and put their trust in me as their local member of Parliament at the last year’s election, but, more importantly, for putting their trust and confidence in this coalition Government to get our country back on track. As I went across the electorate and across the country during last year’s election, it was very clear to voters not only in Pakuranga but across New Zealand that the issues that had been put on them by the last Government—the cost of living, the law and order crisis, the infrastructure deficit that this country was facing—were significant issues facing them. And they voted for change. Overwhelmingly they voted for change in Pakuranga and in East Auckland—actually, across New Zealand.

We have been voted into Government to get things done for this country, to get things back on track, to address the cost of living crisis, to ensure that we restore law and order, and to deliver the infrastructure that this country needs. What a big mess we have had left behind by the last Government—what a big mess left behind by the last Government. The last Government has left behind not only a cost of living crisis but in my portfolios an infrastructure crisis that we are going to have to deal with and grapple with. It’s not just the potholes peppering our highways—which there are tens of thousands of, which needed to be repaired last year, and which this last Government did not focus on—but the fact that in Auckland they didn’t even start building Auckland light rail. They spent $228 million on Auckland light rail but didn’t even deliver one single metre of light rail.

I want to congratulate my new colleague for Mt Roskill, Carlos Cheung. What a great man Dr Carlos is. What a great man, and what a wonderful maiden statement he gave yesterday. And he beat—

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Who did he beat?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, who did he beat? Good question. He beat Michael Wood, who said that Auckland light rail would be built by 2021. Well, after $228 million of wasted money, the last Government couldn’t even deliver a single metre for their ghost train. But not just for that; in Auckland they wasted six years when it comes to infrastructure in Auckland, six years of spinning the wheels and paying consultants but not actually getting on and delivering the infrastructure. But it’s not just in Auckland. Here in Wellington, over $82 million spent on “Let’s Get Wellington Consulting”—sorry, Moving. They said “Moving” but, actually, it meant “consulting”. They built a set of traffic lights, the most expensive set of traffic lights in Wellington, maybe New Zealand. But the reality is they didn’t deliver for this city, as well.

They wanted to waste $16 billion on Lake Onslow—$16 billion on Lake Onslow instead of trying to strengthen renewable energy across New Zealand and making sure we have secure energy supply.

And, last but not least, three waters—a billion dollars, but no delivery on that, either. We have a huge mess that we need to clean up on this side of the House. The coalition Government has hit the ground running and we are focused on delivering our 100-day plan commitments to New Zealanders.

I just want to give the House some highlights of some of the areas I’m focused on from the Speech from the Throne that are in the 100-day plan. We have already begun work on rewriting the Government policy statement on transport so we can get on with the important work of making sure that people who use our roads have the potholes fixed and that we get on with delivering the roads of national significance, which this country needs.

To the last Government, the word “roads” was a dirty word. Well, under this Government, we know New Zealanders need safe, high-quality, fast connections between our regions and in our cities, and we are going to get on and build the roads of national significance that this country needs. We’ll also get on and build the major public transport infrastructure this country needs. The last Government talked about public transport; we’re actually the Government which delivers. The last National Government electrified the rail network in Auckland. The last National Government started the City Rail Link; it’s going to be completed by this National Government in this term. We’re going to get the public transport infrastructure delivered which this country needs.

We’ve already cancelled Auckland light rail; the ghost train has stopped. We’ve put an end to this wasteful project, which could have cost taxpayers up to $29.2 billion. There are so many other projects across this country which need to be delivered, and we’re going to deliver those rather than wasting money on a ghost train that the last Government only spent money on consultants for. We’ve withdrawn central government from Let’s Get Wellington Moving, and, by the way, we’ve withdrawn with the other parties also agreeing to that withdrawal, and I want to acknowledge the councils for agreeing to that withdrawal. The reality is even they saw that it wasn’t delivering for Wellington, and that means they can get on with actually focusing on their core infrastructure, like fixing the pipes that they need to be doing.

We’ve axed the ute tax; we’ve axed the tax which was punishing our farmers and tradies to purchase the vehicles that they needed to be able to do their job. And not only was it punishing those hard-working farmers and tradies or families who needed to buy a larger vehicle but it also relied on hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers to subsidise the choices of people buying electric vehicles, people who could already afford to purchase those vehicles.

We’ve stopped the blanket speed limits that the last Government imposed on New Zealand. They wanted to slow every single State highway down to 80 kilometres per hour and they wanted every suburban street to be 30 kilometres per hour. Their vision would have been, if they could have got away with it, to have people walking in front of our cars with a little red flag. That’s what their vision would have been if they could have got away with it. We think New Zealanders need to get where they need to go quickly and safely, and we’re going to rebalance the approach to setting speed limits in New Zealand.

We’ve committed to removing the unfair Auckland regional fuel tax—legislation will be coming to the House shortly. We’ve scrapped Lake Onslow, that boondoggle of a project—$16 billion it would have cost—and we’re focusing our efforts on strengthening New Zealand’s energy security by doubling renewable energy by 2050, with a national policy statement on renewable electricity generation soon to come, and many other actions which are going to be needed to ensure that we have a strong and secure supply of energy for New Zealand.

We’ve started work on repealing Labour’s divisive three waters plans and replacing it with Local Water Done Well. The last Government, they thought that co-governance was the answer to our water problems; we actually think it’s about ensuring local councils have the tools to be able to make long-term infrastructure investments and be able to have sustainable funding and financing for that investment. The last Government thought it was a one-size-fits-all solution for local government; we actually think we should be working alongside local government and giving them the tools that they need to address these challenges.

We’re just getting started as a Government and we will continue to deliver for New Zealanders. As part of our 100-day plan, we are fixing the mess left behind by the last Government, but we have so much more that needs to be done. I’m looking forward to getting on and doing that in my role as Minister of Transport, Minister of Local Government, Minister for Energy, and Minister for Auckland. There is so much to do for our country, so much to do for Auckland. I’m looking forward to being part of the team led by the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, who has brought such a positive spirit to leading this Government and delivering for New Zealanders. Let’s get our country back on track.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 7 to Minister

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer in oral question time today.

SPEAKER: I think you can just do that.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you. So in question No. 7 today—

SPEAKER: No, sorry—just a minute. OK, you need to seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct it. I thought you were able to correct answers, but, however. Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the answer to question No. 7 today. I referred to a nearly 90,000 increase on the number on jobseeker benefit. That is the increase in the number of people on main benefit. The number on the jobseeker increase is 66,753.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d like to thank the Minister for sharing his CV with us today and also reminding us who the Prime Minister currently is, because if anyone had been sitting in this House this week, they may have been under the mistaken impression that it was David Seymour. So I’d like to thank Simeon Brown for reminding us.

When I go to events around my electorate and we have our local issues board, what is coming up time and time again is a sense of buyer’s remorse from my constituents. Now, look, we’ve all done it. We’ve all gone to a shop. We’ve seen a little gadget, maybe advertised on TV and on billboards and on social media—because there’s lots of investment money in that—and we’ve got home, opened the box, and tried to put this gadget together. It’s got three different bits to it, they don’t fit, three different sets of instructions that don’t really fit, and it’s all quite bizarre. And we think why did we get this gadget, and we have a bit of remorse. Well, that’s what I’m talking about here today, with this Government.

This Government has got old thinking. It’s taking us back into the 1980s. When you ring up with this gadget, you can ring—sorry, not you, Mr Speaker. When one rings up and says, “Look, I don’t know how these instructions work.”, goes to the company, to the main part of the thing, and says, “Can you tell us what’s going on?”—oh no, “We’ve got to send you off to the manufacturer of the other two small parts.” That’s exactly what we see happening here with this so-called Speech from the Throne, where there is supposed to be collective responsibility. But every time we try to hold this Government to account, the responsibility is aggregated to the leaders or the Ministers in the smaller parties. That is absolutely no way to run a country.

Matt Doocey was actually right, yesterday, when he said that voters voted for change, but they did not vote for this change. And what’s worse is that people are telling us it seems as if this Government is not in it for all New Zealanders. It seems they’re in it for their mates. I mean, how else do we reconcile the repeal of the smoke-free legislation? How else do we reconcile the fact that the health Minister takes this incredibly important health issue and delegates it to a Minister in a minor party? How embarrassing is it for her that she has denied seeking advice on tax cuts for tobacco companies, and then today we hear different accounts from the Minister? We hear defensiveness from the Deputy Prime Minister and strange points of order and a whole lot of, may I say it, smoke and mirrors around this particular issue. I really question what is going on and I would urge the public to watch this space, because I think we’re seeing a very big story brewing here.

What about Mark Mitchell, the Minister of Police? Was he caught out making broken promises or did he make a mistake? We’ve heard various explanations today, and viewers will need to look at question time to work out what is going on. He either broke a promise or he is clearly not on top of the numbers in his portfolio. Or perhaps there’s a third option, which is that he doesn’t know what’s going on, because he clearly wasn’t aware of the meeting that was alluded to by my colleague Ginny Andersen. Whatever is going on, it is shambolic, it is chaotic, and it does not create a sense of surety or confidence for people. This is why my constituents are saying they have buyer’s remorse.

Now, what about the tax cuts? We were told the tax cuts for the rich would be neutral, that they would be cost-neutral. We were told that they wouldn’t mean cuts to public services, that there would be no cuts to health or education, and that the tax cuts would be limited to Government departments and not arm’s-length public-funded organisations. This was all based on spurious claims about fiscal cliffs and about poor financial management. Well, let’s look at the facts. There was no detail pre-election on how these tax cuts would be costed. There was no detail in the pre-Christmas mini-Budget. Instead, we got a 10-page press release full of slogans but no answers to those questions, those really important questions of how we are going to fund tax cuts.

Then we heard an announcement in recent days that inflation has dropped from 7.2 percent to 4.7 percent. That is absolutely in line with the projections that we saw when I was a chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee last year, thanks to the great work of our then finance Minister Grant Robertson and the trajectory down to stable and low inflation. It is disingenuous for this finance Minister, this new one, to claim that it is their work that’s doing it. But more importantly, the drop in inflation has been made without significant public cuts. Therefore, there was no need to do that, despite the claims from the right wing and their rhetoric that inflation was a result of big public spending by the previous Government.

Let’s look at the gambling funds that were supposed to pay for these tax cuts. They, basically, didn’t really exist. What about the overseas buyers tax? Well, that was going to be in contravention of really important international treaties that New Zealand has signed up to. Surely, the Government would have looked at that information prior to making those promises? Or did they know that they couldn’t deliver it? Did they plan to deliver public cuts all along?

Well, Nicola Willis is desperately now trying to find ways to get money for her tax cuts because she put her ministerial job on the line for it. She sold it as annual reductions in back-office expenditure of 6.5 percent, and there were only going to be 24 agencies, 24 specific agencies listed on a Treasury website. What do we have now? Suddenly all departments, including arm’s-length departments, dozens and dozens of agencies. And the 6.5 percent—oops! It’s suddenly grown to 7.5 percent for some of them. Now, that translates to millions and millions of dollars more of cuts.

But what’s worse is it’s not just about the money. It is about the sneaky, insidious way that the goal posts have been changed, and no doubt we will see a lot of that in this term of Government. You can be assured, Mr Speaker, that the Opposition is very aware of this and we will have our eyes on the goal posts, because it’s one thing to measure, but it’s another thing to make sure that the goal posts don’t move. It is deeply concerning to see the hallmarks of this type of behaviour already coming through when there is just a sneaky, insidious change to these really important cuts to public spending. Government departments are already looking at slashing numbers.

Now, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has introduced a voluntary redundancy programme. I’m not sure that’s a good idea. In my experience at the British Council, voluntary redundancy often results in some of the most experienced people leaving the organisation and lots and lots of money in redundancy payments. So I’m not sure that’s the answer. But at the end of the day, if you don’t have staff and if you don’t have services, what are you left with? Basically, privatisation. It is my view that this is an insidious and sneaky Government agenda to privatise some of our most important services.

Let’s look at the evidence. When it comes to infrastructure projects like the $1.6 billion Dunedin Hospital, the media has been asking Shane Reti about whether he is planning to fund that publicly. He will not give an assurance. The same goes for Whangārei. The same goes for Nelson. My message to Dr Reti is—he knows it ends up more expensive for the users. But my message to him is: we do not want to be tenants in our own hospitals.

And by the way, is he going to pay for the constituents in my electorate who have now found out that National has no plans—no immediate plans and no future plans at this point—to introduce a PET scanner to the hospital? Labour had a plan. Currently, my constituents pay about $4,500 to go up to Christchurch, plus accommodation, plus transport, to be able to access the same services that people in Christchurch get for free. Now, that’s just not fair, and it is not fair to use my constituents as collateral for his inability to be able to deliver on the things he promised in a press release from the National Party on 7 July and gave assurances for to my constituents, along with the Prime Minister.

“What else is the Treasury looking to slash?”, one might ask. What’s going to happen to fees-free? Perhaps they’ll get slashed. I don’t know. Perhaps we should be asking some questions about that.

This buyer’s remorse also goes to the different messaging, the different instructions we’re getting. We’ve seen that today at question time. We have seen political narratives this year hijacked by ACT, hijacked by the Treaty principles bill—why don’t we just call them the “Hijacked Party”, because they are 8 percent of the vote and they are hijacking 80 percent of the Government’s airtime.

So, once again, I’d just like thank Simeon Brown for giving us his bio earlier. That’s very helpful. Also for reminding us that Christopher Luxon is in fact the Prime Minister, not David Seymour. At the end of the day, as Grant Robertson said, it is his responsibility, it’s his Government, it’s his circus, and they are his clowns.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 4 to Minister

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question during oral question No. 4 today.

SPEAKER: That’s to give a personal explanation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I said that there wasn’t a plausible risk. What I should have said is that the court was not required to determine whether Israel had actually breached its obligations under the genocide convention. Therefore, the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. However, the court found that there is a plausible case that Israel’s conduct in Gaza may breach its obligations under the genocide convention. That will be the subject of a full and substantive hearing in the International Court of Justice.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s programme is a lot of stopping things, cutting things, repealing things, reversing progress, and taking the country backwards. And one of the areas where there is concern about the direction of this Government is what’s looking increasingly like the abandonment of our independent foreign policy. What we’re seeing is a 21st century version of the old saying, “Where Britain goes, we go.” Except, under this Government, it’s now, “When Washington calls and says, ‘Will you jump?’, we say, ‘How high?’ ”

We saw this in the hasty decision to send six New Zealand military personnel to take part in the bombing of Yemen to punish Houthi rebels there for their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Never mind that there was no UN mandate for this. Never mind that no one in Government can explain how the bombing will make any difference at all. Never mind that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been bombing the Houthis for much of the past decade with no apparent effect. Never mind that none of the Ministers who announced this deployment could tell a press conference whether they’d had any advice on whether New Zealand’s participation in the bombing campaign would put New Zealanders at risk. Never mind. You see, the US asked us, and that, under this Government, is apparently enough.

Today, the foreign affairs Minister and defence Minister head off to Canberra for talks with their counterparts, and, given their enthusiasm for joining AUKUS, no doubt that issue will be on the agenda. They’re apparently keen to join pillar two of AUKUS—the technology transfer part of the AUKUS military pact of the US, the UK, and Australia. But, as David Parker, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, has said, Labour is unconvinced by the arguments that New Zealand should join AUKUS.

New Zealand, of course, cooperates with our friends the US, the UK, and Australia through a wide range of mechanisms. But we in Labour are unconvinced that joining AUKUS would deliver anything more. It does come with some real potential downsides. What is AUKUS? It is a military pact designed to contain the influence of China in the Asia-Pacific region. Its purpose is to protect US hegemony by projecting US war-fighting capability in our region. Do we really want New Zealand to be part of that? This is the same China that is our largest trading partner. It’s the same China—a relationship for which successive New Zealand Governments have invested huge amounts of political and diplomatic capital in the relationship. As David Parker has said, we don’t need to cast China as our enemy.

Is there any evidence that China poses a military threat to New Zealand, that they have some kind of plan to invade us? There isn’t a skerrick of evidence to suggest that. Yes, China is becoming more assertive internationally, but is that a surprise? They’re now close to rivalling the US as the world’s largest economy. Surely it shouldn’t surprise that they don’t want the US 7th fleet patrolling just off their coastline. We might not appreciate the way that China uses loans and diplomacy to gain influence in the Pacific, we are highly critical of their record on human rights and the treatment of minorities, but is that a reason to join a military pact against them?

New Zealand doesn’t want to see the Pacific militarised. But since when do we try to reduce militarisation by increasing militarisation? Instead of throwing our lot in with one superpower against another, there is a positive agenda that is an alternative. We should work to demilitarise the Pacific. We should strengthen the Pacific Islands Forum and urge our friends from outside the region to respect it and take its lead. We should do more for regional economic development in the Pacific—help Pacific nations to protect their exclusive economic zones and ramp up our efforts and commitments on climate mitigation and adaptation, including by giving resettlement opportunities for people whose islands are made uninhabitable by climate change.

Labour is not isolationist—we never have been. We are internationalists, as I think most Kiwis are. We believe in a strong military that can be deployed in the service of New Zealand’s values and to protect our interests. The last Labour Government’s investments in updating military hardware speaks for itself, as does the strong support that we gave the people of Ukraine in their defence of their homeland against the Russian invasion. But much of New Zealand’s foreign policy over decades has been built on soft power: our relationships in the Pacific; our willingness to be an honest broker; our willingness to advocate for small island States, international law, for peace, for climate, for and multilateralism. That credibility—the standing that we have built up over decades—could be put at risk if we sign up to a military alliance that most of the rest of the world sees as a bid to hold on to 20th century US military dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.

The world is in transition. The US is no longer the only superpower. We’re in a period when the US and China are competing technologically, commercially, and militarily. New Zealand’s interests lie in supporting peace, trade, international cooperation, the United Nations; not throwing our weight behind one superpower in its struggle against another. If, instead, this Government wants to join an offensive, war-fighting alliance against China, it needs to tell New Zealanders this: if there’s a war in the South China Sea between the US and China—which many international analysts consider to be a possibility in the next two decades, if not a prospect—is it this Government’s intention to be dragged into that conflict on the side of the US? And I think that the Ministers who are so keenly advocating that New Zealand signs up to AUKUS, they need to answer that question for the people of New Zealand.

The question of AUKUS goes to the heart of the debate about our independent foreign policy. To say that our foreign policy is independent just because we make our own decisions misses the point—it’s a truism. The “independent” in independent foreign policy has come to mean, over decades, the way that we independently and carefully navigate a careful path between the superpowers, not simply throwing our lot in with one in its competition with another.

We’ve taken a values-based approach, based on an assessment of New Zealand’s national interests, rather than just meekly following behind bigger and more powerful friends. It’s certainly been that way since New Zealand became nuclear-free under Helen Clark, and it’s taken on extra meaning under successive Governments with the growing importance of our relationship with China. If this Government wants to join the AUKUS military alliance on the side of the US, the UK, and Australia, and against our biggest trading partner, it needs to explain to New Zealanders how that is consistent with New Zealand’s values and in line with our interests, and what the costs and benefits will be for our country.

SPEAKER: To make a maiden speech to the House, I call on Mike Butterick.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to start by formally congratulating you on your role. I assure you I will do my utmost to be a model MP.

You might ask what brought me, a sheep and beef farmer from the hills of the Wairarapa, to politics and to this House. It was a deep despair at the direction we were heading in as a country, and the need for our provincial communities to be heard. You’re either at the table or you’re on it, and it’s never much fun being part of the menu. Provincial New Zealand needs to be listened to and trusted.

I would acknowledge Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and the list MPs who reside in the Wairarapa: the Hon Kieran McAnulty and the newly minted Celia Wade-Brown. I look forward to working with you all on behalf of the Wairarapa electorate. I would also acknowledge and thank those that have previously represented our electorate.

The Wairarapa electorate—all 11,860 square kilometres—is three regions: the Wairarapa, Tararua, and Central Hawke’s Bay. All three are fantastic places full of very special people, and it’s one of the privileges of this role that I now have that I get to listen to their stories and witness their deeds, and it makes me proud to be allowed to be a part of who they are.

These regions are home to super-smart family businesses, both rural and urban, that are intertwined, as well as being a destination, hosting many special events such as the Golden Shears, that celebrates those with a passion for our shearing industry; Wings Over Wairarapa, which has the largest collection of working World War I planes in the world; Pūkaha National Wildlife Centre at Mount Bruce; Wheels with Attitude in Dannevirke; the Spring Fling in beautiful Central Hawke’s Bay; the Castlepoint Beach Races; the Tukituki Trail; the Norsewood Viking Festival; the Woodville New Zealand Motocross GP; the Martinborough Fair; and many, many more. In an electorate of beaches, baches, and bulldozers, a land of milk and honey, cropping and vineyards, sheep and cattle, rivers and trees, mountain ranges and plains, I can’t cover all the places to see and all the events to attend, but it really is a place that all New Zealanders should explore. The best part: it’s full of great people.

Provincial New Zealand is an amazing place to grow up. I grew up on a farm in mid-Canterbury in a family of seven, where I developed my love of farming. After attending school, I left to pursue a career in the farming sector. My first job was in the Wairarapa at Wairere, one of New Zealand’s premiere sheep studs. I’m pleased to have Derek and Chris Daniels here today. At Wairere, I learnt how to be challenged and to challenge myself in the pursuit of excellence, and this is something I’ve never forgotten.

This is where I first met my wife, Rachel. We’ve been together for 33 years and married for almost 29 of them. It’s very difficult to fully describe how big a part Rachel has played in my life. What I will say is that I’m incredibly fortunate to have you in it, and it’s been quite some journey. We have four children that I am also incredibly proud of: Jack, Annabel, Emma, and Charlotte. They have great values, they work hard, they will give anything a go, and they know how to have fun. As a parent, I couldn’t ask for more. I would also acknowledge both my family and Rachel’s family, some of whom are here this afternoon. Thank you for all your help and support over the years.

I’m fortunate to have lived my dream, lived my passion—not everyone can say that. I’ve got an opportunity to give back to the community I’ve spent my life in. I’m a product of it. I’ve been shaped by those that are in it. Our provincial communities aren’t complicated. They have strong values, they work hard, they have a strong sense of community, and they know how to have fun and enjoy each other’s company.

Things are not right when I talk to a local dairy farmer about how they don’t want to say what they do for a living when they go out, about their kids getting bullied at school because their parents are farming—it’s not OK. When I talk to local sheep and beef farmers about their despair when contemplating their legislative fatigue, it’s not OK. Why don’t we talk about the 25,000 kilometres of waterways fenced off, the over 36,000 culverts or bridges over waterway crossings by the dairy industry alone, the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on effluent systems per family farm, this country’s 5,000th Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenant that was registered in the Wairarapa in 2022, the community catchment groups, the millions of trees planted, or the 2.8 million hectares of woody vegetation that’s already on our farmland?

Understand that the rural community, despite all the rhetoric, are environmentalists. The relationship between the farming business, the family, and the environment is a reciprocal one. I acknowledge those efforts being made to protect and enhance the environment. The rural community has likely spent more on the environment than those that criticise them, those that flush the dunny without a thought about where it goes, in their plastic clothes, standing on their plastic carpet, that ignore their own impacts on the environment, and would rather point the finger. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Don’t throw stones at your neighbours, if your own windows are made of glass”. We as primary producers may not always get it right, but we are certainly trying. My message is simple: if individually we don’t all make the choices that will inevitably come with a price tag, collectively nothing will change.

Our rural people are unique. They’re the only sector that I know of that live in their business. They look out the window or walk out the door and it’s there. Passion is what motivates the rural sector to do what they do, and it’s the avalanche of previous rushed legislation that’s eroding away the passion. That’s not a great outcome.

Understand that provincial New Zealand is interconnected. The rural or farming community is greater than what is traditionally articulated in the statistics. The mechanics, the stock agents, the accountants, the freezing workers, the truck drivers, the shearers, the loggers, and others are all part of the sector and contribute to the local economy. The rural-urban divide in provincial New Zealand is a myth. We know each other and we respect each other.

The message to the farming community and all those that contribute to it is that this Government supports you, this Government has your back, and you should be proud to be a part of the food and fibre sectors that earn 82 percent of this country’s export income—export income that pays the wages of our teachers, our nurses, and our policemen. Be proud of what you do and what you contribute to your communities, to your environment, and to the economy.

In the opening speeches of this 54th Parliament, I listened to the other side of the House and heard about inequality and injustice, but, much to my dismay, not once did I hear anything—not one word—about education. Inequality needs to be addressed in our classrooms. Surely, education is the pathway out of poverty, a pathway to employment, to being independent rather than dependent, yet not one word—not one. Our statistics are an indictment. Our most challenged communities have been failed; we can’t even get our kids to school. Every day, every week, every month, is a day, a week, and a month that they’re behind their peers and behind the rest of the world, and that’s not OK.

In my community, one of our most challenged schools has initiated a programme on their own back that’s had fantastic results. The improvement in attendance can only be described as stunningly successful. This is a local solution for a nationwide problem. That’s what works: action, not rhetoric. We have students across New Zealand’s most vulnerable communities where the pass rates for the most basic requirements are a national embarrassment. How can that be?

As Dame Joy Cowley said, “my heart remains with young children who are struggling readers, the children for whom a book is a closed secret”. I might add, and there’s no pun intended, that the same applies for those children for whom numbers are also a mystery. What chance have we given them to compete not only in the workforce but also on the world stage? It’s not their fault. I’m not here to make a judgment; we have some amazing people in our education sector, but the facts are the facts, and they won’t go away just because we choose to ignore them. This House has a collective responsibility to lift our ambitions and our aspirations for our children, to set the bar way higher than it is. They are our future, and we have been failing them. I would urge all of you across the House to stop rolling your eyes and gnashing your teeth and get in behind this Government’s plan to reset the destination for our children. We need to get our kids to school, and we need to teach the basics, and we need to teach them brilliantly. That’s the responsibility of our parents, our communities, and this place; otherwise, we’re heading for failure.

Inequality also isn’t fixed by penalising someone that’s worked incredibly hard, taken numerous risks, lived on the smell of an oily rag, and then finally become successful. Hard work should always be recognised and, ultimately, rewarded. The dichotomy is that we are very good at celebrating sporting success; yet anyone that’s even remotely successful, we want to chop off at the knees. We need to have a quantum shift in our attitudes and learn how to celebrate success. That success is our inspiration for us and our children.

I would acknowledge our leader and Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, for your unwavering dedication to getting this country back on track. I would also thank all of my National Party colleagues and members for the support and help they have given me. I’m thankful for the opportunity to be a part of the National Party family. The values are strong, and they’re the values I embrace.

Less government, not more. Our role is to solve problems, not create them; get the settings right, back up the bus, and leave people to get on with their lives. Personal responsibility: everyone has rights, but they also come with responsibility. Celebrating success, rewarding hard work: this country’s been built on the backs off those that have sold, made, fixed, and grown stuff, and we need to remember that and to encourage ambition and celebrate success. I think about those past and present that have and do contribute, and I’d make the point that we have a responsibility to be extremely focused on outcomes and fiscal discipline, as they have been and are in their own lives. We spend their money—it’s not Government money; it’s theirs, and it needs to be respected. Success isn’t defined by how much you spend; it’s defined by the outcome you achieve. How could we have spent 80 percent more to achieve worse outcomes? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Stop looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist or hasn’t even been clearly defined. This Government will have goalposts, will have outcomes, so we can measure our progress. This Government’s focus on these key fundamentals is welcomed and long overdue.

Strong families and caring communities: in this electorate, I’m astounded at the number of people that voluntarily contribute. A recent example of this was Shear4u, held in the Wairarapa. Four shearers put themselves through immense physical and mental stress over 32 hours, all for charity, with an army of volunteers and sponsors from our community. That collective effort defines, for me, everything that’s special about provincial New Zealand and the Wairarapa electorate.

I acknowledge the army of people that helped with my campaigns, that share the same values as me. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. Some of you are here in the gallery or watching online, and my pledge to you is to represent those values that you and the party have as best as I possibly can. I will also represent those values for all in my electorate, regardless of whether you voted for me or not. I look up at the gallery and I don’t only see family and friends; I see a community—a community of people that contribute, and I thank you for that; you, and all those others that also give are the foundation that our communities are built on. Without you, without all of you, we don’t have a community.

When my auntie told my late father, Gilby—who was terminally ill, who was a people person, who would give his shirt off his back to others—that I was standing for the Wairarapa seat, he cried. I think about that, about what that meant for him and to me, and that’s the standard that I impose on myself. It’s not about me; it’s about people, about all of those in our community. That’s what motivates me, and the minute it becomes about me, I’m in the wrong job. It’s a privilege and an honour to represent the Wairarapa electorate, and I do not take it lightly. Judge me by my intent, my compassion, and my deeds.

SPEAKER: To make her maiden speech to Parliament, I call on Catherine Wedd.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your role. We first officially met when you visited Hawke’s Bay just after Cyclone Gabrielle devastated our region, and your experience, compassion, and guidance was greatly appreciated.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much. It’s kind of you to say.

CATHERINE WEDD: We all know how hard it is to get a seat in this House. It’s a privilege and honour to represent the electorate of Tukituki—Hastings, Heretaunga, the fruit bowl of New Zealand, the heart of my electorate. I’m proud to stand here as the first female National Party MP for Tukituki, and, wow, did we turn Tukituki blue—a record majority of over 10,000; the biggest majority the seat has ever had. Thank you, Tukituki, and provincial New Zealand. You spoke for positive change and a Government which will reward success and be aspirational for all New Zealanders.

I want to congratulate our inspirational Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, and our amazing deputy leader, Nicola Willis, who I am proud to stand behind as they lead our team to get New Zealand back on track. To our party president, Sylvia Wood: thank you for your trust and confidence in me. I won’t let you down. Thank you to my Tukituki campaign team: Jo Harvey, Bel, Ben, Kadin, Andrew, Dennis, Lisa, Ian, Trevor, and Rosie. It takes a team, and your commitment has been incredible. I would like to acknowledge our former Tukituki National MPs: Craig Foss, for his guidance, and Lawrence Yule, for backing and mentoring me all the way. We come to this House because we want to make a positive difference. I respect the privilege of being here, and I will make every moment count.

As a former broadcast journalist, I’ve always been a storyteller, telling others’ stories. Now, this, my maiden speech, is a chance for me to tell you my story, outlining the chapters that have already been written and the chapters I am yet to write. I am Catherine Wedd; I was Catherine Loft. My father is Simon Loft, a farmer from Ōhura, near Taumarunui, in the King Country. My mother was Joanna Tolhurst from Whanganui. My grandfather Bill Tolhurst was the National MP for Whanganui in 1969, and my grandmother Jeni Tolhurst also ran for Parliament in 1981. Grandma never got a seat in this House, but she was a woman before her time, when it wasn’t common for women to be MPs, with just eight female MPs being elected that year. I know she would be so proud to see her granddaughter standing here now among 57 other female MPs in this 54th Parliament.

I share a simple quote from my grandfather’s maiden speech: “Action is better than words.” I joined the National Party because I respect the value of rewarding hard work and getting things done. Enough of the ideology and the bureaucracy and the talk; it’s time for more action. With politics in my blood, I’ve wanted to be an MP since I was a little girl. When I was 10 years old, I buried a time capsule at our primary school and I wrote a letter to myself that I opened 10 years later. In that letter, I wrote that I wanted to be a lawyer, a broadcast radio journalist, and a politician—perhaps the three most unpopular professions of this century! I’m no crystal ball gazer, but that’s what I did. I did law, I became a TV reporter for One News, and then the BBC in London, and now the political chapter begins. Personal responsibility, creating your own destiny, and limited government are the National Party values and why I’m here—having a goal and making it happen.

I am one of five children, and I want to acknowledge my siblings and their wives and husbands—Jeremy, Matt and Julia, Rachel and Murray, and Georgie—who have all supported my journey. My older brother, Jeremy, is intellectually disabled and has never been able to talk. We learnt sign language as kids and were always taught that we can overcome adversity. All my life, I have been protective of my brother, standing up for him when he was challenged at school, standing up for his rights to a normal life. I understand the challenges faced by families who also have loved ones challenged by a disability. But my brother is an absolute inspiration for our family. He’s had successful jobs at trucking companies and is now working on a dairy farm. This is someone who has never been able to talk in his life, but he has never been held back by his disability, because we focus on his ability, self-responsibility, and independence. To my brother Jeremy, you make our family proud every day. Thank you to the amazing work of IHC and all the carers for the past 46 years. You have such an impact on the lives of so many families across New Zealand, including ours, and I will always be a strong advocate for those with disabilities.

To my mother, Joanna, who trained as a teacher but never finished her training; instead, at 19, she had three children under three and put all her efforts into teaching us. My mother knows the power of education to create equality. Mum has been behind me all the way, never accepting mediocrity, encouraging me to go higher and higher. Living nearly an hour out of town along the Forgotten World Highway, down 10 kilometres of gravel road, education often isn’t easy, but a parent’s commitment can make a good education possible.

To my farmer dad, I thank you for my softer side, my sense of humour, and my relentless optimism, and for teaching me that we should always treat others as we wish to be treated. I’ve walked alongside you in my gumboots across the King Country hills. I know how hard Kiwi farmers work to make a living. Growing up a farmer’s daughter, I was taught to work hard, spending my school holidays rouseying in the shearing sheds, docking lambs, and chipping thistles. I had a wonderful rural upbringing and never wanted for much.

But life hasn’t always been easy. I’ve seen those closest to me struggle with alcohol and addiction. So many families in New Zealand struggle with addiction. It’s destructive and dangerous, but admitting my mother to rehab was positively life changing for her and our family. I want to acknowledge the amazing work of the Salvation Army rehabilitation programmes, which have helped turn the lives of so many New Zealanders around. I’m a strong supporter of community rehabilitation and programmes where we can support victims and offer more opportunity for people to make positive choices. Our communities get the best outcomes, not centralised bureaucracy.

This is not the first time that I’ve stood in this House. In 1997, I stood here as a Youth MP in my final year at school; and, after completing a law degree at Canterbury University and then becoming a TV reporter, I’ve also stood up there, as a journalist. In front of the camera, I was telling the stories, holding the politicians to account. Now, on the other side, I want to acknowledge the media and the work you do to ensure the New Zealand public have transparency and accountability. Fair, balanced reporting is so important, and upholding the integrity and independence of our fourth estate must be a priority, and I will stand up always to ensure the lines of balance aren’t blurred.

During my time as a journalist, I connected with thousands of people, whether it was the mum with a brain tumour who was appealing for funding for cancer drugs to give her more time with her little girl, the parents who lost their son in a drink-driving accident and who wanted more education to save lives, or the rape victim who wanted tougher sentencing and more support for victims. As a journalist, I had the power to influence as a storyteller. It inspired me to now become a story-maker, being part of a team creating the action for a positive narrative.

As a strong debater at university and school, I’m a big believer in free speech. If we aren’t delivering strong arguments for the policies we believe in, we aren’t doing our job. I respect that across this House we want the best outcomes, but we just have a different way of achieving them.

Growing up in an extremely competitive family, I’ve played competitive sports. Sports teams have shaped me and continue to play a large role in our family’s life, but I believe that politics is the supreme team sport, where we must work as a team to achieve positive outcomes. I would like to congratulate my Hawke’s Bay team-mate, Katie Nimon for Napier. We turned the Bay blue, and, as a team, I know we are going to do great things for Hawke’s Bay. Across the House, I’d also like to acknowledge Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I also look forward to our working together.

I arrived in Hawke’s Bay 13 years ago. Living in London and working for the BBC, I met my Kiwi husband, Henry. We were Kiwis travelling the world before we moved back to the best place in the world—Hawke’s Bay—where we settled down and had our four children. It’s here I became heavily involved in the horticulture sector, head of marketing for one of our largest exporters, and sitting on the board of New Zealand Apples and Pears.

Tukituki is the engine of horticulture in this country, and, in my roles, I’ve been responsible for promoting our premium produce, adding value to the amazing produce we grow, and helping diversify the overseas markets we send our products to. Spending time in China’s high-end supermarkets and walking the bustling wholesale markets of Vietnam, I’ve seen firsthand the potential and opportunity for our New Zealand exports, seeing how an ordinary apple grown in the orchards of Hawke’s Bay can be brought to life on the red carpets in Asia.

As a small food-producing country, we need to be aspirational for our primary industries. At the bottom of the globe, we’re never going to feed the world. We need to play to our competitive advantage, and that’s growing the most premium produce in the world.

I’m proud to be part of a National Government which will drive more productivity in this country by stopping the war inflicted on our farmers and growers. It’s time to reduce the red tape, regulation, and compliance and get our economy going once again.

It’s time to make it easier for our farmers to farm, our growers to grow, and our exporters to export. This is the way to get ahead. But we can’t grow our economy at the expense of the environment. After working for an organic grower and exporter, I know we can run profitable businesses while also enhancing our environment for future generations. We must protect “New Zealand Inc.” and harness our pure green image so we maintain our competitive advantage on the global stage.

After Cyclone Gabrielle, we saw the powerful destruction of mother Nature and the importance of having resilient infrastructure. Our cyclone victims are still hurting, and I will continue to stand up for you as we work hard to build back better.

There are several projects for Hawke’s Bay that I support and will fight for and want to put on record in this House. The four-lane expressway between Hastings and Napier has to happen, a new Hawke’s Bay hospital must be a priority, and water storage in Hawke’s Bay is an absolute must. If we’re going to continue to grow as a region, these three infrastructure projects are critical to Hawke’s Bay’s future.

As a mother of four children, education is also an area I’m really passionate about. It’s the pathway to a job and a lifetime of success, but, currently, we are failing our vulnerable children. We need to move away from the bureaucracy and focus on what matters inside the classroom. I’ve had a diverse education, going to both the lowest- and highest-decile schools, but, at the core of it all, I had amazing teachers who focused on literacy and maths and on teaching the basics brilliantly. We need to lift education in this country and get back to basics.

Tukituki—Hawke’s Bay—is the best place on earth to live, and we are so proud to call it our home. Although we have some rebuilding to do after the cyclone, Tukituki’s best days are ahead. It’s an honour to serve the people of Hastings, Flaxmere, Havelock North, Clive, Maraekākaho, Te Awhanga, Haumoana, Waimārama, Ongaonga, Ōtāne, and Tikokino. We have a diverse electorate, representing a diverse range of people. Ki a koutou ngā hapū me ngā marae o Te Matau-a-Māui, kia ora, kia kaha, tātou.

[To you the hapū and marae of Hawke’s Bay, thanks, be strong.]

I’d like to acknowledge Ngāti Kahungunu. I look forward to working together and standing together to ensure our region, Te Matau-a-Māui, grows together.

I support a multicultural New Zealand. Our country is enriched by migration. With growing Hawke’s Bay industries, immigration is so important, and I’ve been a relentless supporter of the Recognised Seasonal Employment (RSE) scheme, which sees thousands of RSE workers from the Pacific Islands coming to our Hawke’s Bay orchards every year—labour shortages are filled, our economy grows, more jobs are created, and our Pacific neighbours are enriched as they return with money for their families and communities.

I’d also like to acknowledge our Hawke’s Bay - Hastings Sikh community for welcoming my family into yours. New Zealand is your home, and your dreams for a better life here should be supported and fulfilled.

As I make my closing statement, I turn to my family. To my darling children—Sophie, 13; Hugo, 11; Hannah, nine; and Charlie, six—I apologise in advance for Mum not always being there, but I promise to be there when I can and to make sure that New Zealand is a country where all children can pursue their dreams. I love you all so much, and I am determined to make you proud.

Being a working mum isn’t always easy—the time sacrifices we make can hurt—but the positive difference we can make can also be great. Finding the balance is the art we must master as mums. I’m proud to be representing the working mums of young children in this House. It is time to stand up for Kiwi parents, respect hard work, and help families to get ahead. I believe that families should be at the core of our policy decision-making.

Finally, my biggest thanks and my acknowledgment goes to my husband, Henry, who is my absolute rock. You are the reason I am here. Your commitment to our community is just as large as mine. Although you don’t like the limelight, the work you do behind the scenes is immense. We are a strong team, and I wouldn’t be standing here today without the sacrifices you have made.

We love Tukituki. It’s the best place on this earth to raise our family, and we are so proud to represent all families.

I will ensure I always back provincial New Zealand. I won’t accept mediocrity. I’m aspirational for our country of New Zealand, so now is the time to serve and get to work. Thank you.

SPEAKER: To make a maiden speech to the House, I call on Tom Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I—[Clears throat] Wow, what a way to start! As I stand to deliver my maiden speech, I’m aware of the privilege that comes with serving in this House of Representatives as a new member of Parliament—it won’t last 15 minutes, I promise. I firstly want to acknowledge Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and the work he has done, and will continue to do, on behalf of all New Zealanders. On our first day here, as brand new National Party MPs, the Prime Minister reiterated to us that there have been more All Blacks than members of Parliament. Unlike many others, my dreams never revolved around becoming an All Black, despite currently being a rugby referee. Instead of aspiring to don the black jersey, my dreams were focused on serving my community and bringing about change. Standing here now, it appears that dream has become a reality.

This place can often resemble a sports field, where various members compete, shout, and disagree—with you, Mr. Speaker, serving as the referee. Yet it can also be a venue for common sense, teamwork, and positive change. Serving on this sports field, I am committed to working to secure significant victories for the Bay of Plenty and New Zealand.

There are two MPs in the House I would like to acknowledge. Firstly, Cameron Luxton, who ran as the ACT Party candidate in the Bay of Plenty and is now also an MP. Cam, I’m looking forward to working alongside you so that our home can be the best place for people to live, work, and play. Secondly, my friend and colleague the MP for Tauranga, Sam Uffindell. Our wider Tauranga and Bay of Plenty community needs us, as the two local MPs, to have a strong working relationship. Thank you, Sam, for your ongoing support and friendship.

In the process of crafting my maiden speech, I delved into the speeches of various current and previous members. I even went into the archives and found yours, Mr Speaker, which, in fact, was delivered one month after I was born. [Bell rings; laughter] Pause the clock—pause the clock! I learnt that this speech needs to genuinely reflect who I am: what propels me, the journey that has brought me to this place, and my aspirations during my time here.

Firstly, I must thank the wonderful people of the Bay of Plenty electorate. Our electorate wraps round the city of Tauranga and is made up of the communities of Te Puna in the west; the Kaimai Ranges, Ōropi, and Ōhauiti to the south; Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Arataki, Ōmanu, Matapihi, Mount Maunganui; and, in the east, Pāpāmoa. I’m proud to say I’m Bay of Plenty born and raised. I have seen our region grow exponentially over the last 20 years. Gone are the days of the Bay of Plenty only being for newlyweds and nearly-deads, today we are a vibrant and diverse community. I am aware of my responsibility to represent the views and values of my constituents. The bay embodies the values that have contributed to making New Zealand the great nation that it is: equal citizenship and opportunity, individual freedom and choice, strong families and caring communities, personal responsibility, and recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. Thank you, Bay of Plenty, for taking a chance on a 26-year-old local who simply wants to serve the community he is immensely proud to call home. In the coming three years, and beyond, I’m committed to working tirelessly for you.

The campaign trail was undeniably a journey, and one from which I gleaned invaluable insights. I was fortunate to have the support of an energetic and resilient team who worked tirelessly, contributing significantly to the successful outcome we achieved. Many of them are here today, and I want to acknowledge Mike Chapman, Mary Webster, Jim Miles, Sheryl and Bill Lauchlan, Sandie Ferguson, Bonnie Roger, Helen Allan, Robbie Hodgkinson, and our incredible campaign team and outstanding electorate executive. These people are not volunteers; they are family, and I would not be here without their unwavering commitment—to me, as their local candidate, and to the National Party.

I’d also like to acknowledge my predecessors, Todd Muller and Tony Ryall. There seems to be a commonality between the three most recent Bay of Plenty MPs, with our names being Tony, Todd, and now Tom. Thank you, both, for your commitment and service to our community. Tony Ryall played a pivotal role in my local campaign, serving as my unofficial mentor. Throughout the campaign, Tony would call me a couple of times a week, offering sage advice, which I knew I was so fortunate to receive. Thank you, Tony, your optimism and belief in me means a lot.

My parents instilled in me the importance of working hard and ensuring that I always took responsibility for my actions. As a child, I struggled with anger and self-control issues, where I would often let my emotions get the better of me. Today, I can recognise the challenges and pressures that must have placed on my family, and I thank them for supporting me through that period of my life and helping me to grow into the caring, calm, and reflective person I am today.

At age 12, my parents separated. While that’s not an experience I would wish on anyone, I look back and reflect on the learnings I took from that time in my life. I know what it’s like to live on a week-about schedule, and I know what it’s like to seek counselling to help relay how things have made you feel. This experience made me grow up. It showed me that whilst life can bring about so many challenges, it’s your reaction to adversity, not adversity itself, that determines how your life’s story will develop. At 18, on my first day as a new student here at Victoria University, I was punched and knocked out by an intoxicated stranger when I stood up for an older gentleman who was just trying to get his groceries home safely. This is my drive to serve in this place: to stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves, and to risk taking a few punches, if you will, to ensure those in my community can have a better life.

I would like to express my gratitude to my parents: my mum, Sharon, who has always put family first and given me my tenacity and strength; and my dad, Chris, whose calm and reflective characteristics I have acquired. I feel fortunate to also have two caring stepparents, and I extend my thanks to my stepdad, Glenn, and stepmum, Kathie, for accepting me as their son, thank you—I promised I wouldn’t cry, Ha, ha! My sister, Jade, who is here today, and my brother, Ben—thank you both for putting up with me as the annoying younger brother.

To my partner, Hannah, I want to thank you for always being in my corner. I distinctly recall mentioning on our first date together my goal to one day serve in this place, and now here we are—probably a bit sooner than we both thought. Hannah, allowing a partner to enter the realm of Parliament is a selfless act, and I am fully aware of the challenges that lie ahead for us. I take comfort in the knowledge that our relationship is founded on trust, communication, and compassion. The most important vote I can ever win is yours, and I hope to earn it every single day. You’re my best friend, and I love you.

I graduated from Victoria University, where I studied public policy and political science. Following this, I spent four years working for the National Party, which gave me an incredible insight into the operations of the party and what characteristics are needed for someone to be a successful MP. I then spent 2½ years working for the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and then most recently I worked for Tania Tapsell, the Mayor of Rotorua. My local government experience has helped shape my perspective on local issues and the belief of local communities having a say on local decisions. Outside of work, I’m proud to have been a volunteer firefighter with the Mount Maunganui Fire Station and to have firsthand experience in attempting to keep people alive. In New Zealand, we have around 1,700 career firefighters and nearly 12,000 volunteers. Volunteer firefighters represent 86 percent of the front-line workforce and they respond to 70 percent of all vehicle accidents, 71 percent of medical call outs and 85 percent of vegetation fires. I want to put on record my thanks to all those firefighters who each day make a personal sacrifice to help keep their communities safe.

I’m also a proud member of the Greerton Cricket Club, a New Zealand hockey umpire, and Bay of Plenty rugby referee. My refereeing has taught me a lot about dealing with conflict, remaining calm under pressure, and having a thick skin. I’m often the smallest person on the field, but that doesn’t stop me from stepping in when I am needed.

I am one of three new MPs from Generation Z—the first time this generation has ever had representation in Parliament—and I am proud to be the youngest MP in the National Party. The messages and conversations I’ve had with people, especially in the aftermath of the election, where they’ve expressed sentiments like, “We knew this would happen.” or “We’re delighted to see you representing our community.” have been remarkably humbling. While I always maintained a belief in myself that I could bring about change, I never anticipated that this opportunity would materialise at 26 years old. I acknowledge that, unlike many of my colleagues in this place, I don’t have the working career experience of someone who is 36, 56, or 76 years old, but I have done my best to build my experience to ensure I can function as the best MP possible.

Having been born in the late 1990s means I have lived predominantly most of my life in the social media era. I have, in my early time here, been assisting some of my more technologically challenged colleagues with helping them understand what their Apple ID is and how to turn off the keyboard haptics so I don’t have to listen to every word they are typing in their messages. It also means that, having grown up in the social media era, I have learnt the challenges that come with today’s technology. Mistakes and errors of judgment today are far more permanent, and I, for one, have certainly experienced this. I’m not perfect, but I am learning.

Throughout the election campaign, I spoke on the four big local issues that most of the community had been raising with me. I called them the four Cs: cost of living, crime, congestion, and council. I gave my word then and I give my word now that every day I serve in this place I will turn my mind to helping to resolve our local Bay of Plenty issues. Our local community is presently facing some significant challenges. From the year 2000, our population has surged by 72 percent, far surpassing the nationwide average of 38 percent. In the same period, our GDP saw a remarkable increase of 142 percent, compared to the national average of 82 percent. Despite this large influx in growth, our community has not been adequately prepared or planned. For example, our infrastructure lags 25 years behind where it should be and to meet housing demand, it is estimated that over the next 30 years, our Western Bay of Plenty subregion will require 40,000 new homes. On top of this, we have the least affordable rental market in New Zealand.

I also cannot stress enough how important the upgrade of State Highway 29 over the Kaimai Ranges is for our community. This transformation of a current bottleneck into a road of national significance has the potential to unlock opportunities for building 20,000 new homes. It will also create a more efficient and resilient freight route connecting Tauranga with the Waikato and Auckland. I am proud to be a part of a National-led Government that wants to see a transport system that boosts productivity and economic growth and allows New Zealanders to get to where they want to go, safer and faster.

I am also excited about the prospect of a regional deal that will significantly benefit the Bay of Plenty. The transformation of the relationship between central and local government, facilitated by a long-term partnership agreement known as a regional deal, opens the door to establishing enduring pipelines of regional projects. Such a deal would foster shared strategic objectives collaboratively developed to reflect the unique characteristics of our region. Importantly, it would secure long-term funding commitments and provide the certainty needed for an effective planning approach. The Bay of Plenty is the gateway for trade from New Zealand to the world, with the country’s largest seaport, horticulture production, and links to the primary production heartland. We are one of the fastest-growing regions, with a vibrant developing culture.

A regional deal holds the potential to drive economic growth. It would establish a well-defined programme of infrastructure and offer opportunities to leverage outcomes for increased funding. Our community is ideally positioned to execute a regional deal, and I am committed to working diligently to get one across the line.

I believe successful politicians actively listen, engage in reflective thinking, and delve into extensive reading. They should also—always—be prepared and willing to change their minds. My dad regularly tells me that none of us have a mortgage on being right, and having an occasional serving of humble pie isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I plan to always listen, engage, and reflect during my time in Parliament. Public service is about serving all the people, including those who may not have voted for you. I will work tirelessly to repay the confidence that has been shown in me by my party, by my leader, and by my local community.

When the time comes to deliver my valedictory statement, my aspiration is to reflect on a legacy where I contributed more than I criticised. I aim to affirm that I consistently chose courage over comfort, remaining steadfast in my commitment to serve. My intention is to build on the efforts of my predecessors and ensure I play my part in creating an even better New Zealand. The great use of life is to spend it for something that outlasts it, and I intend to do just that.

SPEAKER: To make a maiden statement to the House, I call on Grant McCallum.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. I whānau mai au ki Kaipara. Ko Mangatūroto tōku wā kāinga. I ngā pūkete whenua e pāmu noa ana ahau. Ko “Grant McNational” ahau. Tino hūmārie ko ahau te mema Pāremata mō te Tai Tokerau. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the esteemed ones, the representatives, the many leaders, this is my warmest greeting to all of you. I was born in Kaipara. Mangatūroto is my home. In the land records, I was farming. I am “Grant McNational”. I am very humbled to be the member of Parliament for Northland. And so my thanks and greetings to all of you.]

Mr Speaker, congratulations on your election as Speaker. While I know you will do an outstanding job, I have one concern—namely, given your deep Canterbury roots, you are known to have one red eye and one black eye. I hope you won’t hold the fact I have two blue eyes against me.

It is an honour and a privilege to have been selected by the members of the Northland electorate of the National Party to be their representative, and then to have been elected by the people of Northland to represent them in Parliament.

It has been quite a journey to get here. While it is always fraught to thank people for fear of missing some out, I feel it is important to acknowledge those who have helped: my electorate chair, Iain Huddlestone, and his wife, Janet; my campaign chair, Colin Rowse; my campaign consultants, Michael Little and Dylan Parshotam; my long-serving secretary, Lynn Pooley; my treasurer, Nigel Wooding; the amazing Sally Macauley; and, in the Hon John Carter, I could not have a better mentor, although I will leave the joke-telling to him.

I’d like to acknowledge the great work of our leader, and now Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, and the campaign team headed up by president Sylvia Wood. Finally, a big thankyou to all the volunteers across Northland who have helped.

I’d like to recognise all the other MPs in Northland: the Hon Shane Jones from New Zealand First; the Hon Willow-Jean Prime from Labour; Act MP and fellow dairy farmer Mark Cameron; Hūhana Lyndon of the Green Party; Mariameno Kapa-Kingi from Te Pāti Māori; and the Hon Kelvin Davis, who has served Te Tai Tokerau for many years and will shortly be delivering his valedictory speech. A special recognition to former MP for Northland the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who first campaigned for the seat of Northern Maori in 1975. Finally, I would like to thank New Zealand’s first female Prime Minister, Dame Jenny Shipley, and her husband, Burton, for their advice and support.

I am a farmer—a farmer who is proud of the contribution our sector has made to New Zealand. Farming is in the blood on both sides of my family. My mum’s family, the Whites, arrived in the early 1900s, first settling in Hawke’s Bay. After experiencing a few droughts, they put in for a ballot farm near Tokirima, west of Taumarunui in the King Country, and were successful. So Richard and Mary White moved there in 1906, and Te Moata Station was born.

This steep, unforgiving country was a real challenge to break in, and it is a real testament to the pioneering families that they stuck at it. My grandfather Lewis White married Aileen Wells, a journalist from New Plymouth who had secured a scholarship to Canterbury University where she graduated with a Master of Arts—quite an achievement for a woman in the early 1930s. Lewis and Aileen had three daughters: Pam, Elizabeth, and Lois. Pam is my mum.

Mum loved growing up on the family farm. Unfortunately, at the age of six, she had to go and live with her auntie Jessie Grant in Turakina so she could attend primary school. She did this for two years as there was no school bus. This changed after Aileen negotiated with the education department in New Plymouth to have a school bus service provided. Clearly, sub-standard services in rural communities were as much a challenge then as now.

In 1960, tragedy stuck. Grandfather Lewis White was killed by a falling tree. So I never had the chance to meet him, but I do carry Lewis as my middle name with pride. Sadly, tragedy in farming families was not unusual, and it highlights the sacrifices some families made in trying to build their businesses and contribute to the prosperity of New Zealand. I would like to acknowledge all the descendants of the White family who have come today, some wearing kilts.

My dad, Ron McCallum, and his family hailed from Goodwood, Otago: a settlement halfway between Palmerston and Waikouaiti—or “Whack-a-wight”, as the locals refer to it—where the local primary school was called Flag Swamp. Dad often brags of attending Flag Swamp primary and tells great stories of his teacher, Mr Brown—an out and out Labour supporter who used to enjoy nothing more than strapping those Tory farming kids.

It is the McCallum family that carries the strong National Party connection. Great-grandfather Frank was involved when the party was created in 1936, and grandfather Duncan and his brother Charlie were also heavily involved.

Then there was Dad. Many of us have political heroes like Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Maggie Thatcher, and Barack Obama. Well, I have a political hero: my dad. You see, Dad was a well-respected activist in the northern region. When Dr the Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith became the National Party candidate for Kaipara in 1983, Dad took over as electorate chair—a role he held until 1996, when he became chair of the Whangārei seat, held by the Hon John Banks.

The Kaipara electorate in 1983 had 36 branches, and Dad and Lockwood went to all the AGMs. Dad would often joke that if Lockwood lost his voice during a meeting, he could stand up and carry on giving his speech. Thirty-six makes my 10 branches in the much larger electorate of Northland seem a part-time job. That symbolised the level of commitment Dad gave to the National Party and democracy in New Zealand. I salute all the volunteers who, like Dad, work hard for the cause they believe in. I thank you all.

So, to my own political journey and my strong desire to serve my local community, not surprisingly it started when I joined as a Young Nat at 18 years old. In 1985, I attended Lincoln College to study a Bachelor of Commerce in Agriculture.

One of the dominant issues of 1985 was the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. During this debate, I was door-knocking one evening in the Selwyn electorate for the Hon Ruth Richardson. One door was opened by a youngish guy who invited me in. He introduced me to his flatmate. It was immediately obvious to me that they were a same-sex couple. They encouraged me to ask Ruth to support the law change. As I was listening to them, I was thinking that under the law of the day, they could be in jail. Why? Why should two adults who clearly loved each other and weren’t harming anyone else be punished for it? The lesson for me out of this experience was that it is up to leaders to see through the current noise and do what is best for the country—and, in particular, minority communities—in the long term.

Saying these things is easy; doing it when you are swimming against the tide of popular opinion is more difficult. Not long after that visit, I attended the Selwyn electorate AGM, where I helped to move a motion supporting the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Disappointingly, it lost. In 2005, after many years of activism, I was elected to the board of the National Party; a position I held until 2015, when I retired. In Northland, my main role was chairing every campaign since 2002, with the win in 2017 being a real highlight.

The 2017 election was a tough time to be a farmer. Farmers became the punching bags of the campaign. We were threatened with a water tax, blamed for all the water-quality issues in New Zealand, and were continuously used as a pincushion by the left. Farmers’ concerns were so strong that it led to me organising a protest in Morrinsville with the help of Lloyd Downing, who did a great job of fronting it. I know you’re here somewhere. The stress and worry that flowed through the rural community at that time reminded me of the mid 1980s, when Rogernomics was in full swing, the share market was booming, and agriculture was being called a sunset industry.

All of these experiences have taught me that while change is inevitable, it is the job of leaders to take people with them during periods of change and to help cushion the effects on society. The other aspect that was highlighted by these experiences was the need to reach cross-parliamentary consensus on long-term issues like water quality. As farmers, all we ask for is a clear direction of travel that is achievable while maintaining a profitable business. Having the pendulum swing wildly every time there is a change of Government is not good for anyone, and it is certainly not good for the environment.

In 1998, the Hon Simon Upton and the Hon Nick Smith formed the Bluegreens. I joined in 1999 and have been an executive member ever since. The Bluegreens is an excellent forum for debating some very challenging environmental issues. It is a forum where all sides of the political and environmental spectrum can meet. Organisations as diverse as Greenpeace, Federated Farmers, Environmental Defence Society, DairyNZ, Forest and Bird, and Beef + Lamb are regular attendees at our annual forum. It was there that I met long time Greenpeace campaigner Steve Abel, who now sits opposite me in the House as a first-term Green MP. We have had many discussions about the way forward for farming and the environment, and I look forward, between jousting in the House, to having many more. It is respectful relationships like this that need to chart a way forward as we work through long-term environmental issues. One final point on the environment: solutions to environmental challenges lie with Parliament and New Zealand as a whole. No single political party or organisation owns the environment; we all do.

So what is my vision for the primary sector, a sector that has consistently been the mainstay of the New Zealand economy? As I’ve highlighted, we are used to challenges. We are innovative and collaborative. Farmers love sharing their knowledge; we all know how tough and lonely it can be. Right now, we have another challenge: climate change. Some see this as too tough and as a pointless battle; I see it as an opportunity—an opportunity to help the world reduce global emissions and increase the value of our exports. Let’s back ourselves and our amazing scientists to find solutions. Then, we can add real value to our produce and help secure a future for the next generations, both financially and environmentally.

And so, to the amazing electorate of Northland, the electorate that is miles above the rest, and my 2040 vision for it: if ever there is a region that has untapped potential, it is Northland. We are located next to the biggest city in the country, and we have a great coastline and beaches. We are blessed with quality soils that can grow a large range of crops. We have one of the highest percentages of young people under 15 in the country, yet we are struggling economically and socially, and have done for a long time. The single biggest factor holding us back is connectivity and, in particular, the quality of our roading infrastructure. It is best summed up by the state of the Brynderwyns and the Mangamukas.

The Mangamukas have been closed since August 2022 and are expected to be closed for the rest of 2024. The Brynderwyns were shut for 58 days after the wet weather last summer and are going to be shut for at least another nine weeks to do some urgent repairs, just to try and stop a catastrophic failure this winter. That is two parts of State Highway 1 shut at the same time. Northlanders have had enough. It is time to stop politicising Northland’s roads. It is time all the members of this House release the handbrake on Northland’s prosperity and back the four-lane highway. It is a vital part of lifting families out of poverty, by enabling businesses to invest, creating jobs and opportunities across a range of sectors, and breathing new life into Northland. Northland will not prosper by increasing the size of the welfare cheque.

The next part of my 2040 vision is highlighted by two towns. Northland is a community of small communities—towns like Kaitāia, Mangonui, Kawakawa, Dargaville, Maungaturoto, and Mangawhai to name a few. The two towns I wish to focus on are Kerikeri and Kaikohe. They are 30 minutes apart but, in some cases, a world apart. They symbolise the challenges and opportunities in Northland. They need each other. This is not an “either/or” story; it’s an “and/and” one. In 1953, Kaikohe was the hub of the North, where Queen Elizabeth stayed during her tour of New Zealand. Kerikeri was a smaller village to the east. So what changed? Water. That’s what changed. In the 1970s and 1980s, two dams were built to irrigate the fertile land around Kerikeri. The results are obvious: economic growth, resulting in jobs, in a town that now has a population of 8,500 and is still growing. It has become a significant economic driver for Northland. I am pleased to see that, in the Kaikohe area, we now have one dam that has been built and another being built at Waimate North. There is also the Ngāwhā Geothermal Power Station, the first carbon-neutral plant in New Zealand, and the Ngāwhā Innovation and Enterprise Park.

The other aspect of these two towns is the cultural difference. This is best summed up by the rolls of the two high schools. Northland College, in Kaikohe, has a roll that is 98 percent Māori, whereas Kerikeri High School is 38 percent Māori. So how do we help create a greater understanding and connection between these two communities? The answer is education. Through education, we can teach the history of our cultures and what all our ancestors have contributed to New Zealand. For example, the settlers developed world-leading pastoral farming practices and were encouraged to do so by Chief Hongi Hika, who, after visiting England, asked the settlers to teach the farming techniques to Māori. This led to what was, effectively, New Zealand’s first demonstration farm at the Waimate North mission station.

We also need to celebrate our Māori culture, which is uniquely New Zealand. Central to Māori culture is te reo. Wouldn’t it be great if, in 2040, we are starting to be seen as a bilingual society, as our younger generations embrace te reo? Through language and leadership, we help create understanding. In Northland, the other significant contributor towards creating a united and thriving community would be a Ngāpuhi settlement. I stand ready to help and engage however I can to help achieve this. So my vision is clear: by 2040, a four-lane highway to Northland; a society where we celebrate and respect all our cultures; and a Treaty settlement for Ngāpuhi. And then we can celebrate together the 200th anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a united region and a united country.

Finally, to Mum and Dad, who are watching at home: thank you for being great parents and for your love and support. To my sister, Sandra, and my brother, Murray, I want to say thank you also for your love and support on this never-ending journey. To my children, Eve and Jeremy: I am incredibly proud of you, as is your amazing mother, Kate, who has done an outstanding job of being your mum. I love you both dearly and could not have become the Northland MP without your support. The family hug we had in the Kaikohe hall when the results of the nomination contest were announced is a memory I will always cherish. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

SPEAKER: All right. I’ll ask members to resume their seats and the gallery to be quiet for the moment. To make her maiden statement to the House, I call on Nancy Lu.

NANCY LU (National): Mr Speaker, congratulations to you and I thank you for your contribution and your leadership as our Speaker. I stand here before you today with a deep sense of honour and responsibility as a newly elected member of Parliament for New Zealand. Serving our great nation is both a privilege and a solemn duty, and I am committed to making a positive impact during my tenure. Being part of the National-led Government under the leadership of the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon is very significant to me. I am grateful for the trust that voters have placed in our team, and I am dedicated to delivering real changes in New Zealand to bring our country back on track.

While it is impossible to individually acknowledge everyone, I wish to express my gratitude to the National Party leadership team, board members, MPs, members and volunteers, Young Nats and candidates, regional chairs and special interest groups chairs, and, most importantly, my campaign team for giving me your unwavering support and belief. I ask for your continued guidance and support as I strive to be a true and humble National Party member.

I am also deeply thankful to those people who took the time to engage in meaningful conversations with me during the campaign. I extend a warm welcome to all my family, friends, and supporters who have joined us today, both in person and online, from across the country. To all of you sitting in this Chamber today who have travelled from all parts of the country to offer your support and witness this moment, I am deeply appreciative. For most of you, this marks your first visit to your Parliament, and I emphasise the words “your Parliament” because discussions in this Chamber shape decisions and these decisions will have a direct impact on your lives. So thank you for voting in our democracy and thank you for entrusting me to represent you in your Parliament.

I want to say a big thankyou to all my schools, teachers, and principals who have played a vital role in shaping the person I am today. From Avondale Primary to Pakuranga Intermediate, Macleans College, University of Auckland, and, finally, Harvard University, I have been privileged to receive an education that instilled in me the values of authenticity and compassion.

Finally, I take this opportunity to sincerely say thank you—谢谢你们—to all Chinese Kiwis in New Zealand. 感谢每一位，感谢每一位新西兰华人为新西兰的文化和历史所做出的贡献。多谢大家的支持同努力。我们一定会让新西兰重回正轨。

[Applause] This is eating into my time!

Our nation’s history is woven in with the contributions of Chinese Kiwis who have and will continue to play a vital role in shaping the modern New Zealand we cherish today. From the Otago gold rush days to when Chinese miners ventured into New Zealand in pursuit of opportunities; to early Chinese migrants contributing to various sectors of our economy, such as vegetable growers and dairy product exporters; to Chinese entrepreneurs who established small, medium, and large businesses that drive innovation and create jobs; to bilateral traders, international students, skilled migrants, investors, families and children, the list goes on. The impact of Chinese Kiwis extends far beyond our numbers. The presence of Chinese Kiwis fosters cross-cultural exchanges, opening minds and broadening horizons for all New Zealanders. The hard work and determination of Chinese Kiwis have contributed to our economy and made New Zealand a more prosperous and dynamic nation. Our society thrives on the rich and beautiful cultures that call this land home.

As I embark on this journey, I take this opportunity to share my personal story, my time capsule, a narrative that has shaped my values, beliefs, and my deep commitment to serve our country. My journey in New Zealand began in 1997 when my family chose this beautiful country as our home. There were very few Chinese migrants in the 1990s. I still vividly recall my first day of school at Avondale Primary, where I was one of only three Asian children. My classmates were very curious about my Chinese look and my very poor English, but I quickly became known as “the little magician” for my ability to use little wooden sticks to pick food up—now commonly known as chopsticks. [Applause]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Excuse me, Nancy, can I just ask the gallery to hold the applause until the end. We have to work to a time and while you’re applauding, Nancy’s losing time. So if you wouldn’t mind—we all think it’s a wonderful speech, we’re very happy, but we’ll all go mad at the end, OK?

NANCY LU: Little did I know then these small moments would lay the foundation for my unique opportunity and skills in connecting two worlds, bridging cultures, and fostering understanding.

I take the opportunity now to express my heartfelt gratitude to my parents for making the decision to call New Zealand home. New Zealand, as our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, aptly put it, is the best country on planet Earth. My parents, former engineers in their rising career in China, consciously chose to migrate to New Zealand to give their only child, me, the opportunity of knowledge to navigate through differences, find similarities, and bring people together to work on common goals. So thank you, Mum and Dad. I wanted to say I am deliberately wearing my blue jacket again because it’s my mum’s jacket.

I am also immensely grateful to mentors, managers, colleagues, and staff that I had the privilege to work with in my pre-politics career. Each of you has left a lasting impact on me, collectively making me a better person. My journey through various roles and responsibilities has been a tremendous source of my learning and growth. At the age of 15, I delivered newspapers in Botany as my first ever paid job—rain or shine, I delivered, pun intended—a job that taught me the values of commitment and responsibility. Since then, I worked as a checkout operator at Pak ‘N Save and McDonald’s—and, by the way, McDonald’s seems to be a good training ground for some of us—where I served customers. Although the work was repetitive and sometimes boring, these roles taught me the importance of teamwork and optimal processes.

During my university years and my involvement in AIESEC, the world’s largest student-run organisation, I gained useful problem-solving and leadership skills, and a global mind-set.

At 19, I embarked on a journey to travel to Ukraine to teach English for three months—an experience that exposed me to profound culture shock but also highlighted humanity’s innate desire to learn and to give back. While studying my undergrad, my employment at ASB Botany underscored the significance of financial literacy and personal financial responsibility. My experiences at Fonterra in Auckland and also in Beijing when I was 20 showed me the substantial impact that the largest company in New Zealand can have on our nation and its people. It also showcased the immense corporate social responsibility that comes with such a position. Working at Ernst & Young at 22 taught me a comprehensive understanding of New Zealand’s tax system and the IRD’s crucial role and responsibility to all Kiwis. My time at PricewaterhouseCoopers at 24, when I officially became a chartered accountant, delved deep into the world of audit, revealing the profound significance of scrutiny, integrity, teamwork, and organisational skills. Joining COSCO Shipping at 28 as a finance manager provided me insights into New Zealand’s place in international trade and our global positioning.

At the age of 33, however, a significant personal failure shook me to my core. After realising I was unsuccessful to become a MP on election night in 2020, I held my 10-month-old baby girl, Amber, in my arms—I felt I had let her down. My dedication to public service originates from a deep sense of duty to improve New Zealand for both our current generation and the many generations to come, and yet I know I failed badly. I also know that I’d let down volunteers, members, and voters. After some time of self-reflection and going back to my drawing board, I was determined to find opportunities to grow through working and studying and to do better services for our community. So, later, during my time in Auckland Council as a financial strategist, I worked closely and directly on the fundamentals of affordable and sustainable public service.

As I applied for options to study while working, to my joy and to my surprise, I was accepted by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government to study for my Master’s degree in public administration. My time at Harvard, at 35, was particularly transformative. I learnt a deeper understanding of public leadership and gained many useful tools for public service, further solidifying my commitment to the betterment of our society.

My journey at Harvard was full of learning but also of guilt. I had to leave my family and my two young children in New Zealand. Amber was 2½ and Harper was 7 months. I am for ever grateful to my husband, Keven, and my family for their unconditional support and encouragement to go do what’s best for me. So, to my daughters, Amber and Harper, you didn’t choose to have a mum that will be absent from more than half of your daily lives, but I promise you that I will be present in every way that I can and to make sure I contribute to growing life with you and learn from you.

The various roles that I had gifted me the invaluable lessons and experiences that shaped who I am today: appreciative, humble, hungry for knowledge, and, above all, recognising that it’s people who make the world go round. So I’m holding humility close to my heart, always striving to be a human above all else. I promise to work collaboratively and ensure that our collective work efforts serve the best interests of New Zealand and its people.

Now that you have a glimpse into my life before politics, I hope my personal story is a testament to the power of opportunity, diversity, and the collective wisdom of those who have guided me along the way. I am here to serve, to connect, and to be a bridge between our diverse communities. I am a proud New Zealander. I am one voice of millions of New Zealanders. I am also a voice of millions of Kiwi women and Kiwi mums. I am also a voice of many, many Chinese Kiwis. But to be a voice that can represent in this House, I need to first listen. I have an instinct to connect with people, and I firmly believe in the power of active listening, regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances.

During my campaign, I knocked on doors in neighbourhoods across New Zealand, meeting hard-working families from diverse backgrounds. I knocked on doors of homes and shops in Auckland suburbs like Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, Mount Albert, Te Atatū, North Shore, Botany, Pakuranga, and Port Waikato. I also knocked on doors in Hamilton, Cambridge, Rotorua, Remutaka, Wellington City, and Christchurch. I met everyday New Zealanders, and I strongly believe that it is our responsibility altogether to listen to their needs and understand their hopes for New Zealand. Our Parliament should reflect the rich tapestry of our society, and I’m deeply committed to advocating for those who differ from me, ensuring that their voices are not just heard but that their rights are protected and their future is improved. So I promise the debates I will have in this House are not just about today but also about shaping tomorrow for all of us and for our future generations. I am eager to work collaboratively with my fellow MPs, across party lines, to turn these passions into actionable policies that will benefit every New Zealander.

I’m deeply passionate about three areas that I believe are crucial for the wellbeing and future prosperity of our nation. First and foremost, I need to emphasise the paramount importance of our economy and finances. Our economic stability forms the very foundation and backbone of the quality of daily lives. It is not merely numbers on spreadsheets but it is the lifeline that sustains our communities, ensures access to healthcare, education, infrastructure, and ultimately shapes the future of our country. So I am determined to champion financial responsibility and accountability, drawing on my background in financial and auditing experiences and making sure that our economic policies benefit every New Zealander.

My second passion is to enhance the quality in education of our tamariki, because my personal journey has shown me the transformative power of a strong educational foundation. I firmly believe that the access to consistent and high-quality education is key to unlocking life-changing opportunities. So, as a result, I am dedicated to ensuring every New Zealand child receives a strong educational foundation that empowers them to compete effectively in the modern world.

Lastly, I want to underscore the importance of upholding and enhancing New Zealand’s reputation on the global stage. Our nation is renowned for its natural beauty; sustainability efforts; and the incredible energy, intelligence, and creativity of our people. Despite our small population and geographical distance, we stand tall as pioneers, explorers, and market leaders. Our size and unique geography should not be seen as limitations but rather as opportunities to think outside the box. So let us grow our ambition and ask for more for our future.

In closing, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunities and support that have led me to this moment, but this is just the beginning. To all my parliamentary colleagues and parliamentary staff who make this big building work, I look forward to working with you to make our Parliament better. Together, let us shape a better New Zealand—a place where individuals can thrive, diversity is celebrated, and unity prevails. Together, we can build a brighter future for our nation, where economic prosperity, quality education, and our unique identity as New Zealanders are celebrated and safeguarded. In the words of the Māori proverb, he aha te mea nui o te ao? Māku e ki atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata—what is the most important thing in the world? Well, let me tell you, it is people, it is people, it is people. 世间最重要的，是人，是人，是人. When I give my valedictory speech in many years’ time, I aspire to be remembered not as an idealised figure but as a decent human who worked tirelessly to deliver a better New Zealand for all its people. So, thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the people of New Zealand for entrusting me with this important responsibility. So now let’s get our country back on track.

SPEAKER: OK. I think we’re about ready. To make a maiden speech to the House, I call on David MacLeod.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth):

Tamarau nō runga i te rangi

Heke iho ki raro ki te whakamarimari

Tē tatari ai, ki te hurahanga

o te tāpora o Rongoueroa

Taku kuia e, Taku kuia e

Te ara o taku tūpuna i tohi ai au

Ko Te Ati Awa nō runga i te rangi

Ko te toki tē tangatanga i te rā

Taringa mangō ko te kete ngē

Hue Hā! Hue Hā!

Tihei mauri ora.

[Tamarau from the heavens above came down to make love

and waited until he could have

Rongo-u-eroa to wife

She is our grandmother! She is our matriarch!

This therefore is the consecrated pathway of my ancestors

e Ātiawa from the heavens above

The adze of Tamarau which can remove the very sun from its axis.]

Tēnei au e tū nei ki te takahanga waewae o ōku tūpuna, o ōku mātua. Ka titiro whakarunga ki Te Waipounamu, ko Aoraki te maunga; ko Ōtākou, ko Waihora ngā puna karekare; ko Ōtākou, ko Taumutu ngā marae; ko Kāi Tahu te iwi.

Ka topa ake ki Te Tairāwhiti, ki te urunga o te rā. Ko Hikurangi te maunga, ko Waiapu te awa, ko Tīkapa te marae, ko Ngāti Porou te iwi.

Ka huri whakateuru ki te tōnga o te rā. Ko Taranaki te maunga; ko Urenui, ko Waitara, ko Waitotoroa, ko Kāpuni ngā awa; ko Urenui, ko Ōwaiwhaitara, ko Parihaka, ko Wharepuni ngā marae; Ko Ngāti Mutunga, ko Te Ātiawa, ko Taranaki, ko Ngāti Ruanui ngā iwi.

Ka tau mai anō ki runga ki Te Upoko-o-te-ika a Māui-tikitiki-a-Taranga, ki ngā maunga whakahī, ki Tangi-te-keo, ki Whitireia; ki te hoenga waka o ōku tūpuna, ki Te Whanganui-a-Tara, ki Pipitea, ki Te Aro, ki Takapūwāhia. Ko Te Ātiawa, ko Ngāti Tūpaea, ko Ngāti Haumie ngā iwi.

Puta atu rā ki ōku huānga o Ngāti Toa Rangatira, e kōkōia, e ara e.

[Here I stand on the tramping ground of my ancestors, of my forebears. I look to the South, to the South Island, Aoraki is the mountain; Ōtākou and Waihora are the rippling springs; Ōtākou and Taumutu are the marae; Kāi Tahu is the iwi.

I soar to the East Coast, to the headrest of the sun. Hikurangi is the mountain, Waiapu is the river, Tīkapa is the marae, Ngāti Porou is the iwi.

I turn towards the West, to the setting of the sun. Taranaki is the mountain; Urenui, Waitara, Waitotoria and Kāpuni are the rivers; Urenui, Ōwaiwhaitara, Parihaka and Wharepuni are the marae; Ngāti Mutunga, Te Ātiawa, Taranaki and Ngāti Ruanui are the iwi.

We come again to the Wellington region, to the proud mountains, to Mount Victoria and Whitireia; to the place my ancestors paddled their canoes, to the Wellington Harbour, to Pipitea, to Te Aro and to Takapūwāhia. Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tūpaea and Ngāti Haumie are the iwi.

I go out to my relations of Ngāti Toa Rangatira, and the birds sing, they have risen.]

Mr Speaker, may I first start by acknowledging yourself with the important role you have in overseeing the running of Parliament. My family, friends, supporters in the gallery and watching online, and to my new work colleagues: ka mihi ki a koutou katoa. Greetings to you all.

I have just started my speech with a Te Ātiawa ngeri. It speaks of Tamarau, a son of Ranginui and Papatuānuku. Tamarau, along with Rongoueroa, consecrated the pathway of my ancestors—the ancestors of this place I stand today. I have also just taken you on a journey of my connections into Ngāi Tahu in the South, on to the East Coast of Ngāti Porou, and then back to Taranaki where I stand and represent in this House.

This is my whakapapa from my mother’s side of my family. She was one of nine children, and her father, Dr Edward Pohau Ellison, I understand, was the fourth Māori doctor to have qualified in New Zealand, following Sir Māui Pōmare, Sir Peter Buck, and Tūtere Wī Repa.

My great-grandfather Raniera Ellison was of Taranaki descent, but born in Eastbourne in Lower Hutt, his mother being one of many Taranaki-based Māori who joined the migration down to these parts in the 19th century. Raniera’s father was an English whaler. During Raniera’s lifetime, he did well in prospecting for gold. In fact, there’s a place on the Shotover River called Māori Point named after him. Actually, his dog found the gold. It swam across the fast-flowing Shotover River first, and when Raniera got the animal across, it was covered in gold specks. As they say, a man’s best friend is his dog, especially on that occasion. With this new wealth, Raniera married Nani Weller of the Taiaroa family, and became a farmer based close to our family marae at Otakou, at the Taiaroa Heads near Dunedin.

My grandmother provides my connection to the East Coast and Ngāti Porou, where our family marae, Tīkapa, is located closest to the ocean of many marae along the Waiapu River. This river begins on the slopes of Hikurangi and travels through Ruatōria on its way to the ocean.

My father was Pākehā, with his ancestors from his father’s side arriving from a small village called Shawbost on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. His mother was of English descent, with her ancestors arriving here from Adelaide, Australia. It was in the small township of Manaia in South Taranaki that my parents first met. My mother’s family moved there when her father acquired the local medical practice. My father, being born and bred there, was starting his dairy farming career on his family’s farm, halfway between Manaia and Kāpuni.

I’m the seventh of eight children. My parents were sociable and loved meeting and accommodating people from all over the world, including overseas hitchhikers that my dad sometimes brought home, such was the trusting nature of my mother and father. Visitors became lifelong friends, with many being contacted by my parents when the chance arose during their various overseas trips.

My father had some governance experience. One of my most valued treasures was a page of A4 paper where he wrote me several bullet points of advice. I review his words of wisdom often—they keep me grounded. He was a great communicator, and if I’m only half as good as him, I’ll be happy.

My mother was a loving, caring person, gently spoken with a warm personality. No guest ever left our house hungry or thirsty. Our family remained well-connected to wider family, with many gatherings and celebrations. I have relations the length of New Zealand, and I’m extremely proud of their many successes.

I can only imagine how proud my parents would be of me standing here, especially my father. He was true blue. In fact, he was one of former MP and Minister Venn Young’s original nominators. Venn is the father of Jonathan Young, and also the father of a woman who’s been peering down on this House from that press gallery for some 30 years: Audrey Young. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve a photo of Audrey holding me in her arms at my christening. I’m guessing she doesn’t want to re-enact that any time soon!

Apart from New Plymouth City, our constituency includes the township of Waitara at its most northern boundary and continues around the Taranaki coastline to our most southern settlement of Ōpunake. In the New Plymouth electorate, I stood against incumbent Labour MP Glen Bennett. I thank Glen for the way in which he campaigned and debated with me and other contenders.

I am proud to be New Plymouth’s member of Parliament, but I know I’m only here due to the hard work of many—they all volunteer their time to the cause. Firstly, I want to thank the New Plymouth National Party electorate committee for their studious management over many years. A big thanks goes to my campaign team of Mike Kinnell, Joel Zimmerman, Rachel Donald, Casey Martin, Marie Collins, Kevin Murphy, and Roddy Bennett for helping run such a strong campaign. To the many volunteers who performed all the various tasks required of a solid campaign: thank you. Special thanks to Lloyd and Barb Butler, who contributed more than I could ever have asked, including human hoarding—the last task that they were ever going to perform on my campaign, but they still did it, so thank you to you.

Campaigns are fuelled by many people being involved, but you also call on the generosity of those who can help pay for things. I have been blessed by many, on that front. Thank you to all of them. To Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and deputy leader Nicola Willis, our party leadership, you were a big part of my decision to stand. Confidence in leadership is an absolute in a well-functioning entity, and you both provide that in many ways.

I’ve had an interesting career. After attending Hāwera High School, I qualified as an electrician, working for my brother-in-law. When I was 23, a local businessman invited me to become part owner in his company, indicating that I was his succession plan. He mentored me and then he gave me the reins to grow the company to a multi-disciplined operator with about a hundred tradespeople servicing all Taranaki. I sold that company recently. I had a 22-year career on the Taranaki Regional Council, with the last 15 as its chairman. I’ve spent more than two decades as a director of Port Taranaki. Other significant directorships include the large Taranaki Māori incorporation PKW, or Parininihi ki Waitotara; Fonterra Cooperative Group; Predator Free 2050; and the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge. That experience will assist my contribution to this coalition Government’s various challenges.

As one of Taranaki’s representatives, I want to take particular interest in, monitor, and survey the progress of forthcoming legislation, especially that having particular impact on my home province.

My priorities as an MP, chair of the Environment Committee, and a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee include local government—such a critical partner in the delivery of quality outcomes for our communities—the upcoming changes to the Resource Management Act, which require a careful balance between protection of our environs and enabling timely progress; and energy. New Zealand exports more than 80 percent of its products to the rest of the world, primarily because we can manufacture goods the world wants, in a reliable, sustainable, and competitive way.

Let’s make sure our country’s energy profile doesn’t disrupt that, as well as making sure we keep our lights on. Let’s allow farmers to get on and do what they do best: farm. Let’s make sure any bureaucracy added to their workplace first fits the context of the operation, it passes cost-benefit analysis, and adds value to their business. Good science is essential to improve our lives and understand the world around us; it helps our competitiveness and teaches us valuable skills. We need to ensure it is delivered in an efficient and an effective way.

I’m also hoping that hui of recent weeks and the upcoming Waitangi celebrations go some way to reassuring Māori that the National Party are not here to remove te reo off the landscape of New Zealand, that we do value Te Tiriti as our founding document, that we will uphold and respect all Treaty settlements, and that we want better health and education outcomes for Māori, along with every other Kiwi. These are just a few matters that are currently prominent with me. There are more, but 15 minutes won’t allow that.

Now, for those who think I’ve missed the people closest to me in my life, I haven’t. I’ve left them to the end, because they are the most important part of my speech. I am blessed by the wonderful love and support of my wife, Leasa, and three amazing grown-up children, Reuben, Phoebe, and Isaac. It was with them I had my first conversation about becoming an MP. I was adamant I wouldn’t proceed unless all supported the idea. They said, “No.”—for all the reasons you may imagine. I accepted their decision, but a couple of days later they said they didn’t feel right standing in the way of the opportunity. They felt that my career had evolved to where I could contribute strongly, and they wanted me to give it a shot. But I can also tell you, if you want to get rid of your children, go into politics. All three of our children are experiencing their OEs and enjoying the big, wide world, and I couldn’t be happier for them. I am proud of the confident young adults that they have become. I’m looking at the camera—kids, although you challenge my temperament at times, I love you and I’m always here for you.

To my wife, Leasa: what can I say? Firstly, I couldn’t ask for a better companion with whom to traverse this crazy thing called “life”. You are an amazing wife, incredible mother, exceptional friend to many, and a great supporter of my career. You have always been there for me in my most challenging times, and you have always been there beside me when I’ve needed you. I’m a far better person for having you as my life partner, and I can’t thank you enough.

So, Leasa, Reuben, Phoebe, and Isaac: the meaning of life, for me, is you. I love you and deeply care for you all. If you truly need me, I will always be there, above anything else. That’s absolutely on public record now, isn’t it?

Mr Speaker, and my fellow MPs: we in this House are but guardians of this beautiful country of ours. We are in these roles for just a moment in time. It is our daily activities and behaviours that will decide how good a guardian each of us are. Time will measure that. What is in our control is how we work, how we behave, and how we relate to one another. Let us all realise our individual potential and use these privileged positions to the best of our ability. Our country is relying on it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause, hongi, and harirū]

SPEAKER: Can I ask that members conclude their congratulations as quickly as possible. We’re coming to the end of the Address in Reply debate; there is one speech to come because of some time overruns. But, to make it formal, I seek leave of the House for Camilla Belich to make a four-minute, maybe 3½ minute, speech to conclude our Address in Reply debate. I put that leave. There appears to be no objection. Can we just move that along a bit if we can.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this Address in Reply debate. It’s been a substantive debate, and I want to take the opportunity to congratulate all of the new members of Parliament who have, without exception, made exceptional maiden speeches in this Address in Reply.

I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge those recent departures from our caucus in the Labour Party: Andrew Little, who did not give a valedictory speech; Rino Tirikatene, also leaving without a valedictory speech; and the Hon Kelvin Davis, who will be shortly giving his valedictory speech, and I will make sure that I finish in a timely manner so he can do that.

All of us here come to Parliament with the best intentions to serve, and it’s never more apparent than listening to the maiden speeches of new members of Parliament. That’s why it has been so disappointing for me to see the direction that the Government has been taking in relation to the policy decisions that they have made.

Last year, the portfolio that I’ve been working in, and the career that I have built, has been working for working people and workers’ rights. It was very, very disheartening to see the rolling back of fair pay agreements, the opportunity for workers to collectively bargain, which I believe would have increased productivity for New Zealand, would have improved workers’ rights, and is common around the world. That was incredibly disappointing. It was also very disappointing to see the 90-day trials being brought back for all workers, without evidence, without anything to back up the allegations made that they would serve employers or working people. So that’s been incredibly disappointing.

But what has been more disappointing has been the rhetoric that we have seen around Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a founding document of New Zealand, a contract and partnership entered into between two groups of people: the tangata whenua—the hapū and iwi of New Zealand—and the people who intended to settle in New Zealand. Now, my first ancestor came to New Zealand in 1841, to Nelson, on the Whitby, one of the three first ships to settle in the South Island. I am fully tangata Te Tiriti. I am here because of the Treaty of Waitangi, and many of us born in New Zealand would not be here if it was not for the Treaty of Waitangi.

We know through successive Governments, through jurists, through former politicians on both sides of this House, through tribunals, through iwi, through hapū, through Māori leaders, through great thinkers like Moana Jackson—we know that Te Tiriti has never been in this country without debate. It has always been debated; there is always more to say. It is a living document that proves who we are as a country. We cannot stand by on this side of the House and let this Government challenge, through this Treaty principles bill brought about by the ACT Party, the place of the Treaty in New Zealand.

The very fact that this bill is in front of this House affects the mana of that document; it affects the mana of New Zealand as a country. It is absolutely shameful that the National Party—who is leading this Government, who has a proud history that they can be proud of, I think, in Treaty settlements—is allowing this absolute shocking move against everything that New Zealand stands for to go through the House. I feel it’s important to say that, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for allowing me to contribute to this debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General in reply to Her Excellency’s speech.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Address in Reply agreed to.

Presentation to Governor-General

SPEAKER: The Address from the House of Representatives to Her Excellency The Right Honourable Dame Cindy Kiro, Chancellor and Principal Dame Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, Principal Companion of The Queen’s Service Order, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Realm of New Zealand, reads:

YOUR EXCELLENCY,

WE, the House of Representatives, thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Fifty-Fourth Parliament.

We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration.

Ko te tūmanako nei kia mahi tahi tātou katoa.

[Our hope is that we will work together.]

Address agreed to.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): I move that Mr Speaker, accompanied by the mover and seconder and other members of the House, present—

SPEAKER: Just a moment, one moment. This is a motion that needs to be moved by a Minister, so I’ll call upon the Hon Nicola Willis.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That Mr Speaker, accompanied by the mover and seconder and other members of the House, present the Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by Her Excellency.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: We come now to a valedictory statement. I’ll just say that the House will suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of the valedictory speech and resume at 7.30 p.m. So, in accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call upon the Hon Kelvin Davis.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Since the 19th century, Governments have put in place measures to control the influence of Māori. The original four Māori seats were established to keep us in our place. Since Māori in the House have started to grow in numbers and reach, calls to abolish the seven Māori seats threaten to take us backwards. When we progress the Treaty partnership to a point where it starts to mean something, calls for a referendum on the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi grab the headlines and scare the horses. When we move forward, the status quo always tries to push us back and protect itself. I’ve never been happy with the status quo. I will never cede to anyone that this is as good as it gets for Māori. So each time you come for us, each time you try and put us back in our box, we will not back down. We never have, and today is no different.

There will be a time to have a discussion about changing the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that time will be when Te Tiriti is finally honoured in its entirety. Articles 2 and 3 are yet to be fulfilled. Te Tiriti may not be palatable to some, but what was signed is what was agreed, and there is no way I can be convinced that one group who signs any treaty can unilaterally make decisions that impact on it without first having a proper engagement, conversation, debate—call it what you want—with the other group that signed. And, in the case of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that group is ngā Rangatira me ngā Hapu o Nu Tirani. Those are the actual words of Te Tiriti. If ngā Rangatira me ngā Hapu o Nu Tirani do not buy the proposed changes, then the argument hasn’t been convincing enough. Converse with them—the co-signatories—before you converse with anyone else. It was Governor FitzRoy’s arrogant refusal to converse with Hōne Heke about Heke’s concerns about Te Tiriti that led to conflict in 1845. If we don’t remember and learn from past mistakes, we are bound to repeat them.

I do suspect taking aim at the principles is a back-door way of undermining Te Tiriti itself. The forum tents at Waitangi this year would be an ideal place for a meaningful first conversation with the co-signatories.

Ministers from the sixth Labour Government spent hours in those tents, debating and justifying our policies. The Prime Minister and Ministers of the last Government didn’t just fly in and fly out but, some years, spent five full days engaging with many groups. Prime Ministers Ardern and Hipkins set the bar high, and could never be accused of being fly in, fly out Prime Ministers at Waitangi. Our Government never looked to control the influence of Māori; we instead strived to learn from Māori.

I came into politics to do better for Māori. Much was achieved, but 15 minutes means it won’t all be included. As Minister of Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, we started on that journey of making the relationship between Māori and Crown actually mean something. Translated, Te Arawhiti means the bridge, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi is that bridge that connects the Māori world with the non-Māori world here in Aotearoa. There are a number of us who can cross that bridge in either direction, who know the culture, customs, history, and traditions in both of those worlds, who are able to flick in and out of both languages and cultural contexts with relative ease. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority are Māori.

And yet just by striving for equity under article 3 of Te Tiriti, it is Māori who are accused of separatism and apartheid. It is a fiction that we haven’t had an adult conversation about Te Tiriti. The debate began at the spot named Tou Rangatira in Waitangi on 5 February 1840, and Māori have never stopped having conversations about Te Tiriti and its every nuance since.

My tūpuna Whetoi Pomare was a signatory to Te Tiriti. The rangatira of my hapū, Ngāti Manu, have never stopped discussing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from day one. No one should attempt to delegitimise 184 years of discussion just because they have belatedly decided to enter the conversation. The invitation stands to join us in our ongoing conversations as co-signatories on our many marae on our side of the bridge.

My job as Minister for Māori Crown Relations was to strengthen the relationship between Māori and the Crown and to get our Public Service to cross that bridge and better understand why Māori act in the way we act and believe what we believe and what the pillars of our culture are that mean we have the expectations of the Crown that we do. After 184 years, we should not have to constantly justify our world view to the Public Service and ignorant politicians.

Māori have made progress over the last 184 years, using the systems and mechanisms that this very Whare has established. Now those systems and mechanisms are being attacked by people in this House because the system they are part of doesn’t back their nonsense. It’s the status quo protecting itself again.

As an article 2 commitment, we worked together with the National Iwi Chairs Forum on a statement of engagement and on their shared aspirations. We developed joint work streams. Ministers, chief executives, and officials constantly met with their iwi counterparts. Māori had unprecedented access to the Government at all levels for the first time ever. We used Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a basis to bring people together—we didn’t divide.

We celebrated Māori heroes. The first, the statue erected in Pānguru of Dame Whina Cooper, and the pou outside Parliament being another example. While we see statues all around the country for Pākehā, such as the Seddon statue, Jean Batten, Colin Meads, Edmund Hillary, Bernard Freyberg, and the like, I could count on one finger the statues dedicated to Māori heroes.

Matariki has been a huge success. And we deliberately used Māori knowledge and expertise to make it a meaningful and unique New Zealand day. Most New Zealanders have embraced Matariki, including using the simple karakia booklet we produced to bring the day in. Those that haven’t embraced the day are the losers. Their grandchildren won’t have the same hang-ups.

We implemented Whāinga Amorangi so that chief executives had to show how their departments and agencies could be more responsive to Māori aspiration. We established a database of Treaty settlement commitments so that agencies and departments could keep track of their commitments.

Perhaps, though, the best example of how things changed in the positive can be seen in how Waitangi Day is now celebrated. The last Waitangi Day under the Key-English Government in 2017 was a debacle—a national embarrassment instead of a national day. Politicians refused to take responsibility for causing that debacle and instead laid the blame on Ngāpuhi and Māori. Politicians made the day about politicians. Separate pōwhiri for Government and Opposition meant that each party tried to drag in their own crowd of supporters. The media would fixate on and make like the arrival of politicians was the most important part of the commemoration. It was a mess. Commentators then claimed we should change our national day, that it wasn’t a day of unity, that it should be shifted away from Waitangi, that Ngāpuhi can’t organise anything, and that it’s too chaotic and divisive.

We changed all that. Our top priority was to maintain Ngāpuhi’s mana and dignity. We stopped politicians from being the focus of attention. The pōwhiri is just simply a welcome that under tikanga frees politicians to mix and mingle with the people. It is not the focus of Waitangi. We said all political parties should go on together; no party supporters allowed. We all sing a waiata to tautoko whoever speaks from whichever party. For two hours of the year, we should be able to come together, act like adults, and then mix with the people and enjoy the occasion. And it worked. Waitangi became what it should be, a national day of unity and commemoration. It got to be so pleasant, so enjoyable, so inclusive and devoid of conflict that media complained it was boring. The reformatted Prime Minister’s barbecue breakfast was a stroke of genius from Jacinda Ardern. Everything we did brought people together.

Ngāpuhi’s dignity and mana was upheld over those six years. That could all change again this year because, on 5 February, the Government wants a separate pōwhiri to again make themselves the centre of attention. It is a mistake and if it all turns to custard, then the Government alone is to blame. Do not scapegoat Māori, the Waitangi National Trust, or Ngāpuhi.

It’s one thing for the Minister of Māori Crown Relations to make a difference for Māori, but the responsibility doesn’t lie with that Minister alone; it is up to all Ministers. As Minister for Tourism, we, alongside Te Puni Kōkiri, helped increase funding for Māori tourism, who were able to support Māori tourism operators. Can I acknowledge here and congratulate Dame Pania Tyson-Nathan for all her work to support Māori tourism and for being recognised in this year’s New Year Honours List.

As Minister for Children, Oranga Tamariki was charged with devolving resources and decision making to communities and community providers. In Māori education, we implemented Te Ahu o te Reo, helping teachers weave te reo Māori into their lessons on a daily basis. It is so popular that it is oversubscribed, giving me hope that future generations of New Zealanders will have the confidence to cross the bridge comfortably, flicking in and out of languages as they see fit. We established a new wānanga framework so that the wānanga are accountable to the iwi or Māori organisations that establish them. Kōhanga reo have a new pay scale that moves them closer to pay parity. Some kōhanga kaiako had their salaries almost double, making kōhanga reo an attractive, well-paid career option.

Teaching New Zealand histories in schools will help future generations to cross the bridge. The Waitangi Tribunal is a huge repository of Māori history and stories. Those stories need to be converted into educational resources for future generations to understand our rich Māori history and how actions or inactions in the past got New Zealand to where we are now. My earlier reference to Governor FitzRoy refusing to engage with Hōne Heke is an example.

As Minister of Corrections, the Hōkai Rangi strategy and Māori Pathways have been successful and are laying the foundation for an improved corrections system. The lowlight of my time as Minister of Corrections was of course the Waikeria riot. If not for the heroism of corrections officers, there would have been fatalities. There were some real heroes on the day, and I thank them. Our goal was for the riot to end without serious injury or loss of life; that was achieved. Can I say to members of today’s Opposition, when something similar occurs under this Government, in our prisons or even in our youth justice facilities, the worst thing you can do is head down to the prison, stand at the gates in front of media and posture and grandstand. During the riot, those MPs who did just that actually increased the risk to corrections officers, emergency services, and other prisoners because it encouraged not just those participating in the riot but also prisoners in other prisons who might feel that the way to grab a politician’s attention is to riot elsewhere. Any contagion would have stretched Corrections resources beyond breaking point. There will be a time to criticise the Minister, but during those live and dynamic situations, the most unhelpful thing to a safe and timely resolution is political posturing and grandstanding.

Much was achieved for Māori in my portfolios. One favour I asked of the Iwi Chairs Forum was that they develop criteria to rate the contribution of all Ministers towards honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Politicians are only ever rated and judged according to their worth to Pākehā and according to Pākehā criteria. That needs to change if we are to bring people together.

You can’t last in politics without good people to support you. To all the chief executives and officials I worked with: Iona and team from Education; Chappie and the late Sir Wira Gardiner and our team at Oranga Tamariki; Jeremy, Christine, Ray, and staff from Corrections; Carolyn and folk from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—thank you all. Also, to Bernadette Cavanagh, who I worked with while she was head of Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

The Tuia 250 commemorations could have been a disaster for race relations. We were handed that hot potato and the job of getting it on track only months out, and it ended up being a really successful and inclusive couple of months commemorating New Zealand’s shared history. We brought people together, we didn’t divide, and can I acknowledge Dame Jenny Shipley there, who was also part of the organisation. But, in particular, I want to acknowledge Lil, Glenn, and everyone at Te Arawhiti; we had a blast, and so much fun and laughter. On behalf of Māoridom: thank you all so much. The value Te Arawhiti generates for race relations in Aotearoa far exceeds the paltry budget you have. If Te Arawhiti is shut down, the Government would lose hundreds of millions of dollars through litigation that you could have prevented. But this is a Government who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If the first few weeks of this Government is anything to go by, Treaty lawyers will be rubbing their hands together in glee.

To all the Māori public servants who finally felt they could be Māori in the public service: just keep on doing it. Don’t be subjugated by this regime. To all the officials I worked with: we worked hard and we laughed hard when appropriate. All the best. I hope you still get to laugh.

My political mates kept me grounded. Willie Jackson: thank you for your support right through to the end of my political career. It’s just a pity it wasn’t there at the start when you actively promoted and supported Hone Harawira.

Peeni Henare: our lives and whakapapa are so convoluted, intertwined, and confusing that on one side of the whānau I’m his uncle, and on the other side he’s my auntie. We’re also cousins somehow, and, more importantly, we’re mates. Of course, he likes to age shame me by reminding everyone that I was his form 2 teacher, but I prefer to say that we were at school together—in the same class. But even in form 2, I could see the leadership potential in him—it’s unfortunate that he still has some outstanding homework. On the occasions I asked him for advice, the teacher became the student.

Then there’s my mate Stuart Nash. It’s always good, in politics, to have that one person you can go to when you need to be able to shut the door to his office and vent and rage when things are going against you. Someone who will listen and not judge, who’s there through thick and thin, the ups and downs, when you’ve stuffed up, when you’re in the media for the wrong reasons, when you’re having personal issues, and when you think you’re being hard-done-by. If I can say one thing about my mate Stu, it would be that I did a lot of listening!

Ned Kelly: can I just say thanks to you for your support.

To all the staff who worked for me in my electorate offices, my executive assistants in Opposition, and to all of you who worked with me in 7.2: thank you so much. My senior private secretaries, advisers, press secretaries, front-desk people, and of course all the private secretaries: we had a great office, some really fun times, but we got things done and you all went the extra mile for me. I’m for ever grateful for your support of me; you made the weekly commute to Wellington so worthwhile. I will name just one person, and that is Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, who helped me to survive as a Minister. Thank you, Deb.

To the people of Te Tai Tokerau and to everyone who helped on my campaigns: thank you so much. I am so grateful. And finally, to my biggest supporters in Te Tai Tokerau, Kaye Taylor and her late husband, my mate, Rudy Taylor: thank you so much. To Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, congratulations on becoming the next kaitiaki of the seat of Te Tai Tokerau—go well.

This is the first time I’ve ever sat in this particular seat in the House, and for a very good reason—the same reason the Hon Christopher Finlayson sat here for his valedictory—I don’t like the fuss that is made over people at the end of their valedictories. There is a decent feed up in the Labour caucus room; everyone is invited. E te Whare, my time here is over. Hei konei rā.

SPEAKER: No encore, the House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.07 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

First Reading

International Treaty Examinations

Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the European Union

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): I present a legislative statement on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 4 April 2024 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.

In 2015, under the fifth National Government, we embarked on a journey towards a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union by launching the preparatory process for negotiations on an FTA. After almost a decade, I am pleased to be standing here presenting on this important piece of legislation, which will bring the now completed FTA into effect. This Government recognises that trade is crucial to our economic success. We know that one-in-four New Zealanders’ jobs depends on trade, and the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement is the result of a longstanding and bipartisan effort by successive New Zealand Governments.

The case for an agreement with the European Union is compelling. With a GDP of around $27 trillion and a population of 450 million consumers, the EU represents an important and valuable market for New Zealand businesses looking to sell overseas. Until now, many New Zealand products have been, effectively, locked out of EU markets as a consequence of high tariffs and restrictive quotas. This FTA will change that, finally levelling the playing field with our competitors in the lucrative EU market and unlocking new opportunities for Kiwi businesses. As a result of the NZ-EU FTA, New Zealand exporters will benefit from $100 million in additional tariff savings from day one of entry into force. Once fully implemented, this FTA has the potential to boost our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion each year and our GDP by up to $1.4 billion per year.

From the day of the agreement entering into force, 91 percent of New Zealand’s current trade with the EU will enter duty-free through a combination of tariff elimination and duty-free quotas. This includes a number of key products, such as kiwifruit, onions, apples, wine, mānuka honey, and fish and seafood. In the case of dairy and the red meat sector, any gains in market access were always going to be hard fought, reflecting the very high sensitivity of the EU’s agricultural sector. Although access will not be fully liberalised for these products, the quotas create new market access opportunities and represent an improvement on the status quo for New Zealand businesses exporting into the EU. While the deal has not met everybody’s expectations, particularly for dairy and meat, where farmers’ expectations have not been met, when considered as a whole, this FTA nevertheless represents a valuable opportunity for New Zealanders in other sectors.

Beyond market access, the FTA includes a range of other commitments to encourage increased trade and services, facilitate investment flows, increase access to Government procurement contracts across EU member States, and facilitate the movement of business people across borders. The EU is the second-largest source of investment to New Zealand. This FTA will help to increase investment into New Zealand by raising the squeezing thresholds for investment from $100 million to $200 million, comparable to that offered in the NZ-UK FTA and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Prior to the pandemic, the EU was New Zealand’s fourth-largest market for services exports. The impact of regulatory barriers faced by businesses and financial services exporters to the EU is eliminated, to be equivalent to a 28 percent tariff reduction. Accordingly, the FTA contains more liberal and predictable rules to support the growth of trade and services between New Zealand and the EU and bring down those unnecessary costs.

There are a number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to align New Zealand’s domestic law with our obligations in the FTA. The bill makes these changes required for New Zealand to implement its obligations under the FTA and to bring the FTA into force. The most significant changes being made are in relation to geographical indicators. The protection of geographical indications was a key interest for the EU in the negotiations. Under the FTA, New Zealand has agreed to protect 1,975 EU geographical indications (GIs) on day one, with the potential for up to 30 additional GIs to be added every three years by mutual agreement. Most of the nearly 2,000 EU geographical indications on the list are not used commercially in New Zealand; however, protecting names like feta, port, and gruyere for the exclusive use of the EU will impact local producers that already use these terms. Transition periods and other flexibilities have been agreed to help local producers adjust to these new protections.

The agreement also sets minimum standards of protection we need to provide for EU geographical indications as well as the role of Government in enforcing these protections. Part 3 of the bill amends the existing Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 to give effect to these obligations. The EU is one of our closest and most like-minded partners internationally and our fourth-largest trading partner. Even without an FTA, our two-way goods and services trade is worth over $20 billion, but there is plenty of potential that remains untapped. An NZ-EU FTA will boost our trade and economic relationship with the EU and open up new opportunities for New Zealand businesses. We must pass the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill without delay so that New Zealand exporters can start taking advantage of the agreement as soon as possible.

I want to recognise the significant efforts of officials within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our skilled trade negotiators, as well as former trade Minister Damien O’Connor for his work on this agreement. The New Zealand - EU FTA was commenced in the direction of an agreement under the National Government, concluded under a Labour Government, and now quickly enters into force under a National Government. That’s bipartisan. I hope the vote will be unanimous and that the protestations against trade agreements that we’ve seen previously are a thing of the past. I thank all those who have been involved in this agreement, and particularly Damien O’Connor. I commend the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill to this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to and that the House note the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Indeed, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and support this legislation, and I want to acknowledge the incoming Government for the speed with which it has dealt with this. It is indeed an advantage to all exporters—and importers of the European products, as well—to get this legislation through. I have to acknowledge the speed with which the EU and its Parliament passed it through, so I want to thank them.

I will go through and thank a few people. I have to acknowledge my predecessor David Parker, who had a very good relationship with Cecilia Malmström, and he kind of checked the process—a process that many trade negotiators thought would actually be impossible. There were many who thought that, actually, a trade deal with the EU’s 27 member States would have been virtually impossible to conclude.

But, I have to say, it started—as Minister McClay has said—with discussions in 2015 under the previous National Government. It really began to be negotiated in 2018 and, indeed, it concluded—and I too, along with the Minister, want to thank the officials. This was through a COVID period. There were some officials who had to do quarantine two or three times in travelling backwards and forwards to Europe, to Brussels, some of whom caught COVID, and it wasn’t an easy process at all through a difficult time. But, again, I’m thanking the officials for all their work.

I want to thank and acknowledge Valdis Dombrovskis, who was the EU trade commissioner who followed Cecilia Malmström. He really did commit to this. Every commitment he made to meet and progress this, he honoured, and, indeed, I was there when his country, Latvia—it is on the border of the Ukraine, of course, and Russia, and it was deeply affected by that conflict. But he was able to maintain a focus on the EU, of course, and all its responsibilities but particularly in regard to our trade agreement. So I want to thank him for that.

Again, the trade agreement was signed on 9 July 2023. Both my Prime Minister colleagues were committed to this and did their bit, where necessary, to keep things moving along.

This is a significant trade deal, and it arguably sets a new standard for trade agreements across the globe. At a time when we’re talking about emissions reduction, when we’re talking about biodiversity protection, and when we’re talking about animal welfare standards and labour standards, the EU was like-minded with our country, and that was that we did not want to seek an advantage in our trade relationships by in any way diminishing the standards that we both adhere to now and that we must maintain in the future—and, indeed, the agreement includes some of those provisions. Some people have pointed to them as being unnecessary, but I think they are progressive, they are inclusive, and they offer, as I say, a new model for trade agreements across the globe, one that I’m sure will be picked up by many.

There are 450 million people, who are high-value consumers, in the EU, and we have 5 million here. So there’s a slight imbalance, but what they saw with us was a partner with similar values. That’s the thing. The references I’ve made, as I say, to climate change, emissions reduction, better labour standards—all of those things they saw in us as sharing the values and aspirations, and, indeed, this locks us in. We’re seeing with other countries that are trying to negotiate with the EU that they’ve hit some hurdles. I know that Australia has decided to park that for some time, and I hope they can get that under way. But the EU has set a standard; and, indeed, for anyone who negotiates with the EU, they’ll have to meet that.

Look, the Minister has gone through a number of the technical points of this piece of legislation in adjusting our legislation to meet the requirements of the Act. There are some critical things that we took into this negotiation that we’ve protected. One was Pharmac. Pharmac is a unique model. The National Government brought that model in—and I want to thank you for that—some time ago. It’s been under pressure by the pharmaceutical industry for a couple of decades now, and so we’ve protected the right, against what was an EU demand at the start, to continue to negotiate affordable pharmaceuticals for our country.

We put up the reality that Māori play a bigger part in our economy, and said that we want to ensure that they had opportunities under a trade-for-all policy. So we included that chapter, which, again, is leading the way for international trade agreements, and we will see more countries include that as we move forward.

The inclusion of animal welfare provisions to ensure that we would have discussions while we run different farming systems in different hemispheres and different situations—we were both committed to protect or to investigate the protection of those standards. Again, that is something that has come under some scrutiny and some criticism. The volumes for both beef and dairy—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to make you aware that these are five-minute calls in the first reading. I apologise, as I was 20 seconds late ringing the one-minute signal.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Sorry, I thought I had—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I’ll let you finish your last sentence.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Look, thank you very much. There is a lot to say. Again, in conclusion, I want to thank the Government for bringing this legislation into the House quickly. There are many other points that I’ll raise through the committee stage.

Again, this is a valuable agreement for New Zealand, it’s valuable for the EU, and I want to support this legislation. Kia ora.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the past, the Green Party has often been the lone voice in Parliament when it comes to some of the concerns around free-trade agreements (FTAs), and I just want to reflect on what some of our concerns have been over the course of the last several decades as the country has entered into a number of these agreements. I’m saying this because I think it’s important that we do have dissenting voices and that we test the quality of our agreements against those standards.

Some of the concerns that we’ve raised over the course of many, many years are things like investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms. That was probably the single most significant provision that actually caused, I think, probably a breakdown in the general social consensus around trade agreements. The idea was that an individual company would be able to take the New Zealand Government to court and overturn, for example, environmental regulations and provisions and so on. When you look at how investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms have been applied through history, the vast majority of them were on environmental grounds and the vast majority of them found in favour of the litigant and overturned environmental provisions and so contributed to the general breakdown of our environment, which we all depend on for our survival, whilst expanding economic growth. So that was probably the key thing that we’d been worried about and we were worried about it with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and several other agreements.

The second one was around intellectual property rights. We were worried that New Zealand artists or creators or software developers and so on would be unfairly disadvantaged by some of the intellectual property rights provisions that we found in some of those agreements. The Hon Damien O’Connor mentioned Pharmac, which has been under pressure in a number of sets of trade agreements. Those were provisions that were written into a number of previous trade agreements.

Then there were also provisions that weren’t written into previous trade agreements that we wanted to see. Historically, our trade agreements pulled in the opposite direction of our environmental obligations, of our human rights, or our indigenous obligations and rights and interests and so on. So the lack of enforceable provisions in those trade agreements, when you consider the balance against the things that we didn’t like that were also in them, we were never able to support a trade agreement on that set of grounds.

Now, when the Government changed in 2017, the trade Minister at the time, the Hon David Parker, started the Trade for All initiative and did a huge amount of work trying to get New Zealanders back on board and develop a set of common principles that would inform trade agreements. That then provided the basis for a number of negotiations, including the EU FTA that’s in front of us tonight. I want to acknowledge that work that was then continued on by the Hon Damien O’Connor in this and other agreements as well.

The EU FTA doesn’t contain most of the things that we’ve historically previously been worried about and it does contain some of the things that we wanted to see in those trade agreements, such as enforceable provisions around climate and the environment. So it would be inconsistent of us not to support the EU FTA, given that the very things that we had previously been concerned about have actually been reversed in this agreement. This is quite a different agreement from those that we have seen previously.

Now, that’s not to say that we don’t have concerns; we do, and we look forward to examining those in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in the coming weeks as we get to that. We’re particularly concerned about Māori rights and interests. I want to respect the fact that there were hundreds of Māori advisers and negotiators involved in this. So I respect that they arrived at a point that they were satisfactory, but we do want to pay attention to that and we do want to test those provisions that are in this agreement to show that they actually deliver on the promise that it’s not just all sizzle, but there’s actually some vegetarian sausage involved in that as well. So, given that, the Green Party will be supporting the EU FTA, given the huge shift in the nature of this agreement over previous agreements.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the ACT Party, I speak in support of the New Zealand - EU free-trade deal. As a trading nation, such deals are absolutely vital for New Zealand’s interests. Over the years, New Zealand officials and trade Ministers—I recognise Todd McClay and Damien O’Connor here—have done a stellar job in progressing trade opportunities with numerous countries.

We want to thank the officials for their hard work in what has been a particularly challenging negotiation. It is great to see that we have gotten tariff-free access for a number of sectors, including kiwifruit, honey, seafood, and onions. It is disappointing, however, that we could not get access for meat and dairy exports at such a level. This agreement contains enough great provisions. For the ACT Party, we would like to see that, when appropriate, the Government looks at insurance seeking to ensure that we get meaningful access for our two largest primary sectors. We want to thank the EU for ratifying this agreement. Having spent a bit of time with French, German, and other European farmers, I know this will have undoubtedly been very challenging for their negotiators as well as ours.

Recent times have seen a rise in protectionism and insular thinking, so it is good that we are able to keep moving the dial forward on freeing markets up. I know that, around the world, particularly those farming and growing often see free trade as a threat. I would take this time to stress that the biggest challenge for farmers that I see around the world is price volatility.

I recall during the dairy downturn of 2014-17, work that was done internationally showed that interfering in the market might well delay the impact, but that impact still came and the recovery took longer than it needed to. This work showed that most countries’ domestic price will follow the world price. For countries like New Zealand, that lag was generally non-existent; for others it might be up to eight or nine months or longer, but the domestic price did eventually follow. The lag then resulted in mixed market signals, which then resulted in a longer time that the market spent in that trough. Open markets result in market signals being received earlier, actions taken quicker, and the troughs and the peaks of the marketplace get smoothed out.

In the example of dairy that I’m very familiar with, at the time of that downturn I mentioned, New Zealand had access to around 13 percent of world consumption at tariff rates less than 10 percent. Effectively, what that 13 percent represents is the freely traded world market, which pretty much sets the world price. So when we had additional production occurring in that remaining 87 percent of world consumption, basically everything was trying to be squeezed into that 13 percent, which meant that the impact on world price was much bigger than if that additional production was spread across the entire 100 percent of world consumption. Volatility is the enemy of farmers all around the world—not each other—and New Zealand should strive, through high-quality trade deals, to show the way forward.

Finally, to those that might argue that freer trade doesn’t equally benefit all of New Zealand, all I would say is that when our rural sectors are able to get better returns for our products, the benefit flows through to all our local communities. Right now, times are tough for our lamb producers up and down this country. It’s not just them suffering but all those businesses that sell products and services to them, affecting how much they can spend in other local businesses and how many people they can employ. By earning less for our export products, it limits what we as a nation can buy offshore, such as medicines and all those other items that make the modern world go around.

We all benefit from free trade. So, in that, we support this bill. It might not deliver all that we hope for, but it’s a good start. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the Hon Todd McClay has already mentioned, this bill is of the utmost importance. The EU is New Zealand’s fourth-largest trading partner and one of our most important markets. Under this bill, New Zealand’s conditions of access will be significantly improved, hence this piece of legislation is incredibly valuable to our market. Now, being of Croatian descent myself, we are not one to keep quiet and not say many words, but on this occasion I will, and less is more. On that note, I would like to say that New Zealand First supports and commends this bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana au ki te wāhi i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire, e mea nei ko te European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to open the statements for Te Pāti Māori about this one of the bills, called the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.]

I want to make the principles clear as to why Te Pāti Māori will not be supporting the bill at its first reading. Tangata whenua have long engaged in international trade. We’re an enterprising people. In fact, it was Māori who signed Aotearoa’s first ever trade agreement in 1835, He Whakaputanga, the Declaration of Independence, so that Māori could continue to trade and export our goods overseas without being treated like pirates and having our ships detained. Throughout the majority of the 19th century, Māori were the dominant economic partner in Aotearoa.

Not only was He Whakaputanga the first free-trade agreement for Māori, it was also the last, as the balance of economic power and control in Aotearoa was forcibly removed from tangata whenua. Despite the fact that Māori culture is Aotearoa’s biggest draw card and export—and is heavily exploited to provide competitive advantage, value add, and a point of difference—despite the fact that without whenua Māori, Aotearoa would have no meat and dairy to export overseas, or anything else that is grown on it or extracted from it, the Crown continues to negotiate these trade agreements without us. Once again, tangata whenua have been sidelined and treated as just another demographic for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to boast about or tag into their communications. Big statements about how Māori would be better off under this trade agreement is not partnership; it is not Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Any trade agreement that is not born off Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not legitimate in the eyes of Te Pāti Māori. While we acknowledge the potentially significant gains this free-trade agreement (FTA) could bring to New Zealand exporters, it is yet another failed opportunity to re-imagine trade policy and move away from the colonial model that has been imposed on tangata whenua.

We’d like to acknowledge the tangata whenua groups, such as the Federation of Māori Authorities and Te Taumata, who have endorsed and supported this FTA as they continue to strive to do the best for their people with the little leverage they receive from the Government. Te Pāti Māori’s concern is that the Government alone decides the negotiating mandate, what compromises are acceptable, and the final text, with no place at the table for Māori that is reflective of their role as the principal partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

This is not at all surprising, of course, considering free-trade agreements have been used as a vehicle to advance colonialism while locking in indigenous peoples into capitalist systems of trade. This should not be news to anyone in this House. Whilst this is the first free-trade agreement with the EU to include a specific chapter on Māori trade, the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause allowing more favourable treatment to Māori remains unchanged from previous free-trade agreements dating back to 2001. Despite decades of recommendations that more effective protections are needed, and given the advances that the Māori economy has made since 2001, this just seems ridiculous at a time when Māori are more than 50 percent of forest and fish, 20 percent of sheep and beef, and 12 percent of dairy. The Māori trade chapter focuses only on the commercial interests for Māori, but ignores wider concerns about the protection of our rights, interests, and intellectual property. There are also no provisions for the protection of mātauranga Māori from exploitation, as we have seen with the use of the kupu “mānuka”.

I could literally speak to this agreement and tear it apart for hours, but nothing I’m saying is new to tangata whenua or this Government, whose oversights have been deliberate. Aotearoa could lead the way on indigenous trade policy and intellectual property rights, and this agreement was just another missed opportunity to do that. On the surface, this is a good deal for New Zealand, that Māori will see little to no benefit from in the long run. Beneath the surface, however, this is just another form of soft colonisation in 2024, and Te Pāti Māori will not be supporting the bill. Kia ora tātou.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m very pleased to be able to take a call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s exciting to see this piece of legislation coming before the House, and it will have a meaningful impact. We’ve heard already the importance of trade in the New Zealand context, and from the EU-NZ perspective, that is one of our most critical relationships—our fourth-largest, covering about $20-odd billion worth of two-way goods, and one-in-four jobs in New Zealand directly related to that trade importance in our economy. So it just highlights that these sorts of deals are absolutely vital to the ongoing prosperity of our country. I would encourage members speaking to this to get their facts correct before they stand up in this House and make accusations that are actually quite inaccurate and not particularly helpful to the debate.

Having said that, we will be progressing—as the Minister for Trade has already said—quite promptly through the scrutiny of this piece of legislation through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. When it comes to us, we’ll be looking to go through that as efficiently as possible. It will be a truncated process. We’ve heard already around the need to progress this with some haste, given that the EU has ratified it quite rapidly—and we would like to thank them for that. That happened late last year, in the European Parliament, and that’s fantastic to see that happening. Of course, now it is waiting on us to ratify our end before then it can come into effect a month or so later. So it’s incumbent on us to do that as efficiently as possible, but of course we want to make sure that we are going through the democratic process and giving submitters the opportunity to have their views heard—on the benefits of this trade agreement to them, or, indeed, to raise some concerns that they may have.

Some of those that I’ve been hearing on both sides, Madam Speaker, in strong rural electorates like yours and mine, where we have a lot of dairy farmers, a lot of red meat producers—they’ve voiced some level of disappointment at the access that has been achieved for them, which is, actually, similar to the level of disappointment I heard from European farmers when I was over there last year, as well. I think, in that context, as much as we would have loved to have seen greater concessions made or achieved in that regard, if there’s a level of dissatisfaction on both sides of the trade agreement, then you’ve probably got the balance about right. So, in that context, it is a very good step that we are taking here in progressing this. One of the other areas of concern was around the geographic indicators, and I’ve heard there are just under 2,000 of those that will be incorporated by this. I look forward to hearing views from submitters on that particular aspect as well.

But, of course, there are many benefits. That is far and away the most important aspect for us: understanding what benefit this brings, how that adds to our economy, and to our food and fibre sector in particular. I’m very encouraged by the progress that has been achieved there in the horticulture sector, especially for our honey sector and for our seafood sectors, who are all going to see significant benefits once this EU-NZ free-trade agreement comes into force. So those aspects in particular, I think, are a really good step. We’re excited to hear from submitters, as I say, and to progress this through promptly.

It has been encouraging to see both Labour and National working diligently on improving trade access, particularly achieving that with both the EU and the UK free-trade agreements that came in last year. But this Government is actually really focused on having a strong external engagement, because, if we do that, then we help to grow more opportunities for New Zealand. As we’ve heard, those one-in-four jobs that are directly connected to trade for New Zealand are vital for our economy. When we have some economic headwinds, then we need to be looking at all opportunities to improve New Zealand’s trading market access and agreements. On that basis, we’re very pleased with this step that’s happening, but also very determined to continue engaging externally to look for more opportunities to help take us forward, not only for the trade that it brings but, actually, the alignment of relationships that you get from ongoing dialogue from reaching agreement, whether it’s trade or other aspects—that level of relationship building that goes on alongside that. So it’s a strong focus for us to be externally oriented. We’re looking forward to considering this bill in an efficient and prompt manner over the coming weeks.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for Trade for bringing this bill, the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, to the House, and thank the Hon Damien O’Connor for landing the agreement.

I want to make a reference to some of the comments that were made by the Māori Party. With respect, the comments by the Māori Party are incorrect; the Treaty provisions in this agreement are as good as they have been in any other agreement. There is no other country in the world that manages to secure the level of protection that we do for a founding document like the Treaty of Waitangi than New Zealand does. It was hard, hard fought to get in the first place and it is only defensible if it is carried on in identical form in every trade agreement. It cannot be reopened and won in any of them—so the member is incorrect on that. There is also additional protection for geographic indicators in this agreement because the Europeans are really into them. So if there was a geographic indicator—for example, to be attached to mānuka honey—that would be possible under this agreement in a way that would not be under many other agreements in the world.

In respect of the long journey to get to agreements like this, they take a long time—you’ve got to take the gap when it appears. The gap appeared in the period between 2017 and 2020. We tried to launch negotiations while Cecilia Malmström was a European Trade Commissioner. She was very supportive of the New Zealanders. We had a number of other countries who were wanting New Zealand to have a free-trade agreement with the European Union because of our shared values on many things, including environment and labour. Unfortunately, she couldn’t get it through the European Parliament by that time and it was handed to my colleague who took over as the trade Minister after I left.

Can I pay my accolades to the New Zealand trade team: one of the best trade teams in the world led by one of the best public servants in New Zealand: Vangelis Vitalis. We’re just so lucky to have him—so respected around the world, tough as old boots, but as principled as anything and really does a fantastic job for New Zealand to land these agreements. He, of course, was the witness for the Crown before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of complaints that were made about process in the trade division to the Waitangi Tribunal. Their report was a little critical, but it wasn’t hugely critical of the Government processes throughout.

The final thing I want to say is in respect of the consensus around trade. The consensus around trade frayed for two main reasons. One was disagreement around investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. Interestingly, ISDS clauses—where companies can sue Governments rather than Governments sue Governments under trade agreements—are becoming less popular in the world and it’s interesting that Europe agreed to no ISDS clauses in this agreement. It’s something that if the new Government and their future trade aspirations bring back ISDS clauses, there will be difficulty in New Zealand.

The other point that was to be made is in respect of investment protocols. It is fine for different political parties to have different views as to what investment controls ought to be on inbound investment. Where the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) went wrong was that the class of investments that could be screened for was closed by that agreement and therefore, after that agreement came into effect, New Zealand could not introduce any new areas of investment to be screened under our screening regime. It was a point of political controversy because, on this side of the House, we thought we should ban foreign buyers of residential land. We also thought there needed to be the ability of the Government to control inward investment in forestry, which also was not properly controlled under the old overseas investment regime.

If those two matters had not been concluded before the CPTPP came into effect, no future Government, in effect, could have controlled that, and it would have flowed into earlier trade agreements under most favoured nation clauses, which apply to investment protocols, not tariff levels.

So the current Government says that they’re going to change the screening regime in respect of inward investment in some asset classes. That’s within their power to do, but I would encourage them to do it in a way that doesn’t take the investment class out of trade agreements in a way that future Governments cannot put it in, because that too would cause a fracturing of the agreement that we have around trade investment. And, for the record, Tim Groser, in retrospect, agrees that under his watch investment protocols were taken too far in some of those trade agreements. I commend the bill to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): A pleasure to commend this bill, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, to the House. This is significant not just for our economy but, as we’ve heard, you know, $100 million in immediate savings. In particular, I want to acknowledge the contribution this makes to our horticultural industry, something that we have a lot of in the Ōtaki electorate—the farmers in Horowhenua, a $714 million industry, and for them that’s a $46 million saving immediately when this comes into force. It is right that we move with some haste to do this through the process, and I’m very supportive of the way that parties are joining together to see this progress because of the savings that will come.

I understand the importance of seeing this move through before the elections for the European Parliament. I can’t help but note that they start on 6 June, which, of course, is going to be the 80th anniversary of D-Day. While I want to acknowledge in a minute all those that have worked directly to see this free-trade agreement come to this point so it can enter into force, I can’t help but reflect that when we succeed we often do so standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. There are two generations of Kiwis that bled in Europe, that stood side by side with them in their darkest hours. We have memorials in this House for places like the Somme, for places like Passchendaele, for Fortress Europe. New Zealand has long had a strong relationship with Europe, and it is on that and the sacrifices that were made by this country that we are able to build this, and even today as we deploy soldiers offshore, that is a meaningful contribution that we build these trade relationships on. So I do want to acknowledge the history—the strong history, New Zealand has with Europe.

It’s very pleasing to see that we’ve got to this, a good solution—maybe not perfect, but good and meaningful. I do want to acknowledge those who have contributed to it, and we have heard comments reflecting the various Ministers on both sides of the House; I thank them as well. The European diplomats and officials that have worked from their side, and I note the speed at which it’s got through—I think this’ll be one of the first where we’re the last side to enter into force, or to ratify it so it can. But I want to also acknowledge those who worked directly towards it, and particularly, before I acknowledge the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials, can I just acknowledge those New Zealand Defence Force personnel in modern times that were over there, standing not just side by side with NATO and European countries in Afghanistan but, of course, in support to the invasion of Ukraine.

But to the MFAT officials that worked at it—I actually had the honour, the privilege of working in the embassy in Belgium for a few months while they were working on this. I wasn’t supporting the free-trade agreement—I was there in another capacity—but I saw the work, the determination, the perseverance, the skill that they put into their work, largely unseen; people that took their families overseas to serve far away from home in a different culture, across different languages, the pressures that that can put on families. It is great and worthy of our recognition, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic at the time; a lot of uncertainty, and I want to acknowledge them. In particular, can I just thank our ambassador to the EU, His Excellency Carl Reaich, for the work that he and his team did along with our ambassador to Belgium, Diana, along with Cameron, Emma, Megan, Emma, Chris from the Ministry for Primary Industries, and Clotilde and the many European citizens that we employ to work in our embassy but they work to serve New Zealand; they work tirelessly for New Zealand. Can I finish just by singling out—if I can single out one person from MFAT, maybe the unsung hero of this, Lucy Power. I saw firsthand just what she put into this—the work that went in. It’s a fantastic team that we have representing New Zealand. They work tirelessly. They don’t work for recognition; their natural style is not to seek the limelight or to have their name mentioned here, but they are worthy of our recognition, and I want to join in the earlier comments that commended the staff that worked on it and add their names to that list. They deserve it.

This is a significant step forward for our economy, this is significant for trade, it’s significant for farmers and, as I said, particularly horticulture, but it’s also significant for our relationship. It brings another layer to that longstanding relationship, over more than a century of us standing side by side with Europeans, working together, and a great step forward for the future. Can I join with all those speakers before me and commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to make a few comments about why this bill that we’re debating tonight is so important, but also to start by acknowledging the leadership of successive Ministers David Parker, Damien O’Connor, and now Todd McClay, and the fantastic team of trade officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade led by Vangelis Vitalis.

At one level—at a very simple level—it’s obvious that this trade agreement is good for New Zealand. The fact that there will be, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, $100 million in tariff savings from day one—that’s worth something. That’s worth something to our fantastic onion-growing industry who make a fantastic crop that they successfully sell into a number of international markets, and they will benefit significantly from that reduction in tariffs.

But, on another level, this agreement is a very important milestone in the progression of New Zealand’s foreign policy, of which trade is incredibly important. In the years after the Battle of Seattle in 1999, I was living in Washington, DC, working for a group of international NGOs, and one of the campaigns that I worked on was a global campaign of hundreds of NGOs and social movements to make trade fair. It was a global movement of people who felt that the juggernaut of neoliberalism—imposed, in many cases, through trade agreements—was incredibly unfair to people in developing countries; that the rich countries of the world were, yet again, rorting trade rules in their own interests; that farmers in developing countries, and in places like New Zealand, were hard done by North American and European protectionism; that intellectual property rules were locking up massive amounts of economic value to the people who developed their economies first; and that trade agreements were shutting down the policy space, preventing developing countries around the world from using the same economic policies and tools that every single wealthy and advanced country today used in order to spur its economic development in the earlier phases. The protests of those years—which went right through to the explosion of unrest against the Trans-Pacific Partnership—demonstrated that trade agreements had stretched to breaking point in public support for and consent for those trade agreements.

Twenty years after I was organising those demonstrations, I found myself as Minister for Trade and Export Growth in our Government here in 2020, welcoming a multi-party delegation of European members of Parliament who said that this EU - New Zealand trade agreement is gold standard. They said it was the best agreement that the EU had ever done, and they didn’t know of another trade agreement anywhere in the world that had achieved the kind of advances that this agreement did.

Here’s the problem. You can believe that trade agreements do stretch public consent for free trade to breaking point by doing those things that I mentioned. You can also believe and understand that this country is a trading nation—we would not exist, we couldn’t survive in the modern world, without open access to international markets. We cannot do otherwise. So that contradiction is one of the great challenges of our foreign policy. We have to find a way to navigate those two things: to pursue the material and economic interests of New Zealand and our great export industries while also doing the things that New Zealand needs. We need a Pharmac that can operate properly. We cannot cope with onerous intellectual property rules that the great, towering heights of international capital demand today. We need the policy space in this country to regulate in the public interest. So this is no mean political problem to be fixed.

I want to recognise the efforts of the Ministers who led this agreement, because it’s such an important milestone in navigating between those sharply competing interests, and finish by noting that this agreement has labour standards—it allows the EU and New Zealand to hold each other to account on our climate commitments, on animal welfare, on gender commitments through the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. There is a lot to celebrate in this agreement.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak on this bill, the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, and I’m very happy to be able to ensure, along with my colleagues, that the free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU is signed as soon as possible.

I’d like to commend the Minister for Trade, the Hon Todd McClay, in getting this free-trade agreement on to the work programme in such an expedient manner, and please can I also acknowledge everyone who has worked on this over the years since 2015. It certainly has taken a lot of work and there will have been an enormous number of people involved to get it to this point. It’s exciting to be part of the bipartisan approach to futureproofing our export sector. The free-trade agreement has the ability to transform our relationships with our trading partners across so many sectors, and it certainly is time to get this finished. Whilst it will be an incredible boost for many sectors, it’ll also provide an improvement to the returns of dairy and beef and lamb.

I want to take a little bit of a different approach, so I just thought it would be worthwhile remembering how this would affect some of the people who work in the primary industries and in the export sectors. I listened to our colleagues talk about the Māori effort that’s gone into the free-trade agreement. I think it’s worth remembering the enormous contribution that Māori agribusiness contributes to our sectors and how this will benefit them. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has done a wonderful graphic where they talked about all of the sectors within “ag” and “hort” and many others that will benefit from a free-trade agreement, and I think—certainly in my part of the country—that the free-trade agreement will benefit just about every single one of those businesses. In kiwifruit, in mānuka honey, in wine, in apples, in horticulture; red meat, dairy, fishing, everything you can think of. So I’m very pleased that the agribusinesses in both Māori and non-Māori sectors will all benefit from this. So it’s a very exciting and happy time for us.

Just in terms of some of the other responses that it’s worth thinking about, Horticulture New Zealand said in its submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that an agreement would reduce uncertainty in New Zealand exporters supplying EU markets and allow supply chain planning to be more effective without being forced to decide on shipping and supply during a short tariff-free window. Their thoughts were that this would allow New Zealand and European growers to partner more effectively to enable year-round supply of new, innovative, high-quality, and safe goods and services for EU consumers without prices being distorted by tariffs.

Under the free-trade agreement, New Zealand’s conditions of access will be significantly improved, with 91 percent of New Zealand’s current goods trade to the EU able to enter duty-free from day one. That is a significant benefit to us. This will rise to 97 percent after seven years, with estimated tariff savings exceeding $100 million from day one—the highest immediate tariff savings of any New Zealand FTA—growing to $110 million after seven years.

Zespri, another one of our organisations in horticulture that has a massive contribution, said that the agreement would benefit its sector by up to $46 million, which it paid out in 2022 in tariffs on $1 billion of exports. The free-trade agreement would have the ability to set Zespri up to provide more EU consumers with the highest-quality Zespri product and help deliver stronger returns for growers. That benefits all of us as we work towards it.

I would also like to just remind ourselves that it’s been a tough time in some of our regional communities in New Zealand, and a free-trade agreement such as this provides a glimmer of hope and a massive step forward for them. I’m really excited for many in my electorate of the East Coast because this free-trade agreement will represent just that in times that have been extremely tough in cyclone-battered communities and orchards and farms and fishing zones where loss of returns across two seasons—not just one—has led to significant wellbeing and financial difficulties.

So to have more certainty that tariff-free trade is available will provide hope and inspiration in a time that it is needed most in our regional communities. On that basis, I am happy to commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the report be noted.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question now is, That the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Instruction to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): I move, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill report to the House before 4 April 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time when the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The European Union have completed their process for the ratification of the free-trade agreement. Now it remains for this House to move through its obligation to do the same thing so that it can enter it into force. We believe that this should be done as quickly as possible, although are mindful that it is important that, through the select committee process, the public, and those of interest, have the opportunity to submit on the legislation and to appear before the committee.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has already given the public an opportunity to consider the free-trade agreement itself, in as far as a treaty examination is concerned. At this time, there are goods exported from New Zealand that are on the water, on their way to Europe. If we’re able to move through this process in a slightly faster time period than might normally be the case, those New Zealand exporters will benefit quickly from the tariff reductions that the free-trade agreement has. To give an example, there are probably tens of millions of dollars’ worth of tariff savings that New Zealand exporters would benefit from through the legislation being passed more quickly. Of course, New Zealand kiwifruit exporters to the European market are not far away from having to make decisions about sending their product to market. I think it would be a good thing for this House to be able to pass the legislation so it can enter into force.

Finally, there are elections coming up in Europe, in the European Parliament. Whilst they have completed their part of the process for entry into force, we would like to do that before the European Parliament elections take place, as it would mean, procedurally, implementation may be delayed. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 30 January.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedule 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Disestablishment of New Zealand Productivity Commission

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 12, the “Disestablishment of New Zealand Productivity Commission”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Madam Chair, thank you for the call. It feels like only yesterday we were here discussing this bill. I wanted to lament the fact that we didn’t quite get to cover off clause 7, which was the self-repealing part of it.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Wrong part.

JAMES MEAGER: I know. I’m lamenting the fact we weren’t able to cover that off. But we will move on to Part 2 and Schedule 2, which is, of course, the substantive part of the bill. The “Disestablishment of the New Zealand Productivity Commission” is the name of the part, and in terms of productivity, can I just give a nod to the Minister for Regulation, in clause 9, where the title of the clause is actually longer than the substantive part of the clause itself. Now, if that is not an example of productivity in legislating and drafting, I do not know what is. So I just wanted to commend the Minister and the drafters and everyone who worked on the bill for their efficiency and their productivity in putting that particular clause together.

Now, I do have a number of questions on this bill. Again, as we went through at length last night—and everyone was very enthusiastic late last night on this bill. But, of course, we do have clause 8, which is the repeal of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act itself, and that is probably the most substantive part of the bill. That is the part which does all the heavy lifting. It repeals the Act, or it disestablishes the Productivity Commission. It’s the reason why we’re here today. It’s the reason why we are debating this valuable bill, which is part of the Government’s 100-day plan of action.

Now, I’d like to ask the Minister a question about clause 8, and I didn’t know whether it was appropriate to ask in the first part or to ask during the second reading, but—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speak slower.

JAMES MEAGER: Sorry, what was that, Dr Webb?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speak slower—it will take longer.

JAMES MEAGER: Oh, Dr Webb is instructing me to speak slower. I think that comes from Dr Webb’s years and years and years and years of experience of public speaking, speaking in front of crowds, lecturing at a fine university—Canterbury University. It’s not the best one in the South Island, but close to it—at least in the top two. So I will take the member’s instruction and advice and speak slightly more slowly for the benefit of the member, who may be getting slightly tired at this time of night.

Now, I did have a question for the Minister on clauses 8 to 10, and, of course, clause 10 is the residual assets clause of the bill. Essentially, what this clause does is it vests the residual assets, liabilities, agreements, and leases in the Crown as assets or liabilities in the ministry. I just wanted to ask the Minister what kind of robust discussions and debates he may have had with the finance Minister on this, because, of course, you’re looking at vesting liabilities and assets in the Crown. That’s got to go some way towards the cost savings that we’re trying to get out of the disestablishment—

Hon David Seymour: That’s a second reading question, mate.

JAMES MEAGER: —of the Productivity Commission, and I’d like to ask him about that. It may be that these kinds of questions are something more appropriate for other parts and other stages of the House, but as we are here under a constrained sitting environment and we’re all new to the place, it would be great to get a little bit of generosity from the Chair when it comes to debating these kinds of bills.

So then we do have clause 10(2), which is about information held by the commission before it is disestablished also being transferred to the ministry, and there’d be some interesting questions there, I think, for the Minister around how does that work when we’re transferring information. I assume the normal privacy obligations apply when we’re going from a commission and transferring it to the ministry, which we talked about in the interpretation section—so just questions there about how does that work in terms of the privacy obligations of an organisation which is disestablished.

Information which is held and transferred—who has the obligations to notify anyone who holds personal information? Perhaps someone who’s had an interaction with the Productivity Commission in the past would like to make a personal information or a Privacy Act request. Who would they go to to ask that when the Productivity Commission is no longer with us, when it is passed by, and—

Hon David Seymour: That would be a residual liability.

JAMES MEAGER: It may be a residual liability, and I would really enjoy the Minister’s contribution and thoughts on that. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I can probably be a little more concise than the last speaker, James Meager. In clause 10(5), it talks about the completion of reports. Now, yesterday, the Minister for Regulation was very flattering of the work of the commission, and it’s pretty much obvious that there’s going to be a number of reports under way. The clause says that “the Ministry is not under any obligation to complete … reports”, but given that there will be reports in train, is it the case that the ministry will complete the work that the commission has under way?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you, Madam Chair. I say to the member James Meager from the Government benches that I’m happy to answer any questions he has, but, in the meantime, he’d probably be better to go and knock on the office door of Simon Court and get some advice on how to filibuster imaginatively.

In response to Dr Duncan Webb, if he was listening yesterday, he would have heard me say in answer to, funnily enough, Simon Court’s question that we expect the commission to wind up on 29 February. If you may recall, I pointed out that that was an interesting point because it’s a leap year and that the report that’s outstanding would be completed by 15 February.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in the second part of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill. I was listening from my office last night to this debate. It’s been great to hear some of the concerns that members have had and to hear that the Minister for Regulation reflects on past ACT positions and says that members should be willing to learn and grow from those past positions, and that is why we’re here today, to disestablish the Productivity Commission.

One of the questions that we heard last night and that we hear out there in the public domain—whether it’s on the blog sites or in the papers—is who will carry out the work of the Productivity Commission once it is disestablished, and so that is my question to the Minister today, which is to reassure the public that, actually, there is a huge body of independent organisations out there that will take up the mantle of the Productivity Commission, because we know it’s an important challenge this country faces. We know that since the 1960s, this country has had a lagging productivity growth rate compared to our international peers, which has led to the fact that any worker in New Zealand can go to Australia and earn, on average, 30 percent more income over there and that any worker can go to America and earn 35 percent more income in America. So that is, I think, a really important thing.

Here’s my reflection on that question, but I would like to hear the Minister’s reflections. It is that there are some fantastic organisations in New Zealand that do work on productivity: organisations like Motu, and I’d like to call out Phil McCann, an amazing professor who does work on the economic geography of this country, and who has done a huge amount of work to understand New Zealand’s geographical position and how it’s led to our low-productivity growth rates. There are places like the New Zealand Initiative: Oliver Hartwich and his team do a great job of understanding, particularly, the economic drivers around education, and financial markets as well. There are universities—and I’d like to call out my own professor, Tim Maloney from Auckland University of Technology and formerly from Auckland University, around labour economics, because, as we know, what drives productivity is finance, labour, and the meshing of those together. That’s called multi-factor productivity.

So that’s my question to the Minister. It is: who will take up the mantle of productivity in this country? There are other great organisations out there, organisations like the Treasury. The Treasury has done—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Talk about the bill.

DAN BIDOIS: —in the past, some incredible work, and I’d encourage the member opposite to read the Treasury’s papers on productivity, because they are possibly even better than the Productivity Commission’s papers themselves.

There are international organisations—places like the World Bank, the OECD, and the IMF. These organisations do an incredible amount of research on New Zealand’s productivity challenge and what we need to do to resolve that.

So that is the question that I think some of the left-wing blog sites and some of the left-wing papers, and some of the questions that are lingering in the minds of the public that I think the Minister ought to potentially address. My reflection is that there is actually a huge amount of people out there and bodies of organisations that will take up the mantle, and this organisation, although they’ve done some important work, their kaupapa—which is around improving productivity and understanding the key policies that will help to improve productivity in this country—will actually be taken up and adopted and delivered by other important people and organisations in the country.

So that’s my question to the Minister. He may wish to not answer, but we’d like to hear his answer on that question.

Stuart Smith: A substantive answer.

DAN BIDOIS: A substantive answer to Part 2. But I support this bill and I would like the Minister to address that question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I wasn’t going to take a call on this part of this silly and sad piece of legislation, but I’ve been inspired by the contribution from the member Dab Bidois, who’s just resumed his seat. So my question on Part 2 is with respect to clause 9. It’s a relatively simple question for the Minister for Regulation, and that’s “Why?”, because this is an organisation that was created at the behest of the ACT Party and that the Minister, in his first and his second reading speeches last night, told us had done good and excellent work, and yet he brings a bill to the House to disestablish it.

I still haven’t had an answer from the Minister that satisfactorily answers why clause 9 exists, and I guess that there’s a subpart. If “Why?” is not a simple enough question for the Minister, there is a subpart to this, which is to ask the Minister what other options he might have considered. For example, if his concern was, as he has publicly stated in the media, that the Productivity Commission had gone off-piste from where ACT would like it to be—obviously, I disagree with the premise behind that. But if that is the Minister’s concern, why did he not reappoint people that he considered would bring the commission back to where he felt it should be?

As everybody has said in the House over the last night and tonight, productivity and the challenge to New Zealand on productivity is decades long, very complex, and something that we all agree we need to do more about, and having an organisation whose job it is to take the big-picture view and to produce the reports that we can learn from is, presumably, a good thing. The Hon James Shaw last night offered the Minister a couple of other ways and pathways that he might be able to do this, including changing the legislation around how the Government needs to respond to a report of the Productivity Commission, thinking again about the kinds of inquiries it can do, who it can work with and indeed, as I say, who is appointed as commissioners.

So it is a fairly simple question for me. This is an absurd piece of legislation, and the best we’ve been able to get—

Carl Bates: That’s why we’re repealing it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, no, no, this—this—is an absurd piece of legislation, and it does strike me that the only credible thing that we’ve heard is that the Minister wants his vanity project with the ministry of regulation and the only way he could get that through was to sacrifice the Productivity Commission. If that is the case—and it does appear to be so—then that is why this is a very, very sad bill.

So that’s my quite simple question for the Minister. Why is clause 9 here, and what else did he consider that he could have done to achieve the goals he has whilst keeping in place a commission that works on the issue that virtually everyone in this House agrees we need to work on?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just graft on to what was said there by the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, because I, years ago, worked for the Law Commission, which is an independent organisation, and those kinds of independent organisations are really rich in having a focus and a capacity for people to engage with them. We heard speakers yesterday talk about how people did engage in a different way with the Productivity Commission and they said that they could do a much longer-term piece of work and they could do a much more specialist piece of work. Now, I can see the Minister for Regulation raising his eyebrows at one of the organisations which I have great respect for—from what I can see—so I would like to know how he intends to continue that tradition of independence if, in fact, when people say things he doesn’t like to hear and that don’t go along with his ideology, he is prepared to dismantle them.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I would like to respond to some of the contributions. I would answer Dan Bidois’ question. However, he gave such a lengthy answer himself, it hardly seems necessary.

In response to Grant Robertson, clause 9 is there to give effect to the policies that were agreed on in Part 2, and, as he says, it’s a very simple clause. It says, “The Commission is disestablished.”, so he should be able to work that out. As for a number of other comments that he made, I could engage with him on that, but it doesn’t really seem worth it. I could make similar comments about some of the characterisation and attacks from Helen White, but I don’t think that’s really necessary.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I wonder if I might talk a little bit about this, because we know—and the Minister for Regulation has been quite clear—that the Productivity Commission will be replaced by a ministry which he will be in charge of in respect of regulation, which he thinks will have some impact on productivity. I wonder if he might comment on the suggestion that he would much prefer to have a ministry which he can direct, rather than an independent commission over which he can’t control the opinions of.

It’s on the record that Mr Seymour has said that the Productivity Commission, he thinks, has been hijacked, and he said that on 5 September 2023. So it strikes me, Minister, that the real reason you’re abolishing the commission is because you don’t like its independent views, and, what’s more, the chair of the commission—you were unkind enough to say that you would not have appointed him. You said that on the same date.

Now, the Hon Grant Robertson has already pointed out that it’s open to you to make your own appointments to the commission. But I would ask you to respond to the fact that what you want is a little department all of your own where you can make sure you can control the opinions that come out of it, rather than have a thoughtful and independent organisation which can give genuinely independent insight into productivity in New Zealand.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, the debate on the title and commencement.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, we’ve obviously got the title there: Clause 1 Title, “This Act is New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Act 2024” but it doesn’t really give much away, does it? We know there’s a lot more going on under the surface. Perhaps the appropriate title for the Act—and we could always put an amendment on the Table—would be the “David Seymour Vanity Regulation Ministry Establishment Act”, because that’s what’s really going on here. Or maybe it’s the “We Don’t Want to Know Independent Opinion Act”, because that’s the other thing that’s going on.

It’s really disappointing that what we’ve got here is a piece of legislation where the National Party has allowed the ACT Party to shuffle off to one side an independent voice for the very thing that the National Party claims it’s in favour of, which is productivity. We heard a whole lot of kind of wandering speeches last night, with the general theme that the National Party is keen on better productivity and better industries, and, from the member for Tukituki, more apples, but overall and in general it seems to be that the National Party like the idea of an independent voice which enhanced productivity in New Zealand. But here what we have is the quashing of one of the independent, thoughtful voices we have in respect of productivity in New Zealand. So maybe this bill really should be the “ACT Party Wins Bill”, or, better still, the “ACT Party Wins Again Bill”, because that’s really what we’ve got going on here.

In terms of this bill being a simple repeal bill, it’s actually a lot more than that because it’s really—a better title might be the “Lack of Productivity Bill”, because that’s what’s going on here. The Productivity Commission—and we heard this time and time again yesterday—has done some fantastic work. Now, the real criticism was that Government wasn’t obliged to respond and pick up that work, but the fact of the matter is that it’s there and it’s a resource to be used, and it has to be said that Government—and Parliament as well—looked carefully at those reports and was challenged by them.

But we know that that party—the ACT Party—doesn’t like to be challenged, and the National Party likes to go along with the ACT Party. So maybe it should be the “Please Don’t Challenge Us Because It All Gets a Bit Awkward Bill”. But the real point I want to make here is that in this bill, the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill, there’s a lot more going on. What we have going on is the replacement of one ACT idea with another ACT idea, because the leadership has changed, and every ACT leader likes to leave a legacy. This ACT leader thinks that his legacy is going to be the “Kafka ministry”—I mean the ministry of regulation, which, no doubt, another ACT leader will come along and squash with another commission or ministry of some sort or other to leave their legacy as well. So, in terms of the title of this legislation, I put to the Minister, why doesn’t he call it what it really is: the “David Seymour Vanity Act”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I just want to focus and ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 2, the commencement clause. Noting that the Act comes into force on 29 February 2024—and it is a serious matter I want to raise with the Minister because he—

Hon David Seymour: You shouldn’t really say that.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, no, because the Minister hasn’t responded to any of my other questions. So, you know, I was trying to give him a guide to the fact I might want one after this—which is that he himself spoke about staff of the Productivity Commission in either the first or second reading speech last night. There is a group of highly specialised expert researchers who produce incredibly interesting and important work at the commission who go on 29 February under clause 2 and as a result of clause 11 that was within Part 2. So just to be clear for members, clause 11(2)—which we’ve already passed—says: “All employment and appointment positions with the Commission are terminated.”

I want some assurance from the Minister today about the process that is being used to work through with those staff. What then happens in clause 11(3) is that all responsibilities in relation to employment or appointment matters become the liability or the responsibility of the ministry—which is, we’ve learnt, the Treasury.

So my questions for the Minister are: what arrangements are in place to support those people to stay within the Public Service? And what support has been given to the Treasury who will now take responsibility for all of the outstanding matters? I would not be at all surprised if, in the course of just on a month, they may not be able to resolve all of the issues that exist around staffing or employment. These people have had their jobs ended unceremoniously through this Act of Parliament, and I think the Minister should stand up and tell us what is being done to support them and what is being done to work and support the Treasury in order for them to fulfil the roles that are given them in clause 11.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Cameron Brewer.

Hon Grant Robertson: Luxton.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Luxton, sorry.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Robertson. I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution at this late point of the committee stage, but I guess I would like to add my voice to the previous honourable member’s contribution asking the question “What are the provisions in place around the staff that are currently at the Productivity Commission?”

I do just have to note the incredible irony, but, in fact, it’s so fitting that it was a previous ACT Party coalition agreement that set up the Productivity Commission, back in the day when the ACT Party was more like a real libertarian party and cared about good governance instead of just representing billionaires. Back in the day, they actually believed in the possibility of an independent institution like a commission for productivity. But the sad truth is that, under the current leadership and direction of the ACT Party, they aren’t interested in things that would genuinely result in a more productive economy, because the things that result in a more productive economy—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter, this is a very narrow part of the bill. It is not the opportunity for a general debate comment. It is on the title and commencement. So at least, if you’re going to make those comments, make some attempt to relate them to the title and commencement, and then you may get some—

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for reminding me of that, because, as the Hon Duncan Webb was saying, it is quite possible that the more appropriate title would be a title that was making note of the fact that the current ACT Party is more interested in creating more direct Government bureaucracy that they can control in an autocratic way rather than having an independent commission that’s providing independent advice, because they don’t like that independent advice.

I do want to note, just as the Hon Duncan Webb did in his contribution on this part, that the Productivity Commission under the John Key years actually did produce quite a lot of very useful and important research. Because I haven’t had the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate, I’ll just put that out there now. I remember very well, between 2011 and 2017, there were fantastic reports coming out from the Productivity Commission, even though it was a John Key - led Government and Mr Seymour was involved in one of those Governments. But the Minister really should answer the very serious question about what provisions are being made for the people who will be unemployed as a result of this bill and this part, at the end of the month that starts tomorrow. And we haven’t heard that answer from the Minister.

So, as long as I have two minutes left in my contribution, I would very much like to point out that, overall, this is a fitting move for someone who doesn’t believe in having an independent Government institution at arm’s length from Government Ministers to provide actual relevant economic evidence that would support improving productivity in New Zealand, but rather create—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter, the fact that you haven’t contributed previously does not entitle you to actually make statements that are not pertinent to this very narrow part of the bill. So at least, in the time left to you, you may try to relate it to that particular part; otherwise, I’ll be asking you to sit down.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, again, we could talk about how the title of the bill, Mr Chair, could be something like the “Expanding Government Bureaucracy for the Purposes of the ACT Party Bill”, so that they can act on behalf of their 1 percent donors rather than actually doing something that would genuinely improve the productivity of this country. I think there are two points being made here. One is that the Minister has not risen to answer—and will not—the very relevant question put to him by two members now on this side of the Chamber. And the second point is simply that we could come up with a much more relevant title for this bill—one that points out the absolute hypocrisy of this fake libertarian Minister.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I just listened to that spewing of bile and all I thought is, “I hope they make her the next co-leader for the good of New Zealand.”!

I want to turn to the question from Grant Robertson in relation to those staff. What I will say is that when we decided to go down the track of disestablishing the commission, my initial and first instructions to the officials is that we would deal in a way that was respectful and accommodated the needs of staff and our obligations to them as a priority. I can understand people want to say, “Well, how has that gone?” I think it would be wrong for me to comment further when people are still undergoing, or may still be undergoing, negotiations and the like.

But I can assure the committee and the member that the way that we’ve gone about this is that some of my first words to the officials responsible for this policy process has been to accommodate those staff and their rights and the obligations to them. Those obligations, the member asked, will be passed over to the Treasury. Of course, if the Treasury indicates that it needs support in order to honour that commitment to those staff, then then we’ll ensure that we do that.

However, I also just make the point that if they’re very talented people—and I agree that they are—then I think they’re going to be just fine. I also want to use one of the last opportunities in the debate to thank those people for the excellent work that they’ve done to date and remind people that that work will be available in perpetuity. I think it’s time for Governments to implement a bit more of it rather than commission more of it.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the question be—actually, I’m just reminded, because no one else took a call, we’ll go straight into the vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill currently seeks to amend the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act 2019 to delay the repeal of the experience pathway for social worker registration from 28 February 2024 to 28 February 2028. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will act as a short-term mechanism to help reduce workforce pressures in the social work sector by continuing to provide an alternative means of entering the profession. We believe this is a common-sense change that the House should support.

The coalition Government recognises that social workers play a critical role in our communities. They provide essential front-line services to vulnerable New Zealanders. Recently, and more so than ever, social workers have been critical in supporting New Zealanders. Social workers have been crucial in the very challenging times that we’ve experienced in recent years, including weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle and extensive flooding around the country. This Government is committed to supporting earlier interventions, which are more effective for those who are most at risk. Social workers play an important role in helping to achieve this by providing vital support and assistance to a range of New Zealanders.

The Social Workers Registration Act 2003 sets out occupational regulations for social workers. These regulations protect the safety of members of the public by ensuring that social workers are competent to practise and are held accountable, while also enhancing the professionalism of social workers.

There are two pathways for registration currently: the qualification pathway and—the alternative—the experience pathway. Registration provides the basis for determining the safety of social workers to practise. Both pathways require an initial competency assessment and a fit and proper person test. Once registered, further assurance is provided by the accountability and oversight mechanisms that come with registration.

To be eligible for registration, applicants must have a qualification prescribed by the Social Workers Registration Board. However, section 13 of the Social Workers Registration Act of 2003 provides this alternative experience pathway to registration for people who have had extensive practical experience but who do not have the prescribed qualification. Instead of demonstrating their competence by having a prescribed qualification, this experience pathway allows applicants to satisfy the Social Workers Registration Board of their competence based on their significant practical experience. Some of this includes having enough practical experience to compensate for not having a prescribed qualification—usually 10 to 15 years—having demonstrable competence to practise as a social worker, having demonstrable competence in working as a social worker with Māori and various ethnic and cultural groups, and meeting the fit and proper person requirement.

Initially, registration for social workers was voluntary; however, in February 2021, registration became mandatory. The intent of mandatory registration of social workers is to ensure the safety of the public, and this of course remains paramount.

In 2017, Cabinet agreed to repeal the experience pathway with a delayed commencement date. The decision was made to support the professionalism of the social work sector by emphasising and standardising the workforce through academic achievement. This was underpinned by an assumption that there would be sufficient supply to meet future demand for social workers. The need to support the professionalisation of the sector remains paramount. However, the operating environment for social workers has changed since this decision was taken in 2017. More time is now needed to aid the sector to transition to a mandatory qualification setting due to the social worker shortages that we currently face.

This bill will support the social worker sector to respond to these changes by allowing people to continue to register as social workers through the experience pathway on a temporary basis. In particular, social worker workforce shortages have continued to increase. There has also been an increase in the demand for social work services due to the impacts of COVID-19 and the recent weather events that I referenced before, alongside a reduction in supply due to decreasing student enrolment.

The Social Workers Registration Board estimate that there are 700 unfilled social worker vacancies. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will act as a short-term mechanism to help reduce workforce pressures in the social work sector by continuing to provide this alternative means of entering the profession. I also expect that the sector will continue to take additional steps to address the current workforce shortages. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will also enable the social work sector to maximise the opportunities presented by the recent pay increase for social workers. These increases provide a financial incentive for those who are currently unregistered practitioners to register as social workers through the experience pathway. Increasing the number of practitioners captured by the accountability mechanisms that come with registration will enhance public safety and accountability.

There has also been a growing recognition in recent years of the importance of diversifying the social work sector to better serve the communities most effectively who meet their needs and aspirations. The experience pathway is a key avenue for supporting this. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will ensure that this mechanism for entry into the social work sector remains open while longer-term work to consider alternative entry pathways into social work is undertaken.

I wish to put on record my thanks to the Social Services and Community Committee for its work on considering the bill. The committee’s scrutiny reinforced the importance of the safety mechanisms that come with registration for social workers, including those registered through the experience pathway. It is important that all people who interact with social workers can be assured that the service they receive is from a competent, fit, and proper practitioner.

I also want to thank the members of the public and of the social work sector who provided both written and oral submissions on the bill. I want to provide them with my heartfelt thanks for the tremendous time and effort they’ve put in not just to contributing their expertise to this amendment—the work that they do each and every day—but also to the development of the entire registration system for social workers. As a member of that select committee in the previous Parliament, I have seen how committed the profession is to ensuring the best possible outcomes for New Zealanders.

Many of these submissions supported the intent of the bill, including the need to increase the supply of social workers to meet the growing demand. I note that the select committee recommended no changes to the bill. However, I do acknowledge that some submitters had concerns with delaying the repeal of the experience pathway, particularly regarding the potential impact on public trust and confidence in the social work profession if the delay was too long. I recognise these concerns and appreciate the constructive feedback. These concerns have reinforced the need to take a broader look at the social work sector, including entry pathways.

I also note the recommendations that submitters made on the bill—including one from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers—that the repeal of the experience pathway be delayed by only two years as opposed to four years, which was proposed in the bill. This recommendation will balance the needs of the sector to support the supply of social workers in the short term while also emphasising the need to transition to a mandatory qualification environment as quickly as possible. This recommendation is a key consideration for the next steps of progressing the bill.

I intend to propose an update to the bill and table a change at the committee of the whole House stage to shorten the time frame of the delay of the experience pathway repeal. I consider that this would balance the benefits of extending the experience pathway while maintaining the emphasis of transitioning to a mandatory qualification environment as soon as possible.

I would like to finish by speaking directly to the social work representatives who have contributed to the development of this bill. You provide an invaluable service, and I thank you for the outstanding contribution you make.

I look forward to seeing this bill through the remaining stages of the parliamentary process, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): It’s always good when there’s a piece of legislation in the House that we actually agree on, and this certainly is one. I have had the privilege of being an Opposition MP working with our social workers association and social workers across the country, and hearing from them, as well as our Māori social workers association and hearing from them.

The background to this particular bill that we are working with and now looking to change is actually back to when we were in Opposition, when I introduced a member’s bill to this House to make registration for social workers mandatory. It wasn’t supported by the Government at the time, but then the Minister went on to introduce legislation and then, interestingly, we took office, and then I was the one that got to shepherd that legislation through. So I was part of pulling this together, and it has been a privilege, but it was the voice of social workers and our amazing iwi and NGO organisations out there that helped to lead to mandatory social worker registration in the first place. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t changes that need to be made along the way, and this, tonight, is a reflection of a change that needs to be made. That is informed by the reality for social workers that are working out there, and also some of the changes that have been made over the course of the last few years.

The bill, as the Minister for Social Development and Employment has said, is a bill that looks to extend the period of time where we allow for the experience pathway to lead to the qualification that is required and registration for those working as social workers or in social worker roles to actually have their registration acknowledged and formally recognised in terms of registration. There’s a number of reasons that have been noted by the Minister that I think are worth reiterating for why we had to extend that period. The bill itself says it is for four additional years. It was interesting this evening to hear from the Minister that she is intending to reduce that period of time—that extension—to two years. That is certainly something that we have not had brought to our attention and that we will need to consider before we get to committee stages. But the gist of it in terms of what we have in front of us for the four-year extension is certainly something that not only did we support and bring to this House but that we continue to support now.

There’s a number of reasons why we need the extension for those that need the experience pathway. I need to acknowledge that our social workers—the ones that are registered—do an amazing job. But there are a number of other people that are working in our social services, in our iwi services, for our Pacific organisations, and for other social service organisations who don’t have a social worker qualification, necessarily—or maybe they do, but they do not have registration—who, potentially, should be granted that through this particular pathway of experience. But there are things that have happened over recent years that lend ourselves to the opportunity to actually extend that period of time for them to be able to access that pathway.

The first is workforce supply of social workers. We have to acknowledge that there has been a decline of people taking up this opportunity to become social workers, going back, I think, to 2015, and so we are not meeting the current demand and trends are expected to continue. We need to recognise that there are people working in these organisations who actually have the skills and have the ability to become registered social workers, but who need a pathway to be able to do that and haven’t been able to do that yet. So that is why we want to support the extension of the pathway.

Also, we’re acknowledging that the pay equity extension creates opportunities for the sector through the experience pathway. In November 2022, the Cabinet of our Government at the time agreed to extend the social worker pay equity settlement across the Government-funded sector. The pay equity extension will apply to non-governmental organisations receiving funding from Government agencies for social work services. The pay equity extension will lift the pay of around 5,000 employees. This is actually likely to create an incentive for the many other people who are doing substantially similar work to social workers to apply for higher-paid social worker roles. They will need to be registered to work in these roles, and this is likely to drive an increase in demand for the experience pathway over the coming years. That settlement was only achieved in 2022, and so that will drive the demand for people seeking that experience pathway.

So it is important to acknowledge that that particular change actually is an impetus for us to extend the experience pathway to becoming a registered social worker. The pay equity extension also helps to correct disparities in access to professional development between Government and NGO employees and to remove some of the cost barriers of maintaining registration.

One of the things was that, actually, some of the opportunities were only provided—particularly with respect to pay—to social workers that were working for Oranga Tamariki as opposed to social workers that were working for iwi organisations and other social organisations, or NGOs, outside of Oranga Tamariki. That correction was the right thing to do, which we did in November 2022, and so it is important to recognise that that will create the impetus for them to actually go for the experience pathway.

There has also been a growing recognition of the value of indigenous practice in social work and the need for an inclusive and culturally representative workforce. There has been an increasing recognition of the value of indigenous te ao Māori practice in social work, which the experience pathway supports.

I think that we can all acknowledge in this House that the reality is that, far too often, many of the whānau who have to access this support or who are accessing the support of organisations that provide the type of social support that we are talking about are actually Māori, and there are many valuable people that have been working in the social sector for many years who potentially don’t have the qualifications, nor are they registered. However, they definitely have the skills to be able to deliver to the whānau and the communities that we’re talking about. So this extension of four years will allow them to continue to practise, and we certainly would not want to see a gap where they are no longer able to—particularly in light of the fact that we already have workforce shortages—whilst being able to pursue that pathway to being able to become registered social workers.

It was good to hear the Minister actually acknowledge the value of our Māori social workers and those that are working in the social sector, what they bring, and the fact that they should be allowed to have a pathway whereby their experience leads to them being able to become registered social workers, and so we support that. I’m not sure how we feel about the reduction from four years to two years, because that is the first time that we’ve heard that, and that is something on which we will need to go out and consult more broadly with those affected directly.

But we do support the bill, and I do want to acknowledge all of our social workers, our social services, our iwi organisations, our Pacific organisations, our ethnic community organisations, and our disability organisations, who often are the front line where these social services and social workers are working, particularly in light of the recent events in our history. Whether it be Cyclone Gabrielle, whether it be the Auckland floods, whether it be the cost of living crisis, or whether it be the COVID pandemic itself, they have been in overdrive in recent years. They have been the front-line people that have stood up to support our vulnerable families at a time when they needed that support more than ever.

But regardless of whether or not we’re facing a pandemic or whether or not we have other weather-related events—and, unfortunately, that is likely in light of what is happening with climate change—they will be needed, and we continue to absolutely respect the work they do. This piece of legislation itself is just a piece of legislation that safeguards us moving forward to ensure that we have the workforce we need for those vulnerable communities. We support it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge that the select committee stage of this bill was in the last term, and I want to pay tribute to the former members of the committee—particularly those who are not joining us in this term—for the mahi that they did in getting us to this stage.

As has been canvassed by previous speakers, the experience pathways have been really, really important in diversifying our workforce and getting a broader range of experiences, as well as indigenous models of practices. That can only be a good thing because it has been acknowledged, again, by many—including in the select committee stage—that we do have a shortage of social workers and that we’re living in an equality crisis and we’re living in a climate crisis, where the type of work that social workers do is desperately needed. There’s also a recognition that there needs to be continuous improvements to the training and education pathways of social workers to ensure that they’re equipped with the tools to meet the diverse range of needs across our communities.

I say this as somebody who, prior to being an MP, used to be a field educator for social workers. It was really clear how people coming into Auckland Action Against Poverty, which was my previous place of work, would be social workers who, for example, didn’t have experience navigating the ins and outs of Work and Income and they didn’t come equipped via those education pathways to actually understand how to support people to get those basic legal entitlements, yet we had people with either lived experience of advocacy or lived experience of living on a benefit and doing all the types of social work - like work, who would have those skills. Those skills and that knowledge should actually be recognised, and I think, if anything, the institutions that we have that help formally train our social workers through those more traditional pathways should be thinking how we can have fit for purpose traditional pathways in those four years that this bill is aiming to propose to continue enabling the experience pathways.

So, with that, I want to pay again an acknowledgment and a tribute to iwi front-line services, NGO services, Pasifika-led services, our migrant community - led services, and disabled people’s services for the work they do in enhancing social work altogether, because having a social worker doesn’t have to be just a one-way street. I think social workers can play a role in embedding competent solidarity, for example, in the people that they walk alongside with. It’s not just about the social workers holding the knowledge of how to navigate institutions for themselves but, rather, imparting it as well to the people that they work with, and I’ve been quite intentional in not using the word “clients”, for example, in the language that I’ve used because I think we also need to move away from that.

So what this bill will do, and what we canvassed in the select committee, were the pros and cons against the four-year extension. I want to acknowledge that there are tensions around the concerns that exist around the quality of the profession, should we continue extending this pathway. But I think those concerns can only be met if the Government of the day is actually resourcing the institutions that help train those social workers, because we cannot put concerns on the table, particularly from the Government side, relating to the quality of social workers that we’re training without acknowledging that without adequately resourcing our tertiary education institutions and by not also, for example, bridging the gap of unpaid labour that many social workers who are training do and acknowledging that the expectations on them to provide unpaid labour have an impact on the types of social workers we then have through those traditional pathways—actually, the experience pathway provides a really, really important bridging tool for those people for whom, because of those socio-economic barriers, the traditional pathways may not be accessible.

That was something I noticed as a field educator: how those coming through the tertiary education institutions actually would have to balance the needs of having to fulfil their placements with their having to potentially work multiple jobs to make ends meet. So if the Government is eager to address current workforce demands, in diversifying the workforce, and in having level incomes for all—but I think one of the places we can start is with the social workers that we’re training—it would be a really, really good and useful place to start to address those concerns, and then not just have these concerns being put in this place without other sources of action.

I am interested in the Minister’s comments around the proposal to modify the four-year extension, and perhaps looking at a different model around that. I think if the deadline is going to be changed once again, our expectations would be—and we also look forward to scrutinising the Minister in the select committee about what other plans she’s got in relationship to supporting those traditional pathways and boosting those. I think we do need to allow that unpacking to happen in the committee of the whole House stage, as this bill—it doesn’t exist in isolation, right? It’s a bill that ultimately is connected to other institutions and to other policy levers that ultimately affect the type of people that go in to do social work.

With that, I’d like to finish by thinking of all the people whose lives were literally saved by social workers. I know the previous speaker mentioned the recent floods, but I think that, for many people, being able to have a social worker in a time of crisis would have been the difference in accessing legal entitlements, such as the civil defence payment. For people facing violence, having a social worker is often the key to navigating really, really complex support services. So I urge all of us to think carefully of how we move forward as this experience pathway will inevitably come to a close, whether it’s by the four years proposed in the bill as it stands or via a reduction of that time, so that our communities have the support they deserve.

I think, finally, it’s worth acknowledging that much of the reason why social workers are in such high demand is because of the systems that we’ve built to create that demand. So if we don’t address poverty-level wages, high rents, and difficult-to-navigate institutions, the demand for social workers will only continue to be needed, and these experience pathways will continue to, unfortunately, be critical, because the systems we created are failing our communities.

Laura Trask: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Are you seeking the call?

Laura Trask: I am indeed. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Laura Trask—just stand and seek the call. That’s the way we do it. Thank you.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): OK, great—no worries. Social workers improve our lives and support our communities. The current workforce is wearing the burden of their lack of staff and increasing demand. I know our party did have some concerns initially about this bill, mainly because the programme has been open for some time and the gold standard is now to have a Bachelor of Social Work.

We don’t believe that this pathway is actually the answer to this shortage, mainly because only 3 percent of social worker registrations are actually using this pathway. An extension from two years instead of the four seems more practical to address some of the industry shortages that we do have currently, but we must focus on providing more social workers, and this is something the industry has to address.

I’m actually really happy that I heard from this Government that they will be addressing this. We can’t just have solutions that have no real answers to the problem, and there is this dire shortage that has gone on for far too long. With that, our party supports this bill. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I’m really pleased to see the wide support for this piece of legislation. I think it’s a very, very sensible amendment bill. I think there’s a very clear direction of travel, which is to say that we want our social workers to be more highly qualified. As I read it, the qualification that’s being required right across the country is a bachelor-level degree and, of course, it takes a little bit of time to get one of those. However, it’s equally clear that we are short of social workers at the moment, and, if this legislation is not passed, we’re going to have a group of social workers—and I hear it is 3 percent of the social workers who are practising at the moment—who are no longer going to be able to practise as of four weeks from today, so I think there is some incumbency on us to get this job done fast.

If we did not do that, that would mean that there will be a number of people who would no longer be able to work. We’ve heard that many of those may well be in the Māori and Pasifika community. That would be wrong. Secondly, it will break some existing relationships between social workers and their clients, and, of course, it will penalise those staff members.

I think we should also recognise that there are a lot of great people who are doing great work and they just don’t necessarily have qualifications. I must say, I was interested to hear the Minister saying they have 10 to 15 years of experience in some of these some cases, and you say, “Well, 10 to 15 years of experience—how does that stack up against a qualification learning about experience for three years?” Now, we all love university degrees, but is that the right way of travel?

Of course, you’ve got the safeguard there which is the safeguard of the registration board. If the registration board says, “Hey, look, you’ve been doing this for 10 to 15 years. We don’t think you’re safe. We don’t think you’re any good at doing it. No, you’re not going to be registered any more.”, well, so be it. But if after 10 to 15 years they’re doing a great job, why would you do that to them?

So I think it makes complete sense to give them as long as possible time to at least do the retraining. If it’s a three-year process and they’re only just starting on that journey now and you cut them off for two years, how’s that going to work out? We will just lose some people and penalise some people, and I wonder whether we need to do that.

As I said, the safeguard is there. I think this is a very sensible piece of legislation. I’m not going to take any more time over this one, but I’m pleased to see the bipartisan support, and I hope that what we are going to do is we’re going to give those people who are doing a great job for our community—for some of the people who really need that social work support—the time to do whatever qualification they need to do to be able to carry on with the job that they clearly love doing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a split call: Te Pāti Māori and Green.

Hon Marama Davidson: Oh, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ah, the Hon—

Hon Marama Davidson: Marama Davidson.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): —Marama Davidson.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I apologise. I’m catching from the Speaker himself some of his disease—I’ll blame him!

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: We’re here to help, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. On that note, I back myself to stand up and make a contribution to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. I haven’t been part of the select committee process and the following of the bill to this point, but I am really pleased to be able to offer my perspectives on the value of social work and on why the Greens are supporting the delay of the repeal, by bringing through some of the community stories and social work through my role as violence prevention Minister, which I was very privileged to have over the past three years.

I understand that what we are, essentially, trying to do here is find an intentional balance between making use of the incredible experience and heart that is across our communities, on many different levels, who want to do the essential work of social work while maintaining a pathway towards professionalising and, most importantly, ensuring that it is safe practice. As a violence prevention Minister, I understood deeply the importance of safe practice and the consequences and ongoing harm when social work practices, or when any practices of working with whānau and people who need support, are not safe and how that can actually add further harm and actually add further negative consequences, not just for any individuals but for wider whānau.

So this is what I understand this bill is trying to get a sense of and balance that intentionally, in this second reading. [Interruption] Am I OK here, Mr Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, it’s just that the Hon Marama Davidson now has an extra seven minutes because that becomes a 10-minute call—

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Oh, I see.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): —and it’s a good excuse to get your name exactly right, too.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Well done on being opportunistic there—thank you. I was talking about how I’m so glad to see that we are all supporting this. This feels fairly cross-party political pragmatism here, where we can all authentically see the value of this intentional balance, so that we can ensure we are supporting the gifts that are there in our communities right now but who—as many others of you have already outlined—may not have so far yet had the privilege or the benefit of a professional pathway.

So to some stories to illustrate why the Greens are particularly supportive of this legislation. Over the past few years, all of us in our communities have seen firsthand the impact of increasingly detrimental weather due to climate change, not the least those on my East Coast whakapapa side—all up Ngāti Porou, Whānau-ā-Apanui, and Kahungunu, of course—and also up in my Ngāpuhi and Hokianga whakapapa side, who also experienced firsthand some of the most devastating impacts of those crises. When our communities are flooded, when we’ve lost power, when people’s health is ill, and when people have passed from these events, the extra stressors that are likely means that we require help.

Now, violence is never ever OK. Unfortunately, extra stressors can lead to increased violence and increased harm for people, for families, if we haven’t wrapped around the support in those times of crisis. It is social workers across the country, social workers who have the relationships and connections in their community, social workers who are trusted on the doorsteps and in the lounges and the garages of whānau who may not be trusting anyone else, and social workers who have a whakapapa presence and connection. I really want to acknowledge Minister—oh sorry, the former Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who is no longer a Minister, for highlighting particularly iwi Māori and Pasifika agencies, and my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March, who outlined the need to ensure we have social workers who reflect the communities and the experiences, especially those who most require the support in those challenging times.

I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears firsthand, and heard the stories of families who have been helped by social workers who otherwise may not have acquired the full, necessary professional qualifications at this point in time, and I want to put a word in. I’ve heard us thankfully acknowledge disabled people, Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic groups who absolutely must have social work practices that are safe and relevant and appropriate for their experiences.

So too can I include men who are working with men to ensure that they are living violence-free lives. Many of the men who are doing this work have lived lives using violence. They have, very often, come from prison and have spent time in prison and have absolutely not had the benefits—this stigma—or the opportunity to attain full professional qualifications. But I implore this House to understand that often it is only their experience that can cut through to other men who are using or have used violence and who are needing that lived experience to feel that their voice is relevant, that their experiences are understood, and that it is a non-judgmental but fully accountable pathway to eliminating violence from their lives and from their realities.

The majority of those social workers have not yet been able to acquire social work professional practice. I absolutely implore and commend this House for recognising a balance and delaying the repeal of the former pathways so that we can ensure we are not losing the essence and the treasure that is this very work—the very work that is going to ensure that we can fully eliminate violence in the next generations.

For this reason, I acknowledge my colleagues across the House who have highlighted the common sense of this legislation. I put on to the record the very stories and the experiences that I have had the benefit of seeing and hearing from firsthand, which are that in many situations, men who have used violence have had the most positive experience for healing and restoration when they have been supported to work with other men who have had those same experiences. When they can immediately remove any fear of stigma and judgment, that’s not removing accountability. Accountability is even stronger when you have had men who have used violence, who have then been able to be supported to be healed, and so I really was looking forward to putting that example on the floor. We are proud to support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): It’s a pleasure to be able to stand in support of a non-contentious piece of legislation, and something that is clearly needed and necessary. I just want to walk through the Social Workers Registration Act of 2003 at the start, which was set up to make sure that social workers—who were dealing with their very vulnerable clientele, the people of the public that they needed to serve—were fit to practise and accountable. The Social Workers Registration Act 2003 was established for that main purpose: for the protection of the public that they needed to serve. The corollary to that was the enhancement of the integrity and professionalism of the social work profession.

Along with the establishment of the Social Workers Registration Act, what was also established was the Social Workers Registration Board, which oversaw the process of registration for social workers. Registration, then, had two pathways: the first was through gaining recognised qualifications, and the second, which was provided by section 13 of the Act, was the opportunity to become registered using significant experience in lieu of recognised qualifications. So there are very many practitioners of social work who are out there spending a big amount of their time and their lives extending the kind of work that they do for so many.

In February 2021, the requirement to be registered became mandatory, so everybody needed to be registered. It is important to point out that the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act 2019 provided for the repeal of section 13 of the Social Workers Registration Act, which allowed for experience in lieu of recognised qualifications as a pathway for registration. So the repeal was to take place this year, on 28 February, and that would have completely removed the opportunity for registration other than recognised qualifications.

It is worthy to note that from 2019, over 4,000 social workers who registered were registered under the recognised qualification pathway, and less than 100 registered under the experience in lieu pathway. I think that there is still work to be done in the space of understanding why that is and why there is a need for that. I can’t imagine why this hasn’t been taken up on a much larger scale, because I personally know so many social workers who are out there doing work and I know that some are still not registered.

So there is some work that needs to be put into understanding what the barriers are for becoming registered, even when there are already recognised qualifications for some who have finished social work qualifications but do not become registered. Then there are those who’ve been working in social work jobs but who also do not become registered.

Now, the extension that this legislation, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill, makes, which is an extension of four years, is an encouragement. It’s a call for people to take on the path, which is something that I would probably be shouting from the rooftops and getting the word out that people should take advantage of. There is the flip side of a delay of four years, casting the possibility of doubts on the service of social workers. Hence, I do support Minister Upston’s idea to shorten the extension from four years to two. It is still giving people the opportunity to get on and become registered. I absolutely support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption the next sitting day. This House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.