Wednesday, 14 February 2024

WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2024

WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Visitors

Germany and Nepal—Parliamentary Delegations

SPEAKER: Members, we have two delegations from other Parliaments here today. I’m sure members will want to welcome, from the German Bundestag, members of the German-Pacific Parliamentary Group, led by Filiz Polat, and the Hon Narayan Prakash Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, and his accompanying delegation, who are all present in the gallery.

Speaker’s Rulings

Content of Answers

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday I indicated that I’d respond to a point of order from Ricardo Menéndez March. I want to affirm Speakers’ ruling 205/5, “Ministers should not commence an answer to a question with a political attack on the person asking a question.” I’ll watch for it in the future, and members are always able to raise a point of order if they think this has occurred.

Appointments

Assistant Speaker

SPEAKER: Members, we’re short of a presiding officer this week, believe it or not. Having discussed it with the member, I wish to seek leave for the Hon Jenny Salesa to be appointed an additional Assistant Speaker until 6 p.m. on Thursday, 15 February, despite Standing Order 29(1). Any objections? There is none. Congratulations, Jenny.

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

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

SPEAKER: There have been no petitions delivered. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

2022-23 annual report for the New Zealand Conservation Authority

2022-23 actuarial valuation of the Government Superannuation Fund Authority

Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2023.

SPEAKER: There are no select committee reports. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—RMA Reform

1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What progress, if any, has been made on policy decisions for the proposed fast-track consenting reforms?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): A lot.

Hon James Shaw: Very good. Has the list of projects that will be contained in the bill that will be first to be approved been decided upon by Ministers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Hon James Shaw: Were any of the projects that are on the proposed list proposed to him by the Minister for resources and regional development?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are a range of proposals that are being proposed. Cabinet will be deciding on the listed projects in the bill in due course, and when the bill is ready to go, that member will be one of the first to know.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why don’t you answer the question?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I did. I just did.

Hon James Shaw: Does the proposed list of listed projects in the bill include any coal mines?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I say, there are a range of projects that have been proposed and are being proposed, but we are going through a process around the development of the bill now. What I’ve outlined to the environmental movement, what I’ve outlined to local government, and what I’ve outlined to a range of stakeholders is the broad, high-level framework of what Cabinet has agreed, and the finer details of the bill are being worked through as we speak. As the member knows, it’s a part of the Government’s 100-day programme of action, so in due course—not too many sleeps to go—he will find out what the fast-track consenting bill looks like.

Hon James Shaw: Well, as part of the process that he’s just outlined, has a climate—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. Don’t talk when someone is asking a question.

Hon James Shaw: As part of the process that he’s just outlined to the House, do the projects that are being included in the bill—has there been a climate impact assessment done for those projects?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re not at the point where that would take place yet, and Ministers will be taking advice about the appropriateness of that in due course.

Hon James Shaw: Has he sought assurances that the projects that are being considered for inclusion in the bill are not connected to any people or companies that have made substantial donations to any of the coalition parties?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, but that member will know from his time as a Minister in the previous Government that all Ministers are subject to Cabinet Act processes around things like he is describing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. There is a trend in that sort of question to make an allegation without one skerrick of evidence and think you can get away with it in this House. If that’s what that member wants, then he’s come to the right place, because you’re not going to put up with those lies anymore.

Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no—I’m not taking any more on that. It was an interesting point of order, pointing out there were veiled threats from one side only for the point of order itself to contain a less than veiled threat, so we’ll move on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Moving on. Question No. 2.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Completely different point of order?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, relating to—

SPEAKER: It’s not a day to come close. Is it new?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, point of order. There has been a lot made in this House over the last few months about the use of the term “lying”, and in that statement just then from the incoming Deputy Prime Minister, the statement “lie” was used in relation to the Hon James Shaw.

SPEAKER: I’ll review it and consider it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I speak to the point of order? It is simple: there is a requisite under the electoral law of this country for declarations to be made. Those declarations have been made. The Electoral Commission has not challenged it, nor has anybody else. So what’s happening in this House? It has to be that or plain ignorance. Take their choice.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry; this is not going anywhere. James Shaw, do you have another supplementary?

Ricardo Menéndez March: I have a new point of order—it’s unrelated.

SPEAKER: OK. Try hard and try to be different.

Ricardo Menéndez March: No, but I did want to raise the point that particularly around Speaker’s ruling 24/2 regarding constantly raising trifling points of orders, it’s itself disorderly, and the Acting Prime Minister has, in my view—and I’m just asking the Speaker to reflect on the fact that throughout the passage of this Parliament, I think there have been constant points of order that have been raised that I would say are within the nature of that. I’m concerned about what that sets in terms of precedent of trying to raise points of order in a way that is constructive.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that.

Question No. 2—Finance

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I wish you a happy Valentine’s Day. I’m sure you were hoping to hear that from me.

SPEAKER: We’ll move now to question No. 3!

TIM COSTLEY: Like so many women in my past.

2. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on Government spending?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I said yesterday, I received Treasury’s briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM) and it made for sober reading. It told me that core Crown expenses have increased markedly since 2017, peaking at 35 percent of GDP in the 2021-22 fiscal year, which is the highest rate in New Zealand in decades.

Tim Costley: What has been the change in core Crown revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury’s BIM told me that in 2021-22, core Crown tax revenue was also the highest as a percentage of GDP for many years—not surprising, as personal income tax rates and thresholds have not been adjusted for 14 long years.

Tim Costley: What have these changes meant for the operating balance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government operating balance is the difference between what the Government receives each year and what it spends. Core Crown expenses are higher than core Crown revenue and have been rising faster, meaning that the Government is in deficit. In fact, the Government has been in deficit since 2019.

Tim Costley: Is the Government deficit due to COVID?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A good question. While temporary factors such as COVID and the North Island weather events have certainly contributed to the weak fiscal position, much of the operating deficit is structural, which means the Government would still be in deficit even if the economy was operating at its potential. In fact, Treasury’s BIM tells me that after stripping out large one-off expenditures like COVID and after adjusting for the economic cycle, the Government is currently running a structural deficit of around 2 percent of GDP, largely because of growth in Government spending. That is the mess Labour has left us in.

Question No. 3—Child Poverty Reduction

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: What advice has she received on the likely impact on child poverty of the Government’s policies?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government receives a wide range of advice on the impact on child poverty of policies it implements across the board.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many children will be lifted out of poverty due to the Government’s changes to the indexation of benefits?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There’s not one policy that will have a single impact on child poverty. Our Government is directly focused, as the previous Government was, on lifting the number of children out of poverty.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question that the member asked was very specific and the primary also was on notice. I don’t believe the Minister addressed the specific question that the member asked.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, the Opposition might not like the answer, but the Minister did address it. She talked about how there is not one way of lifting children out of poverty, which directly addresses the question from the member.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that, the point is that the member asked a question about a specific legislative amendment that the Government is making. There is some obligation, surely, on the Minister to answer about that. You know, we’ve been urged consistently by previous Speakers on both sides of the House to ask specific questions—ones that are not political in nature. That was what my colleague did, and the answer she got was a generic response that did not, in my opinion, address that question.

SPEAKER: That might be your opinion, but if you think about it, the question was about the specific policy; the answer was—perhaps the Minister could’ve put the words in “that’s a wrong assumption” or some other such, but it was about the fact that in the Minister’s view, just like the questioner has a view, there isn’t one policy that answers it.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Sorry, Mr Speaker, to belabour the point, but that wasn’t the question. The question wasn’t “Is there one policy?”; it was “What does this particular policy contribute?” Those are actually materially two different questions, and the question that the member asked has not been answered.

SPEAKER: OK, good—would the Minister like to answer in a different way?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member asks a question about child poverty, and there will be a number of policies, including indexation, that our Government will put in place to reduce child poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she receive the preliminary modelling showing that indexing main benefits to inflation leads to an estimated increase in the number of children in poverty over the forecast period?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There will be a number of forecasts that we look at around policies in a range of portfolios across the Government that we are absolutely focused on in reducing child poverty, including reducing the cost of living, growing the economy, improving attendance at school, and preventing preventable hospitalisations for children.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the bill I’m referring to is currently going through the House in urgency and the preliminary modelling is attached to that bill in the supplementary analysis, I expect a straight answer, and I do not feel like that Minister has responded adequately to the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, the difference between your expectations and what you feel about an answer doesn’t necessarily mean that the answer hasn’t been given. The question has been certainly addressed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty with that approach is that there is not an unlimited pool of supplementary questions. In the House, we’re allocated a certain number of supplementary questions and therefore we have to use them in a way to extract the information. When a member asks a question “Did a Minister receive a particular piece of advice?”, that is an attempt to ask a specific enough question that it will get a specific enough answer. If we had an unlimited number of supplementaries, we could go down the path we’re going—

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, I fully understand your point of order. I’m not saying I’d be the original author of it, but it’s certainly been used in this House before. To move us on, would the Minister like to answer the question in another way, again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The one individual piece of legislation that is before the Parliament at the moment—the figure is 7,000. Our Government is absolutely focused on reducing the number of children living in poverty, and one of the areas we’ll focus on is reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes that blew out under that Government—

SPEAKER: Yes, before we go any further, the question was about receiving some advice. Did you receive some advice?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, and I told her the figure.

SPEAKER: OK.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on her Government’s broader policies’ ability to mitigate the forecasted risk of an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the AHC 50 poverty measure, and an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the BHC 50 poverty measure due to the change in indexation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m trying to make it simple to get an answer. So, one piece of legislation, one policy of multiple that this side of the House will be focused on in terms of improving child poverty reduction—and this is one measure that has an impact of a suite of policies around the cost of living crisis that we are focusing on. So this is one of many.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received about her Government’s intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries with respect to perverse intentions that may be created in the system and the possible impact on child poverty?

SPEAKER: I think we might have that question again, a little more slowly.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Maybe I’ll cut it back. What advice has she received about her Government’s intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries and the possible impact on child poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve been clear about my priority about reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes, and there will be a range of advice that’s coming to support that end.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is her Government committed to the child poverty reduction targets enshrined in legislation, and if yes, is she expecting to meet the targets?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Just to put on record, the previous Government was not on track to meet the targets. We supported the legislation when it was introduced, we’re not making changes to the legislation, and our Government will work incredibly hard to lift children out of poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. I didn’t ask about the Government’s track record; it was a very straight question about commitment to the enshrined targets in legislation and whether she expects to meet them—that her Government expects to meet them.

SPEAKER: Well, look, that explanation probably explains what the question was about but I asked you to repeat it because I couldn’t quite follow what you were asking either. So I think we’ll move on; if you’ve got another supplementary, try that. Well, I’ll give you an extra one so you feel better.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: An extra question?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the member Paulo Garcia that there is dignity in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House is very clear that we need to lift children out of benefit-dependant homes, to give them the shot at a great future that they deserve in New Zealand. Currently, 60 percent of the children in material hardship are in benefit-dependant homes. There is no dignity in them having poor or worse outcomes because of the family circumstances they were born in.

Question No. 4—Justice (Treaty Principles Bill)

4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Treaty Principles Bill): Why is the Government introducing a Treaty Principles Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice (Treaty Principles Bill)): Next year, it will be half a decade since this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, saying that there was such a thing as the principles of the Treaty. Since that time, Parliament has been silent about their definition while the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Public Service, and many others have had their say. This Government is introducing a Treaty principles bill to democratise that process of defining the Treaty principles because, for the first time through this representative House of Parliament, all New Zealanders will have a say about what our founding document and our constitutional future means.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the Treaty principles bill honour the Treaty?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti of Waitangi, as our founding document, is enormously important to our past but also to our future and our conception of ourselves as a country. The fact that it has been interpreted through a lens of principles upon which most New Zealanders have had not a chance to have any influence or say, I believe, has diminished its mana and made it a source of division when it should be a source of unity. The Treaty principles bill and the debate surrounding it is designed to enhance the mana of Te Tiriti and ensure that all New Zealanders believe they are invested in its principles.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will the Treaty principles bill abolish or rewrite the Treaty, like some people have claimed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely not, and as some people who, I believe, have been mischievous—

Hon Willie Jackson: Who?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —misinforming the public, and I heard Willie Jackson, as if on cue, say “Who?”. I think he could answer that question for himself. Some mischievous people have made false claims. It is impossible to abolish the Treaty. What we are doing is democratising the process of defining its principles, which has been going on for the last 50 years, almost, but without the vast majority of New Zealanders having any kind of input or say into it. This will enhance the Treaty. It certainly will not rewrite the Treaty itself, let alone get rid of it; it will simply democratise the definition of its principles.

Hon Willie Jackson: Who is right: the Prime Minister, who has said that the Treaty principles bill is divisive and unhelpful, or the ACT Party, who think it’s all about freedom at the expense of Māori?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the Treaty principles bill does have the potential to be divisive, particularly when certain leaders in Māoridom who should know better threaten violence and uprisings, instead of actually engaging in a democratic debate. So in that sense, the Prime Minister is absolutely right, and when it comes to the characterisation of my statements, I don’t believe that this debate does come at the expense of Māori. So I actually can’t agree with my own statement because that member has completely mischaracterised it, and misrepresenting other people’s views is a major problem in any public debate. I hope that member will stop doing it.

Hon Willie Jackson: Which iwi are supporting the bill—is it Ngāti Whātua, Tainui, or his own tribe, Ngāti Rēhia—and what feedback has he got in terms of support for the bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I’ve heard there is support for the bill from people up and down this country, and those people are Māori, they’re non-Māori, they’re old, they’re young, they’re from north, they’re from south, they’re from down, they’re from town, and they’re from country. There is widespread support for the idea. In fact, the member may have seen opinion polling by Curia which found that 60 percent of New Zealanders support the principles in the bill and 18 percent oppose it, and maybe it’s time for the member to get on board.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does he say to people who claim the Treaty principles bill is an attack on Māori?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, that’s an excellent and well-timed question because there are clearly people who would like to make the Treaty principles bill a debate between races. People that say that have bought in to the fetish of racial identity that it is our race; it is our ethnicity; it is our background and ancestry that defines us more than anything else. But the truth is that there are Māori who agree with this particular kaupapa; there are Māori who disagree.

Rawiri Waititi: Who?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There are non-Māori who agree; there are non-Māori who agree. I think we just saw an example of that right now because people won’t be able to see, but off screen Rawiri Waititi is saying, “Who?” Who are these Māori who agree? Nicole McKee’s sitting beside him and she said, “Me”. I think that sums up this debate perfectly well and I think Rawiri Waititi: my message for you is keep heckling, brother, because you help more than you realise.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it’s a point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, I just want to seek confirmation from you, based on some comments that various Ministers have made outside of the House, that the Standing Orders and the conventions of this House continue to apply, that an answer that a Minister gives in the House to a question from any member is an answer on behalf of the entirety of the Government, not just that member’s party.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to go back and have a look at what the arrangements were between 2002 and 2005, where there were different arrangements for Ministers inside one Government, and I’ll come back to you on that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It has always been the case, under every confidence and supply or coalition agreement, that where a Minister is speaking as a Minister in the House—clearly at question time they are answering questions as a Minister—they speak on behalf of the entire Government and are therefore bound by Cabinet collective responsibility, which therefore means they speak on behalf of the whole Government. Now, we’ve had some suggestion from Ministers that that is not what is happening. That would be a departure from all of the rules, practices, protocols, and conventions of this House that no previous Government has made. When David Seymour delivers those answers, I want to be clear from you that he is delivering them in accordance with every convention of this House on behalf of the whole of the Government.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you’re not going to get that now because between also 1999 and 2002—where there was a significant meltdown in Government arrangements at that time—there were various conventions put in place for the answering of questions by people who were Ministers inside a Government but representing a multitude of parties outside it. I want to go back and have a look at that and see where exactly we’re at.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating that there has been a breakdown of the Government?

SPEAKER: No, I’m not. That is not a helpful comment and I would ask the very experienced member of Parliament not to trifle with the Chair.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I may be able to assist. Every—

SPEAKER: Well, you know, you do these things at your peril, but away you go.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I may be able to help the member. Every answer I have given is as the Minister responsible around the intentions behind the kaupapa that I’m bringing on behalf of the Government. I have not portrayed myself—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No, one second. I have not portrayed myself as representing any Cabinet decision.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. The honourable—sorry—Rawiri Waititi—

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you.

SPEAKER: The honourable member.

Rawiri Waititi: I like your matakitetanga [prediction], Mr Speaker. Given the Associate Minister of Justice has become an expert in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, can he tell me how many Māori chiefs signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, it’s approximately 500, but learning is a journey and I expect to learn more. Perhaps the member would like to come on this kaupapa with me.

Rawiri Waititi: Has he spoken to both sides of the Treaty in regards to this bill—that’s te Iwi Māori and also King Charles?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, as we know, our King is laid up with a few medical challenges at the moment. Thankfully, there are many people, the Māori people of New Zealand, who are in very good health and I’d be very happy to speak to them every day.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka pūmau ia ki tāna kōrero, “our focus is on making sure that we honour the Treaty”; mēnā āe, ka pēhea tā tōna Kāwanatanga whakahōnore i te Tiriti?

[Does he stand by his statement that “our focus is on making sure that we honour the Treaty”; if so, how will his Government honour the Treaty?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. Our unrelenting focus is on raising achievement and opportunity for Māori and non-Māori alike, after both have gone backwards during the disastrous past three years of non-achievement from the Government the member’s party was nominally a part of. And if those members there looked around their own people, they’d know exactly and precisely what I’m talking about.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: It’s all right. I know where you’re coming from. That was a great answer up until the point where there was the attack on the previous Government.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, they chipped at me—they started chipping at me.

SPEAKER: Well, you can assert that anywhere you like but you can’t assert it during question time.

Hon Marama Davidson: Kei te whakaae ia ka whakahanga i ngā mea nei, a Te Aka Whaiora, Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, me te Tekiona 7A o te Ture Oranga Tamariki ki te whakahōnore i te Tiriti; waihoki ka whakatikahia ngā Tiriti takahitanga e te Karauna; mēnā kao, he aha ai?

[Does he agree that these structures—i.e., Te Aka Whaiora, the Waitangi Tribunal, and section 7A of the Children’s Act—allow for the honouring of the Treaty; further, that Treaty breaches will be corrected by the Crown; if not, why?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say to that rather confusing question, there is no statement from this Government or any member of it of getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi. Anybody else that says otherwise is spreading malice of forethought and we’re not going to tolerate it. Secondly, we’re going to stand behind the Treaty and we always have. But what we won’t do is have this unmandated, unelected judicial woke concoction that that member seeks to subscribe to, which wasn’t supported by the greatest scholar ever to come to this House on this matter, Sir Āpirana Ngata—he’s our authority. What’s yours?

Hon Marama Davidson: He matatika ki a ia ki te whakamatetia, tapahia te pūtea, me whakakoretia i aua kaupapa e hanga ana ki te whakahōnore i te Tiriti, ā, ka auaha i ngā putanga pai mā Ngāi Māori?

[Is it ethical to him, the annihilation, funding cuts, and cancellation of initiatives that are created to honour the Treaty and create positive outcomes for Māori people?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, our response to that is an extraordinary, confusing allegation is being made, talking about a multitude of projects, none of which help ordinary Māori. They’re based on the elite Māori in this country who would never consult with their own people. And out there in New Zealand, the mass majority of Māori have proven that by not even being on the Māori roll subscribed to by that member.

Hon Marama Davidson: Ki tōna whakaaro, ka whai te whakareretanga a ngā kāwanatanga National kua pahure, kua whakahāngai i ngā mea nei a Kōhanga Reo, te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, ngā whakataunga Tiriti, me te Ture mō te Reo Māori; mēnā āe, ka pēhea?

[In his opinion, does this align with the legacy of previous National Governments that implemented such things as Kōhanga Reo, the Waitangi Tribunal, Treaty settlements, and the Māori Language Act; if so, how?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, this is misinformation of the worst sort concocted by way of a question. The reality is Kōhanga Reo was started by the National Party. Does that member not know it? No. What was going on here is the allegation that we’re going to stop it; that’s false. And as for all the Treaty settlements, this Government is going to go on honouring—Mr Prime Minister and every member has said so. But what we’re not going to do is see unmandated and unelected, and therefore unauthorised by the New Zealand people—this woke concoction that the Green Party and this party over there subscribe to.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to repeat the question again and slowly for the member’s benefit, because he is accusing my question—

SPEAKER: No, sorry, that’s not going to happen. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Marama Davidson: I do.

SPEAKER: Please carry on with that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Sorry, can I get an answer—point of order. The member seemed to completely misunderstand my question.

SPEAKER: No. That’s not a question. That’s not reasonable.

Hon Marama Davidson: He aha ia i moumou wā ai, moumou moni ai ki te Treaty principles bill mēnā e mea ana ia, “dead duck walking”?

[Why did he waste time and money on the Treaty Principles Bill if he says it is a “dead duck walking”?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At no point in time have I ever said that it’s a dead duck walking. Mind you, I’ve seen something that looks similar. But the point of the matter is, the ACT Party had negotiations with the National Party. Their subscribers and supporters are entitled for them to honour their campaign promises, and that’s why Mr Seymour can come to this House with an agreed statement on behalf of everybody on this side of the House and it’s in the coalition agreement. But the statement that we’re getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi is categorically false.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I seek clarity on whether the Minister is speaking as the Prime Minister or as himself? The quote was to the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: I don’t think that matters. His answer was as the Prime Minister.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the predicted and actual amount of time people spend in receipt of benefit payments?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The social outcomes modelling commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development shows the amount of time New Zealanders are predicted to spend on benefits throughout their lifetime has substantially increased. Recipients of the jobseeker work-ready benefit are now expected to spend, on average, 13 years of the future on a benefit—an increase of almost four years compared to 2017. The modelling estimated that 626,000 New Zealanders who received a benefit in the last year would collectively require another 6.43 million years of income support.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice from a member of the Minister’s own party. It’s quite clear that the question asks “predicted and actual”, and yet all of the answer detailed the results of modelling and expectations, and not figures that relate to the real-world experience.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I disagree.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the modelling show about the length of time young people are predicted to spend on benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In 2017, the modelling showed that teenagers who went on to the youth payment or young parent payment were expected to spend 15.2 future years reliant on a benefit in their lifetime. By 2022, teenagers who go on to welfare were expected to spend, on average, 24 years relying on a benefit—a staggering nine extra years of their lives on welfare. That didn’t seem to ring any bells of alarm for the previous Government, but the increase in benefit dependency that occurred under the watch of the previous Labour Government is of real concern to us.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What did the modelling-associated report say about the impact of people being reliant on benefit for longer?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: While the report said one consequence would be additional cost to the taxpayer of expenditure on benefit payments, I was most concerned that those trapped on welfare for longer would face profound impacts on their future earnings and life satisfaction and have more contact with police and mental health services than they otherwise would.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Is this Government comfortable with the trend of people spending longer periods of time on welfare, as identified by the social outcomes modelling?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, absolutely not. With the report showing worse life outcomes for those trapped on welfare long term, it is cruel to stand by and allow these people’s potential to be wasted. We believe that New Zealanders deserve the opportunities and choices that come from employment. That starts with a Government that understands, as this Government does, the importance of breaking vicious cycles of dependency.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the complete list of adjustments and exclusions that have been made to the eligible baseline of expenditure that is subject to the 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings that have been sought from Public Service agencies?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The much-needed savings programme under way as part of Budget 2024 requires agencies to put forward options for 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings from an eligible baseline calculated by Treasury. As I have previously explained to the House, the eligible baseline had some exclusions when it was calculated, including the non-departmental spending of Health, Education, and Ministry of Disabled People - Whaikaha. I have also previously confirmed to the member that benefits are not included in the eligible baseline. There is a very long list of exclusions to the eligible baseline, and many of them are exactly the same as the member’s own savings exercise from last year. The list is much too long for me to read out in full, but I am happy to table it if the House permits. Before I do so, I would note for the member that the eligible baseline does not necessarily indicate where savings proposals will come from.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Are you going to seek leave to table it or not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I seek leave to table the document.

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

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

Hon Grant Robertson: Has spending on the Defence estate been excluded from the eligible baseline of expenditure?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There have been a number of exclusions made from the eligible baseline, some of which are agency specific.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member just said that she was tabling a list. She was asked if something was on the list. She hasn’t even got anywhere near to addressing it.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, I’m very happy to help out Mr Hipkins. The list which I am tabling, and which perhaps members would like to read, specifically notes other agency-specific exclusions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Defence estate one of those agency-specific exclusions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am releasing a full list of the general exclusions that apply in the majority of cases, and I am noting that there are also other agency-specific exclusions. Now, the member clearly is very interested in this savings exercise, and what I would remind that member is that he too initiated a savings exercise in August last year.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve now had two very specific questions that the Minister’s refused to answer. Having refused to answer them, to then go on and attack the person who’s asking the question steps well outside of all of the rules of this House.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’d just ask the Minister to address the question that was asked, which is: is the Defence estate expenditure part of the other agency exclusions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said to the member in answer to my primary question, baselines have been calculated in order to create a quantum of saving target. That does not indicate where savings will come from. There is a long list of generic exemptions, and, in addition, there have been agency-specific exclusions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that work on the Defence estate will not be subject to a 6.5 or 7.5 percent cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Defence have been asked to put forward proposals to achieve a baseline reduction. Our guidance to Defence has been that we recognise they face significant cost pressures and, as such, we do expect them to—we have, in fact, invited them to submit what costs that they may need met in this Budget. In addition, just like with all other agencies, we have asked them to focus on low-value programmes, programmes that don’t align with the new coalition Government’s priorities, and non-essential back-office functions, including contractor and consultant spend. I would note to the member, as I have many, many times now, that proposals are yet to be considered by Ministers, and all decisions will be made by Ministers.

Stuart Smith: What is the purpose of the savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: “The Government is requiring public agencies to find permanent savings including through cutting back on contractors. … trimming back some programmes, and taking back underspends. … It is clear given the economic conditions that we need this work to happen more than ever.” Members opposite who cry out at this may wish to know that I’ve just quoted from the honourable member’s own press statement of 28 August 2023, in which he announced his own—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the Minister persistently refuses to answer the questions being asked by the Opposition, for her then to have a Government patsy question which she then uses to attack the Opposition means that she’s repeatedly falling foul of all of the rules of this House. I wonder if you would consider, given that this is a relatively consistent pattern from the Minister of Finance, whether in fact there should be some sanction applied to that. For example, the number of supplementary questions that have been, effectively, wasted to not get an answer should be credited back to the Opposition on a future day.

SPEAKER: Well, there’s a couple of points I’d make. First thing is, while members will ask questions and may not like the answers that are coming, I think, in the end, the explanation given by the Minister of Finance was quite reasonable; I took it as being so. With regards to the question that was set up, I have made it clear that questions should not be used to attack the Government. I’m not sure how quoting a previous Minister is an attack on the Opposition, but I will have another look at this, obviously, as we progress through the day.

Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary.

Stuart Smith: Supplementary.

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, he can have another go.

SPEAKER: Are you yielding?

Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary, the Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware that even if she sacked every person who does work on policy, communications, and cancelled all the publicity work of the Department of Conservation, she would be tens of millions of dollars short of the target for cuts that she has set for that agency?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said many times to the member, we have asked agencies to look for savings across a number of categories—including programmes that are not delivering maximum value, including programmes that aren’t delivering results. Those proposals will be considered by Ministers in full. One of the great things about our savings exercise is that we’re actually going to complete it, unlike the former Minister.

Stuart Smith: What does the list—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—noise on both sides; Mr Bishop.

Stuart Smith: What does the list that the Minister has just tabled show about where the savings will come from?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member asks a very good question. The list of exclusions I have tabled does not indicate where savings will come from, because agencies can put forward savings options from wherever they wish to. We’ve asked chief executives to exercise good judgment in putting savings options up to Ministers, and we’ve also asked that staff are able to put forward ideas. It is Ministers who will make the final decisions on whether savings options progress as part of Budget 2024. We will have a firm focus on shifting resource from the back office to front-line services, in line with our commitment to New Zealanders to stop wasteful spending, improve value for money, and drive resources into the front line.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that no front-line services provided by the Department of Conservation will be cut as a result of the savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m yet to even see the proposals from the Department of Conservation.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken, and whilst evidence supporting those actions and statements remains the same.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions to restore law and order and personal responsibility?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, where do we start? We’re doing so many good things that it’s hard to keep track. We are committed to training an extra 500 front-line police in the next two years.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In two years or three?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re going to address youth offending by increasing—beg your pardon?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In two years or three?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, well, catch up and be at Parliament—that was decided about two weeks ago. Try and catch up.

Hon Member: Two weeks ago!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, two weeks ago. You know, it’s not too difficult. Nothing else to do, sitting in the Opposition! No record of having done anything in her whole career, and she wants to know—will somebody tell her?—and she’s on the front bench! Now, we’re going to address youth offending by increasing the number of youth aid officers over the term. We’ll adequately resource community policing—including Māori and Pasifika wardens, community patrols, and Neighbourhood Watch—and we’ll protect first responders and prison officers by introducing legislation with specific offences for assaults on our police, firefighters, prison officers, and ambulance officers, and a whole lot more desperately needed out there by New Zealand society.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions to deliver better public services?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. The focus has strayed too far towards wokeism and not on better education and health outcomes. We’ve already started doing basics better through emphasising reading, writing, and maths, and banning cellphones in schools. If they doubt that matter about education, a former Labour Minister—none other than Richard Prebble—is pointing out how hopeless their performance was in the last three years, where 55 percent and more of Māori are not even at school. And how can we possibly get our nation ready, let alone those young people ready, for the future with such grave irresponsibility? And since compulsory education has been around since 1877, maybe, again, they should catch up.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions for an independent COVID inquiry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. We’re in early days, but we are seeking feedback from the people on explaining the terms of reference on the current royal commission of inquiry. It’s preposterous that the Government that was in charge of the original inquiry went to set out their own terms of reference for an inquiry into their own decisions. In short, setting up an inquiry to cover one’s derrière is not in the public interest, and we’re going to fix it up.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions to keep the superannuation age of eligibility at 65?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that’s a superb question, and out there there’s about 895,000 people who need to know that—and a whole lot more coming up to 65 years of age. And given the GDP—given the ratio against the GDP—which is way better than most developed nations, yes, we are going to keep it at 65. On that, you’ve had our long, 40-year promise.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to confirm—similar to the previous point of order I raised—that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking there as Prime Minister and, therefore, all of the answers that he delivered were as Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was responding to the coalition agreement. We made sure it’s in the coalition agreement. [Interruption] No, that’s the point.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context that they were given.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti, who said, “In the primary care sector it’s really hard to see a general practitioner any time soon”, and, if so, will he include access to primary care as one of the five major health targets in the coalition agreement?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m not in a position to discuss Budget-sensitive positions, but I do agree that it is hard to see primary care.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti that “this Government will take actions to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders”, and, if so, will he make surviving cancer a health target?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: To the first arm of her question, yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he commit to preventing the gaming of targets, such as the practice of admitting emergency department patients to non-existent virtual wards so that the six-hour target can be met?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I commit to keeping a very close eye on the gaming of any targets that we might announce.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If a patient dies three hours after arriving in the emergency department, has the six-hour target been met in their case, and, if so, is this the better health outcome he’s promoting for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re still to confirm what our targets will be, including emergency department targets.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all of her statements and policies?

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

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What evidence does she have that the sanctions on beneficiaries will help get more people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The empirical evidence that says the number on jobseeker benefit has gone up by 76,000 when there’s been a 50 percent reduction in the number of sanctions applied in the last six years.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The question was not addressed. There was a specific question around empirical evidence and then she talked about the number of people on the benefit. Sorry—the question was relating to evidence on sanctions and she just spoke on something completely unrelated, which is just people on the jobseeker benefit. Those two things are not related to one another.

SPEAKER: Yeah. It’s the same problem that everyone has. When a question is asked, the answer won’t always be satisfactory. However, the question was addressed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Government get job seekers into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I thank the member for their question, because I know that many are worried about the number of people who have been on jobseeker benefit and stuck there for years. There’s a range of things that we will do. Our Welfare that Works policy is the first one we will roll out, because of the significant increase in the young people under 25. Individuals will get a needs assessment. There’ll be a job coach. We want to work with community providers, and I’ve already been talking to iwi organisations who may well be interested in providing that service. And there will be a carrot and stick approach to ensure that young people who can work do.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How many tamariki would be impacted by sanctions if the traffic light system were in place today?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you for that question. One of the elements that is a significant change in the traffic light system that’s proposed are non-financial sanctions. I have been concerned, as others have, that there have been financial sanctions where there has been a household with children, so the deliberate design is to come up with non-financial sanctions to prevent that from occurring.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How will the ministry assist children whose parents have had their benefits cut?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my last answer, part of the traffic light system is the introduction of non-financial sanctions. The front-line staff who work at Work and Income work incredibly hard to ensure that people do comply with their obligations, and we’re looking at fairly simple obligations if you’re a job seeker: to have a CV, apply for jobs, turn up to a job interview, and accept a job that is offered. It is really important for the tamariki in those families that they do have a parent in work.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What benefit security is in place for people with disabilities and long-term medical conditions to ensure they can live with dignity without having to continually prove their medical condition to the Government under the threat of being sanctioned?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Much of what I’ve spoken about is in terms of the traffic light system for obligations around job seekers. I appreciate that we must always have a welfare system that supports those who have permanent disabilities—they are on the supported living payment, for example. But I also accept that there will be some who wish to work in some capacity, and we should support them in doing that.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes, particularly when I said that this Government will not tax Aucklanders an additional 11.5c per litre on fuel to fund more cycle lanes, red light cameras, speed humps, and lowering speed limits across the city.

Tangi Utikere: Why does he still stand by that Government decision to axe the regional fuel tax; a decision that has required Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown to stop work on multiple projects that are funded by that tax?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that’s a very excellent question, and it’s because, on this side of the House, we’re not going to tax Aucklanders an extra 11.5c per litre to fund wasteful projects like $500,000 speed bumps, lowering speed limits across the city, red light cameras, and cycle lanes. We’re actually going to make sure we get the infrastructure delivered that New Zealanders and Aucklanders need.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. The Minister referenced a $500,000 speed bump, and I would invite the Minister to table any evidence of any speed bump anywhere in the country costing anywhere near $500,000.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Speaking to the point of order. I may have misspoken; it was a $490,000 speed bump, which had $172,000 of traffic management to construct. I’m happy to table the New Zealand Herald article. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK. We’ll all calm down and listen to the question from Tangi Utikere.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who was correct: Simeon Brown, when he said, “The reality is projects can still be funded by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport; they just won’t be receiving a regional fuel tax in order to fund”, or Wayne Brown, when he said, “The government’s announcement therefore creates significant funding uncertainty for a large portion of Auckland Transport’s capital programme”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government will be ensuring that the remaining regional fuel tax revenues—over $300 million, which is two years’ worth of collection of Aucklanders—will go into delivering the priority projects such as the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link electric trains, and local roading projects. But what we won’t be spending money on and won’t be taxing Aucklanders more for is wasteful projects which aren’t priorities of this Government.

Tangi Utikere: How is threatening to legislate any time a mayor makes a decision that the Minister disagrees with in line with allowing councils to make their own decisions in the best interests of their ratepayers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely reject the premise around threatening. We’ve sat down and we’ve discussed the priority projects. The legislation we are putting to this Parliament will ensure that the remaining revenues—over two years’ worth of tax revenue taken from Auckland motorists—go towards those priority projects.

Tangi Utikere: What does he say to National MP Simeon Brown, who said that the Eastern Busway was the first thing he thinks of in the morning, the last thing at night, and is in his thoughts probably 100 times a day in between, or to National MP Erica Stanford, who led a petition to secure funding for the Glenvar Road - East Coast Road realignment project, now that the full completion of those projects have been sent to the scrap heap?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what I’d say to those members is that those projects will be prioritised for the remaining funds—that the revenues which have not been spent but have been collected from Auckland taxpayers will be prioritised to those projects. But I’d also say to the member Simeon Brown that I wish the Eastern Busway a happy Valentine’s Day.

Helen White: How can the Minister justify creating a $1.2 billion shortfall in the plan to decongest Auckland over the next four years, when congestion will cost us about $5 billion in productivity in the same period?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said to the House yesterday, it was the last Government which caused the congestion in Auckland—$228 million on consultancy reports for light rail and didn’t even deliver a business case. The six wasted years in Auckland, failing to deliver the infrastructure that we needed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, as to the so-called $1.2 billion shortfall, how does it compare with the $29 billion that was going to be assigned to light rail in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that last Government spent hundreds of millions on consultancy reports and business cases but failed to actually deliver and had no plan to deliver their phantom ghost train down Dominion Road.

SPEAKER: Yeah. That’s enough.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know what your point of order is. The question was, though, for a comparison, and you’ve got it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact here is that you have made a ruling, a clarification to the House, at the start of question time today. And pulling up members at the end of their answer, when your ruling was talking about the start of their answer, I don’t think is following what you told us at the start.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I’ll try and follow my own advice from here on.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: How much Government funding has been devoted to section 27 reports since 2017, and what actions is the Government taking to address it?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I’m advised by officials that since 2017, $26.3 million of taxpayer funding was spent on crafting section 27 reports designed to encourage lighter sentences. Last week the Government announced our plan to end taxpayer funding of those reports and to put an end to a thriving industry that the previous Government left untouched.

Cameron Brewer: Is the Government scrapping cultural reports entirely?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No. Despite the assertions made on the other side of the House, the Government has been very clear that offenders can continue to use section 27 by asking someone to speak in court or by providing a written statement. Section 27 has not been scrapped; taxpayer funding of professional report writing is.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will the Minister implement the promises set out in the National Party’s Real Consequences For Crime document, which states “Ending taxpayer funding for written cultural reports is expected to save around $20 million over four years. National will direct all of this funding towards victim support services, which represents an increase of 29 percent”; if not, what increases in funding for victims will the Minister commit to?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are committed to providing more support to the victims of crime in the justice system, and we’re working with officials to assess the best options for supporting victims through the savings generated.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question, which was: will he commit to increasing funding for victims of crime? He didn’t address it.

SPEAKER: Good, we’ll try it again, then.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I addressed that question. Yes, we are committed to providing more support for victims of crime.

Cameron Brewer: Why is it important that taxpayer funding of section 27 reports ends?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because there is a great deal of pressure on the legal aid budget and we need to spend our money wisely.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will he increase grants for victims of crime to access support services such as mental health assistance, counselling, or help with travel costs to court cases or hearings, as set out in the National Party Real Consequences For Crime document, or is that just another broken promise by National?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A bit early for that. We will work with officials, as I said, to assess the best option for supporting victims of crime. But one of the best things we can do, of course, is to speed up the processes of the court so they’re not waiting years and years, like they have over the past six years, to get a resolution to the cases that they’re facing, to get on with their lives, and that’s the best thing we can do.

Cameron Brewer: Is the Minister aware of any notable section 27 report authors who have received taxpayer funding?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, members might be interested to know that the cultural report provider Hard 2 Reach, headed by lifetime Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam, boasts on its website that offenders “have received sentence discounts of up to 35 percent because of factors raised in our reports”.

Cameron Brewer: What other changes does the Government intend to make in regard to the Sentencing Act?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government has committed to wider changes to sentencing laws to restore real consequences for crime. That includes capping sentence discounts at 40 percent, and my colleague Minister McKee is leading work to reinstate three strikes legislation.

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

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

SPEAKER: I neglected to mention before that Ministers have delivered papers. I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Estimate of Environmental Expenditure 2023-24: Method and results. That paper is published under the authority of the House.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Six years of loose spending, of hopeless, naive law and order policies, of waffle, and of almost comically poor delivery came to an end last year. Now our country has a coalition Government led by the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon that has the capability, the plan, and the determination to get our country back on track.

Unconstrained Government spending by Labour has added to the inflation that every family knows about and is struggling with. That inflation has forced higher interest rates for families and businesses. Those higher borrowing costs are squeezing the economy. We, as a Government, right now are going through the arduous process of restoring discipline to Government spending. And I can tell you it’s a lot harder than flinging money around like the previous Government did for six years, but it needs to be done in order to deal effectively with the cost of living crisis.

A naive approach to justice exemplified by Labour’s only clearly articulated justice sector target to reduce the prison population by 30 percent irrespective of what’s happening in our community, on our streets, and in our houses has been followed by a rise in violent crime, an explosion in retail crime, ram raids, gang membership, and paying for the victims of crime. Week in, week out, we have seen hard-working New Zealanders—often new New Zealanders—at their wits end, having their businesses done over, and seeing no consequences for the younger offenders. Well, that’s going to change.

Last week, the Government announced ending the 30 percent target. Our focus is on reducing violent crime, lowering the number of serious repeat youth offenders, and then on the nuts and bolts of the justice system, which is the hard, gritty task of dealing with the chronic delays to justice—we can’t continue to have Kiwis waiting years to get an outcome for their changes. And we’re going to deal with the boondoggles that were left unchecked by Andrew Little, by Kris Faafoi, by Kelvin Davis, by Kiri Allan, and by Ginny Andersen and all the long crew of justice people who made no progress. The section 27 reports that went from $40,000 a year in 2017 to $7.5 million will not be funded anymore. That cottage industry is gone.

SPEAKER: I don’t like to interrupt the member but look, this place is just not where you have discussions in the aisles. So we had a discussion going on over here before—I sort of let that go. Would those two members standing in the aisles talking go back to their seats or leave the Chamber. I’m sorry to interrupt the member, I’m inclined to give him another 30 seconds.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, that’s very kind. That’s very kind—

SPEAKER: But then I’m not going to do it. So carry on.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’ve always enjoyed your support, Mr Speaker. We’re not pleased with the advertising promises in some of those section 27 reports. New Zealanders are sick and tired of reading about people convicted of serious violent offences that would attract significant prison sentences and finding that those sentences are whittled down by a series of discounts. So offenders end up on home detention playing PlayStation, which is not dealing real consequences for crime. That’s why we’re going to limit discounts to 40 percent, and next in our 100-day plan to restore law and order, we’ll be giving the police the powers they need to deal effectively with gangs.

Finally, I want to make some comments on Waitangi Day. I spent several days up North and joined the Prime Minister and many Ministers on the Opureroa Marae. We experienced, like all members of the House, that unique blend of confrontation and friendliness up at Waitangi that Waitangi Day brings. Many New Zealanders don’t see the friendliness and the constructive debate, but it was there, I can assure you. What we’re trying to achieve as a country isn’t easy. At bottom it is to try to honour the Treaty and Treaty settlements while at the same time not losing sight of or undermining those core human rights that all people in modern democratic societies expect—equal voting rights, equality before the law, and an equal say in the big decisions affecting their lives. We have to appreciate that there is tension between those two things—

Hon Willie Jackson: Are you supporting the Treaty bill now, “Goldie”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And the previous Government led by—including Willie Jackson, leaned too heavily away from those core human rights, most notably in the move away from equal voting rights in Canterbury and through some of the co-governance arrangements, and they never made a case. They just stood up on the TV once and said “Democracy has changed.”, with no explanation and not bringing the people of New Zealand along with them. So we need to unwind some of those changes and we will.

We also heard from many people in Northland that there are two things that will make a real difference to that beautiful part of the country. First is a decent road—ridiculously described as a holiday highway by the Hon Phil Twyford and so many MPs on the other side. A decent road is the best thing you can do for Northland. And secondly, they want to see a Ngāphui settlement, and ultimately success on that front will be determined by the various hapū of Ngāphui. But we stand on this side ready to do a deal. So, thank you, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): It is very appropriate that Paul Goldsmith began his contribution talking about comically poor delivery because he then gave us a five-minute demonstration of what that looks like. The Government got off to a shambolic start before Christmas, proving that they had no plan to take New Zealand forward, only a plan to cancel things, stop things, repeal things, and take us backwards. You would think after the shambolic start that they got off to, they might have had that opportunity over the summer to reset and come back and think, “Let’s try that again. Let’s maybe start the new year on a better footing. Maybe let’s start to look like we’re getting on top of things.” But what a shambolic start we’ve had to this year as well.

Let’s go to the first week of Parliament. They made a big song and dance about the fact that they were going to get back to work faster and then brought us back to work on roughly the same timetable that Parliament would normally come back to work based on. Then they had a debacle of a week in the House where we had Ministers unable to answer questions and then changing their answers. I lost track of how many corrections Ministers made in the first week of the year, but it extended all the way from the top down to Ministers correcting their answers.

We had Mark Mitchell saying, “Oh, actually, I couldn’t guarantee 500 police within two years.”. and then saying, “Oh, but actually I did.”, because he had been corrected by the Prime Minister. We never quite got to the bottom of what happened there. Then we had the very, very strange situation with the Hon Casey Costello’s office and the mysterious document that appeared out of nowhere, as if by magic. Nobody seems to have written it, but somehow she gave it to her officials as if it was an instruction on Government policy—despite the fact that no one seems to know who wrote it and no one seems to know who actually produced it or where it came from, and no one seems to be able to explain it or what’s in it. A shambolic year to start the new term of Government.

The summer reset clearly didn’t happen, but it hasn’t gotten any better for them in the last few weeks because what have we seen of their plan to take New Zealand backwards? Well, first of all, they’ve abandoned any commitment to reducing the rates impost on New Zealand families from the water infrastructure crisis that we face. I would say the only thing that has more leaks right now than the Wellington water pipes is this Government because it’s abundantly clear that they’ve got no plan to fix water.

They said they were going to repeal and replace the water reforms that we put in place. Well, they’ve got a plan to repeal them, but there’s no plan to replace them. They’re simply pushing back onto councils the water crisis that we have in New Zealand and the result is going to be very simple: ratepayers, Kiwi families will pay more—and those rates increases will start very soon. Kiwi families are going to see that in a cost of living crisis, this Government’s first actions was to push up their rates bills by saying that the water crisis we face is simply someone else’s problem.

Then we’ve got minimum-wage workers who saw the whites of the Government’s eyes when it came to their real commitment to supporting low-income New Zealanders: an increase in the minimum wage that is well less than the cost of living. So the lowest-income New Zealanders go backwards under this Government and they are only a few months into office. We saw them scrapping universal free prescriptions, so people pay more every time they go to the pharmacy. We saw them scrapping free early childhood education for two-year-olds, adding extra costs onto Kiwi families.

While we’re talking about people on low incomes, there aren’t many New Zealanders who are on a lower income than those who rely on a benefit for their main source of income, and one of the first decisions of this Government is to change the way benefits are calculated so that beneficiaries go backwards in the future. That’s one of the first decisions they took: 7,000 more children living in poverty. That is one of the first decisions that they have taken as a Government: to put more Kiwi kids in poverty.

But, actually, that’s not the most shameful. The most shameful decision that they have taken is to encourage more New Zealanders to smoke so that they can fund tax cuts. It is one of the most morally repugnant decisions any New Zealand Government has taken, and it’s one of the first decisions that this Government has taken. They have no plan to move New Zealand forwards. It’s all about going backwards. New Zealanders deserve better.

NANCY LU (National): Mr Speaker, happy Year of the Dragon to you and to all members of the Parliament, parliamentary staff, and all families in New Zealand. 新年快乐, 新年快乐。In Korean: Saehaebok mani badeuseyo. In Vietnamese: Chúc mừng năm mới! And in Malay: Selamat tahun baru.

Today is the fifth day of the Lunar New Year celebration, and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, especially in our migrant communities, are still celebrating the Year of the Dragon. This Monday, on the third day of the Lunar New Year celebration, our Hon Melissa Lee, Minister for Ethnic Communities, hosted the inaugural Lunar New Year celebration at Parliament to celebrate this very auspicious event. Me and my colleague Dr Carlos Cheung had the honour of MCing the event for hundreds of community leaders from across the country.

Chinese New Year events have always been hosted in Parliament since 2002. This Monday’s event is, however, the first time in the event’s 21 years of history in Parliament that it is officially celebrated as Lunar New Year. This reflects the diversity of cultures that celebrate Lunar New Year in New Zealand, including Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Filipino, Malaysian, Singaporean, and many others. This year, Minister Lee of ethnic communities expanded the celebration to include the various communities celebrating the Lunar New Year, aiming to be as inclusive as possible.

New Zealand is known for its incredible diversity. So, as a nation, it is important to acknowledge the traits we share and celebrate them. Cultural celebrations hold immense importance for communities and nurture a strong sense of belonging. They recognise and welcome diversity, while also giving the wider population an opportunity to embrace other cultures. This celebration event is a great example of how our similarities and differences can actually bring us together.

For generations, Asian communities have had a long and significant presence in New Zealand’s history. Trade and immigration between New Zealand and Asia has existed since the 19th century, and we can expect the contribution and value of Asian communities in our nation to only grow.

The Year of the Dragon in 2024 symbolises bravery, honour, strength, success, and innovation. As we celebrate the auspicious fifth day of the Year of the Dragon today, marked by the themes of prosperity, money, and fortune, it is a moment to reflect on our collective journey towards economic growth and our abundance. So, today, I am filled with optimism as I envisage a future where the blessings of prosperity reach every corner of a beautiful country, New Zealand.

On this day, people engage in various activities aimed in attracting prosperity into their lives: from offering prayers and making offerings to 财神, the God of fortune, to practising acts of generosity and charity. Each action is believed to invoke positive financial energy and blessings.

Under the National-led Government and the visionary leadership of our Minister of Finance, the Hon Nicola Willis, we are embarking on a path towards a stronger economy—one that uplifts every individual in a community. The significance of sound economic governance cannot be overstated. A thriving economy brings tangible benefits to all citizens, fostering opportunities for employment, entrepreneurship, and upward mobility. It paves the way for improved infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social welfare, ensuring a higher quality life for everyone. So a robust economy empowers us to tackle pressing challenges such as climate change, inequality, and healthcare access with resilience and determination. It also enables us to build a more inclusive society where every individual has the chance to fulfil their potential and contribute meaningfully to our nation’s progress.

So as we honour today as the day of prosperity, the fifth day of the Lunar New Year, I sincerely wish all New Zealanders a joyous celebration filled with blessings and abundance. So, finally, happy Year of the Dragon. 新年快乐, 龙年大吉。Saehaebok mani badeuseyo. Chúc mừng năm mới! Selamat tahun baru. Thank you.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I too want to acknowledge the Year of the Dragon, Chinese and many other Asian peoples and communities, and the celebrations here in Aotearoa. This is key to Te Tiriti, in fact. Te Tiriti has always been inclusive.

Our tūpuna had the vision, when they were the dominant population in this country, back in those years when Te Tiriti and, previous to that, He Whakaputanga, was signed and discussed—our people were the dominant majority population, and what did our ancestors do? The most generous, humbling act of all: say “Yes, there is room here for all of us. We’re happy to share. We will maintain our tino rangatiratanga and our mana motuhake, but let’s work together. There is room here for everyone to live and be who they are in this beautiful, beautiful country of ours. Let’s sign an agreement that is going to protect mokopuna for generations to come, that upholds all of their whakapapa from all around the world. And we will not cede sovereignty; we will maintain sovereignty, because that is the most precious thing to us.”

This is what our tūpuna said. That is not even up for debate—this has been affirmed time and time again with various reviews, evaluations, Treaty settlements, and research. So why is it, then—why is it, then—that even the National Government, who has done considerable work with the establishment of institutions and initiatives that seek to uphold the mana motuhake of mana whenua and tangata whenua—why is this House wasting money inciting racism and ignorance; a narrative that is leaning into the worst of us instead of the best of us, and targeting Māori whānau—Māori whānau—with the ignorance? Why is this House doing that with the proposed Treaty principles bill that is currently on the table?

When generations of tauiwi, Pākehā, tangata tiriti, and Māori have already been working together—we’re still not there yet, we still haven’t properly embellished the vision of our tūpuna to uphold mana motuhake, and the Crown has consistently continued to breach that agreement. But we have now got generations of people of all backgrounds who have seen it, who have seen the beauty of that vision; whether it’s restoring wetlands, restoring and cleaning up rivers and waterways and oceans; whether it’s marae being generous and opening their doors to all communities, especially in times of need and crisis; whether it’s Māori social service organisations not just catering to Māori but understanding that, as tangata whenua, we have a role to affirm the mana and integrity of everyone. We have generations who know this now, and they are the people who turned up in force all around the country just last week on Waitangi Day.

That gives me incredible hope because they’re not having a bar of this narrative. They already know—it’s too late. You can’t put back generations, now, of people who have seen what our tūpuna always intended when they signed Te Tiriti. You can’t shove that back in the bottle now; it’s out there.

So I stand here with hope and pride in the vision of my tūpuna, who always knew that maintaining the mana motuhake and the tino rangatiratanga was the right thing to do for our whakapapa as Māori, but also for the benefit of our living systems, the hauora and the oranga of our communities, and, most importantly, to ensure everyone here has a home and can live with dignity and respect. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Friday of last week, a 4-metre cavity was discovered on State Highway 29A in Tauranga. It seemed to have been caused by extensive leaking from a failing stormwater drain that went undetected for an extended period of time. This sinkhole, in addition to other roadworks in the city, led to the Tauranga City Council advising the Bay of Plenty population to stay off the roads and work from home. Not everyone can work from home. For our tradespeople, our healthcare staff, and many other workers who keep New Zealand going every day, working from home simply is not an option.

On Monday, people who couldn’t stay home experienced serious interruptions, including businesses with employees unable to make appointments and therefore missing out on customers. Some children missed out on after-school activities. There has been a negative impact on the economy and this event has shown the importance of good roading infrastructure to the life of the Bay of Plenty.

The leaking pipe which caused significant subsoil erosion was broken for an unknown period of time before being detected. The cavity formed under a small pothole on a busy freight route. I fear that if it had not been detected when it was and the whole 4 metres had opened up in, say, the middle of the night, it could have caused a serious accident.

Both local and central government have responsibility for the assets involved, which demonstrates the importance of clear communication between councils and the New Zealand Transport Agency. The residents of Tauranga want answers about what happened: what checks were happening, what monitoring procedures were in place, and what allowed for this leak to go undetected for so long? We must know what went wrong in order to prevent issues like this from reoccurring.

Closing down New Zealand’s fifth largest city because of a hole caused by a broken pipe is embarrassing. Tauranga hosts our largest export port, which is an essential link to the economy of the upper North Island. This Government is committed to investing in infrastructure, including a sufficient roading network, and council water assets through Local Water Done Well. We are a growing country, and ACT understands that when you build more houses, you need to build more infrastructure to support them, which is why, as part of the coalition agreement between National and ACT, we will introduce financial incentives for councils to enable more housing, including consideration of sharing a proportion of GST collected on new residential builds with local councils.

The Western Bay of Plenty is one of the fastest growing regions of New Zealand and is expected to be the home of more than 250,000 people by 2050. While previous Governments have put forward fantasy projects for Auckland and Wellington, it is essential that we do not forget the regions and that we do not leave essential cities like Tauranga to put up with avoidable road closures on top of the worst congestion in the country. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): It is a great day to be a member of this coalition Government. It is a great day to be the representative from the greatest electorate in the country, proudly representing the hard-working people of mid- and South Canterbury. And it is a great day to be a New Zealander because today we saw the beginning of the end of the previous Labour Government’s centralisation agenda. Today, this House repealed the disastrous, power hungry, Wellington-centric three waters reforms. Today, we took our first steps towards restoring local council control of local assets and the first steps towards long-term, sustainable, collaborative investment in our water infrastructure.

This is a great day for the people of mid- and South Canterbury. My two councils, the Timaru District Council and the Ashburton District Council, led ably by mayors Nigel Bowen and Neil Brown, have long been two of the fiercest critics of these doomed three waters reforms. We heard a lot last night from the Labour shadow Leader of the House, Kieran McAnulty, who threw around a bunch of funny numbers about Ashburton council’s water infrastructure needs. Well, can I just remind the member that three days after the general election, Mayor Brown went on the record along with 30 other mayors saying—and I quote—they “look forward to the new Government swiftly repealing the outgoing Government’s legislation” and “they have the electoral mandate now to get on with it and fix this flawed reform.” Well, that’s what this Government has been elected to do. We have the electoral mandate granted to us by the people of New Zealand to get on with the job and deliver. After six long years of non-delivery, we are here to get the job done.

As an aside, as it is Valentine’s Day, can I extend my heartfelt congratulations to my parliamentary cricket co-captain, Mr McAnulty, on his recent wedding. I wish he and his wife all the best. Having known them both for several years now, I know that they are a perfect match for each other and are destined for a long and happy future.

But, that gushiness aside, delivery is what the people of South Canterbury and the Timaru District Council have elected us to do. Timaru council, under Mayor Bowen, have been the staunchest opponents of the previous Government’s centralisation obsession. They put their necks on the line. They tossed in their membership of Local Government New Zealand. They exercised their rights to challenge the Government in court. They tried everything they could to prevent central government confiscation of their assets, assets built up by generations of South Cantabrian ratepayers who have consistently and responsibly invested in pipes and storage and treatment.

As a result, South Canterbury has been consistently rated and recognised as having the best drinking water in the country. From the New Zealand Herald in 2019: “Timaru takes out title of best drinking water in New Zealand”. From Stuff in 2021: “South Canterbury tap water the best in New Zealand”. Wow—that is what leadership looks like. That is what you get when you trust local decision makers to invest in local infrastructure. Yep, pipes and drains may not be sexy, and it’s hard for attention-seeking politicians to cut a ribbon on something buried six feet under the ground, but it’s the stuff that well-functioning, exceptional councils should deliver on. I’m proud of my local authorities, and I’m proud of the focus that they’ve put on investing in critical water infrastructure. I’m proud of their opposition to centralisation and their commitment to high-quality decision-making at a local level.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that trusts locals—one which believes the idea that decisions are best made as close to the people that they affect as possible, a Government that believes that services delivered by the community for the community are far more effective than those dictated by us up here in Wellington. I’m proud to be part of a Government that will support all councils with the funding tools that they need so that every town and city across the island can have water as good as what you can drink at home in the “Riviera of the South”. This is a great day for New Zealanders, and we’re only just getting started.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 新年快乐 and 恭喜发财—happy Lunar New Year. The National-led Government was sworn in on 27 November. That means that today they are on their 80th day in Government. They will reach 100 days in Government on 5 March. So on 6 March, we’re going to wake up and think “What have they achieved?” What have they achieved?

Well, Mr Speaker, the coalition Government has a 100-day plan, and I want to read out to you the operative words in some of the 49 things they have promised to do. They have promised to “stop” work on the income insurance scheme, “stop” work on the industry transformation plan, “stop” work on the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme. The next operative word is “withdraw”. They go on to “start producing”. They go on to “narrow the mandate”; to “remove” something. They use the word “cancel”. Then it’s “repeal”. The next word is “stop”, then it’s “repeal”, then it’s “repeal”, then it’s “repeal”, then it’s “cease to implement”. Those are the operative words in their statement. From there on, the next word is “abolish”. It’s “stop”, “begin to repeal and replace”. It’s “stop”. It’s “lodge a reservation against”. They’re going to begin disestablishing. They’re going to disestablish. They’re going to repeal amendments. They’re going to work to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act. So of the 49 steps that they are going to take, 24 broadly use a negative word in them. A negative word like “repeal”, “replace”, “abolish”, and “stop”.

In fact, there is one other action that they propose to take in there. They say it’s phrased positively: “Introduce legislation to restore [the] 90-day trial periods”. But, in fact, that means stopping worker protections. Of the 49 steps that that Government has chosen to take, more than half of them are negative. More than half of them say “reduce”, “repeal”, “replace”, “stop”. This is an incredibly negative Government.

They’ve got no ideas. In fact, their only idea seems to be: not Labour. There are no positive ideas coming from that Government, and their only idea is: not Labour. In fact, so intent are they on doing this, they have rushed a number of bills through this House, under urgency, without full discussion, and with committee stages that have not been given their full rein.

Shanan Halbert: Outrageous.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: That is outrageous when we do not have a full select committee process. So we repealed the Reserve Bank’s mandate. We got rid of those fair pay agreements. They removed the Clean Car Discount. They repealed the Natural and Built Environments Act. They repealed the Spatial Planning Act. They repealed 90-day trials. They repealed the Tax Principles Bill. They repealed the affordable water legislation. And right now, they’re working on repealing the indexing of benefits to wages. All done under urgency, all negative. In fact, that’s a real problem because it means there are some unforeseen consequences of their actions—unforeseen consequences of their negativity that have a seriously deleterious effect on New Zealanders.

Let’s start with one which they are so proud of: repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax. Now, the way the regional fuel tax was was that councils could ask for it. Auckland Council asked for it. It turned out that the price of petrol in Auckland is roughly the same as everywhere else in the country anyway. But now that that levy is gone, some of the much-needed transport projects in Auckland are under threat—some of the safety improvements, some of the alternative modes of transport, some of the measures which will reduce our emissions are under threat. That is the negative consequence of what they have chosen to do.

They’ve linked main benefits to the Consumers Price Index. That might seem innocuous, but the appalling consequence of it is that 7,000 children will move into poverty. Now, those child poverty reduction goals are tough, and it has been hard to meet them, but to take actions that push children into poverty is absolutely appalling. So that’s the kind of negativity that has come through from this Government.

When it comes to the water reform, the negativity from this Government means that ratepayers up and down the country will be faced with huge bills. So all the way through the country, this has a negative effect on people. Reduce, repeal, replace. I say to the Government: they must stop.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like first to take a moment to acknowledge all of the firefighters and emergency responders who are currently battling a large blaze in the Port Hills in Christchurch in my electorate. I know that for many people in my electorate, this fire will be bringing back horrible memories of the 2017 fire, which burned for over 66 days and took the life of a firefighter, Steve Askin. I’d like to acknowledge his family and the heroic work that he did in that fire.

It’s my privilege to serve on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Now, economic development is actually intimately linked to my other really obvious passion, which is health. So, as a medical doctor, I am very aware of the huge impact that income has on health. Income is perhaps the most impactful social determinant of health outcomes. And that’s why for me it’s vitally important that for the health of our country we have sustainable economic development, which will help lift incomes for everyone.

The importance of purchasing power is why it’s vital that the real costs of living are accounted for in our support to people on main benefits. And that’s why our Government has returned main benefit indexing to the Consumers Price Index, which has been the case for over 30 years. Having meaningful work is vital to both physical and mental health. And while it’s good for mental health and wellbeing, it’s also directly tied to productivity. That’s why I’m delighted that we have New Zealand’s first Minister for Mental Health in the Hon Matt Doocey.

Another thing that’s vital for mental health and is also tied to economic development is that we host and have interesting and fun events in our communities. For example, we have SailGP, that is coming back to Lyttelton for a second year. In 2023, we had a very successful event, and Auckland’s misfortune is Christchurch’s good luck, and we are hosting the event again next month. I hope that many of our colleagues will be able to join us, but if you don’t, we’ll probably get the chance next year, all going well.

SailGP is one of those amazing examples of both innovation and new technology, and at the same time, it’s just fun to watch. We’ve got these great little boats—well, quite large boats—zipping along on their foils, and it’s great entertainment. So not only do we have the crowds that come to watch, but the event is beamed all around the world, and people from every walk of life and everywhere get to see the beautiful Whakaraupō Harbour and hopefully will be enticed to come along, if not on one of the over 80 cruise ships that grace our harbour this year, then perhaps on one of the new flights that are coming into Christchurch on United Airlines.

So improving our overall finances means that we can afford some of the big investments that we need to make in things like our health workforce. I was so proud to see the announcement furthering the development of the Waikato medical school yesterday. That’s an idea that’s been bouncing around in health circles for well over 20 years. And, frankly, it’s yet another example of something that would have been best done 20 years ago, but the second-best time to do it is now, so we’re getting on to it. Just because I’m a medical doctor doesn’t mean to say that I don’t understand the importance of our nursing and other allied health workforce. And that’s why National and our coalition partners are working to bond nurses to New Zealand. If they work for five years, then we will be paying them $4,500 a year towards their student loans. That kind of initiative will help to give choices to our nursing students so that they can choose to stay and work in New Zealand. These pragmatic and innovative programmes and policies that we are implementing will help to improve our economic development and also will lift our overall incomes and help to get our economy and our country back on track.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Mr Speaker, thank you. This is the first general debate, I think, since the election. It was a historic election, where you had a single-party Government for the first time under MMP, and it managed to lose half of its members—half of its members—in one fell swoop. It was swept from power. Now, I guess you could say that in the wake of that, the Leader of the Opposition said that they needed to take a good, hard look at themselves in the mirror and say, “What went wrong?” Well, they don’t seem to have started that process at the moment, so maybe we will help them out.

Jamie Arbuckle: They need a very big mirror.

ANDY FOSTER: They do need a very big mirror, but maybe we will help them out just a little bit.

New Zealanders, quite clearly, wanted change. They wanted change, and we actually made a pretty big change this morning. They wanted change from overbearing, controlling, centralising Government. They didn’t like that at all. They didn’t like their assets being taken away from their local councils and taken away by central government. They didn’t—

Shanan Halbert: That was you when you were mayor, Andy.

ANDY FOSTER: Well, we didn’t like that either. They were suffering under a high cost of living, and we’re working very, very hard to deal with that. High inflation, high interest rates brought on—oh, we know now that it’s not really driven by international inflation rates. It’s driven by domestic rates. It’s driven by too much spending, and what did that give us? Not a lot, apart from a lot of debt and a lot of pain. Far too much money was spent by that Government.

New Zealanders were also concerned about poor economic performance. All of those things go together to make poor economic performance, and we need to lift that. They recognised our failures in education. They recognised that far too many of our young people weren’t at school. Far too many of our young people weren’t learning the things that they need to learn to make sure that they are equipped for life, not only as New Zealanders but as international citizens.

They recognised the failures in health—I mean, crikey, we had a pandemic. You’d think that was a real focus on health. What did we do? We actually sent medical professionals back home to wherever they came from because we couldn’t find it within ourselves to keep them here in this country. We didn’t try. We squandered opportunities there. We squandered a lot of opportunities in our health catastrophe to look at our health system.

Our people recognised the division in our society. You could see the numbers. The polling said that we were more divided than ever before. Our people recognised that. Today, we’ve removed the divisive three waters—divisive for many reasons. Divisive because the Labour Government beat up on councils; divisive because of the way in which people from different ethnicities were treated in different ways.

We’re also working very hard to put together—and we’re consulting on this—an inquiry into COVID. Why are we doing that? Because a lot of people suffered from that, as well. They felt divided, they felt alienated, and that’s why we saw people out on the Parliament lawns. They felt alienated by their own Government, which didn’t listen to them. There’s a big, big mirror to be looked at, and that’s why we’re engaging on a proper COVID inquiry; not a butt-covering exercise.

The three coalition members have come together, and we are delivering at speed on what we promised. Actually, we heard from the Hon Deborah Russell just a few moments ago about there being far too many things in the first 100 days, but, remember, it is the first 100 days. It’s not three years, it’s not six years, nine years, or 12 years. It’s the first 100 days that are negative—they say they are negative and that we are getting rid of things. But I always thought that a negative negative was positive, and why are we doing that? Because we’ve got to get rid of those things before they confuse the people—it doesn’t matter who it is—who have got to implement something that the previous Government has put in place that we don’t want to carry on.

You know, why would you want them to do new planning rules, why would you want them to do new water systems—why would you want any of those things? Why not get rid of them straight away, clean the slate, and be able to move ahead—and that’s exactly what we’re doing. That’s why there’s quite a few repeals and getting rid ofs and stops, but then there’ll be the starts, and we’re looking forward to doing that.

I am privileged to be the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and what we really, really need—

Tangi Utikere: Oh, good committee—good committee.

ANDY FOSTER: And, Tangi, it’s great to have you on there. It’s very, very clear that we have an infrastructure deficit. What is not clear is that it is not just about how much money we spent but how well we spend it, how efficiently we spend it, and how effective we are about what we choose to do.

So the first thing is whether we are investing in the right things, and we’ve got to make sure that we are investing in the right things. We’ve got to make sure that we have good business cases behind those things. We’ve got to make sure that we have the workforce to deliver those things.

What we know is that our construction industry actually has not been improving in productivity, and we have to be laser-focused on making sure that we are more efficient and more effective because we want to increase living standards. It’s just not good enough to throw more and more people and more and more resources at something; we have to get more and more out of that. We need to have the right signals and make sure that we remove the inefficiencies from that area.

So I am delighted to be part of this Government. We are going to make massive changes in our community for our community, and I’ll just finish off by saying that it’s really not about us and it’s really not about members opposite, but it’s about what we, together, can do to make our wonderful country a much, much better place, a much more productive place, and a much more prosperous place for us all to live in.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Ngā mihi e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

I Kū Mau Mau

I ku wa

I kū mau mau

I ku huluhulu

I ka lanawao

I ku wa

Koinei te haka i hakangia e tātou, ngā uri o Waikato, i a tātou e whakaeke ana ki runga o Hawai’i, ō mātou tūākana ki roto mai i te whenua, te Hawaiki Tūturu o Hilo, Hawai’i. Koinei te haka hei tautoko i ō tātou nei tūākana i tēnei rangi whakahirahira o tātou, the original navigators of the world.

[This is the haka that was performed by us, the descendants from Waikato, as we arrived in Hawai’i, our elder siblings within that land, True Hawaiki of Hilo, Hawai’i. This is the haka to support our seniors on this significant day of ours, the original navigators of the world.]

Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I am not interested in talking about this Government’s actions or their 100-day plan. I would like to take this time and this opportunity to thank and mihi from Te Pāti Māori to our people, our magic people—tangata Tiriti mai, tangata whenua mai, tangata moana, tangata tauiwi [people of the Treaty, people of the land, people of the Pacific, people newly arrived].

Since our first activation of toitū te Tiriti on 5 December around the motu, even reaching overseas, to the karanga of our King, Kīngi Tūheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII, at Tūrangawaewae to a gathering of 12,000 people, to the protection and guidance of Rātana, from the karanga of our two ariki, to the 64,000 who walked the bridge at Waitangi, we have seen Māori and non-Māori walk alongside each other as a direct response to this Government. We have seen our ariki, our Kīngi, our iwi leaders weave together. We walk in thousands of our ancestors and future mokopuna.

From Te Pāti Māori e kore ngā mihi, e kore e ea i te kupu ki a koutou katoa kua whakarangatira i tā tātou nei kaupapa.

[From Te Pāti Māori, effusive thanks, that cannot be effectively expressed in words, to all of you who have honoured our initiative.]

We have had an inside scoop and a view of what an Aotearoa hou can look like, what it smells like, what it feels like. I could talk about the many different policies, bills, and laws of this coalition Government and what it is bringing to our country, from the axing of a smoke-free country to the removal of reo in spaces, to the repeal of the three waters bill, section 27 in justice, section 7AA in Oranga Tamariki. We could talk for days, but we will talk about our action from our forum tents to our wānanga, to endless lunch packs, Māori wardens, paepae actions, karanga calls, ringawera, parking kaimahi—we can do it, and with not one fault.

I put a post up a few days ago on my Facebook page: “If you could sum up the Hui-aa-motu, Ratana & Waitangi in 3 words what would it be?” Over 330 comments, with not one negative thing to say about our direct response. Kupu like “preparation”, “mobilisation”, and “response”.

Our generation is tending to our whenua, from our tūpuna, preparing our Hawaiki hou. We will not stand to hear or see people talking at us at our own marae rather than talking and listening with us. There is a huge difference. We will not stand for people to stand under our mahau from Hobson’s Pledge. My generation will not stand for people yelling at us to get an education when our grandparents gave their blood, sweat, and tears to establish kaupapa Māori like Kura ā Iwi, Te Aho Matua, kura kaupapa, wharekura, kōhanga reo. Government didn’t do that; we did that.

I definitely will not stand to hear someone shout, I quote, “Ngā Tamatoa has been shouting the Treaty is a fraud since long ago.” Well, guess what! Wake-up call: their mokopuna is shouting that too, because as we have, as their children and grandchildren—the Treaty has different Ts & Cs compared to Te Tiriti, and 500 signed those Ts & Cs.

I have been hearing a lot of kōrero around “We are not getting rid of Te Tiriti.” My answer is that if you even dare touch, you even dare change or alter a single word or letter, you are getting rid of Te Tiriti.

Waiho i ēnā kupu kia tapu. Waiho i ēnā kupu, waiho i tēnā tiriti kia mohoa mō ā mātou tūpuna, kāore mō koutou. Mō ā tātou rangatahi, mō ā tātou mokopuna, nā mā ō tātou kaumātua, mā ō tātou tūpuna tēnā kawenata, tēnā tiriti e whakamana. Waiho kia rāhui.

[Leave the sanctity of those words intact. Leave those words, leave that Treaty at the present time for our ancestors, not for you all. It is for our young people, it is for our grandchildren, it is for our elders, it is for our ancestors to give authority to that covenant, to that Treaty. Leave it protected.]

Look, it’s pretty simple: Te Tiriti is every single person’s landlord agreement in our country. It is what keeps us all safe. It is what not only keeps Māori safe but every single soul that walks on this whenua. In the words of my ruruhi and koroheki [female and male elders], tākiri tū te Iwi Māori e, kia kotahi rā [arise and stand, the Māori people, be as one]. Otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa.

SPEAKER: Just before I call Tim van de Molen, I’d just remind the new member that sometimes when you’re using the word “you”, it’s best not directed at the Chair. If it’s used in a general sense it’s fine, but it’s a little bit directed here. I’m not hurt by it, but keep it in mind.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take the final call, I think—the second to final call; the penultimate call—in this general debate, for the first general debate of this Parliament. We have been straining at the seams as a country. We have been struggling along, getting by off the hard work, the tenacity, of everyday New Zealanders, and it’s no thanks to the previous Government, which let this country down time after time in area after area. It’s a wonder that we were able to still perform to the level we were. It feels at times like we’re in a Third World country when you look at some of the terrible statistics that have been rolling out under the past Government. But help is here, thank goodness. The Government has changed, and the Waikato electorate and the Waikato region is well poised to capitalise on that.

I wanted to take the opportunity of seeking this call today because we had a fantastic and momentous occasion yesterday where a memorandum of understanding was signed to start the third medical school in this country. Now, that is a fantastic piece of progress under this Government and a clear demonstration that outcomes matter, as opposed to the last Government that was all about discussion and no delivery. This Government is getting on and delivering. Quite clearly, a third medical school is needed. We are seeing the numbers of GPs declining, unfortunately, in this country. When you look at the population dynamic within that GP sector, we’re going to see an increased number of retirements over the coming years.

When you look at our closest partner, Australia, and the number of medical schools they have per capita, on a similar comparison we should indeed be looking at a fifth medical school now, not a third. So a third medical school is well and truly due. The innovative part of what is being proposed at Waikato University is a graduate entry programme. That is the point of difference that really adds some value. Alongside the two existing medical schools we have in New Zealand, we’ll now have a third medical school with a different entry pathway, a graduate entry pathway, so that people can come in with another undergraduate degree, work through a four-year programme instead of six at the other medical schools, and indeed come out the end as a GP.

Now, the point of this being based in the best region in the country—the Waikato—is, of course, to help identify and create a solution for the fact that we are seeing a shortage across rural areas in New Zealand. We hear members on the other side talking about a million dollars of consultancy, but what about that last Government and the hundreds of millions chucked at light rail alone? Mr O’Connor is walking out of the room because he’s scared about that. Now he’s coming back—perhaps he wants to say something about the outrageous wastage the former Government brought to this country. An utter disgrace.

New Zealanders were let down time and time again by overspending and a total lack of delivery in sector after sector. And, sadly, the health sector was one of those. The former Government let Kiwis down, and rural New Zealanders in particular were really struggling. And for a member like Mr O’Connor to be opposing support for health into the rural sector is an absolute disgrace. Rural New Zealand deserves the same healthcare as anyone else in New Zealand, and this medical school will help to fix that problem.

What we’ve seen is a massive pressure point on our GPs across the country, but particularly in rural areas. People haven’t been able to get into their GPs. Instead, they’ve been presenting at emergency departments. We’ve seen ramping up of ambulances at the hospitals; it’s been well documented on the news. There have even been instances of police cars having to transport patients to the hospital because there’s no ambulance available. We have a health system struggling under the negligence of the former Government. Thankfully, help is here. This third medical school will be a great benefit to New Zealand, but particularly to our Waikato region. It will help our GP network have a better understanding of the needs in rural New Zealand. It will grow the institutional knowledge within our region, and I have confidence that it will deliver stronger, better, more sustainable outcomes for New Zealand, and the health of New Zealanders more importantly, because this is a Government that cares and we are getting this country back on track.

SPEAKER: And welcome back to the House, Shanan Halbert.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Kaupeka ki runga, kaupeka ki raro, kui, kui, whiti ora e.

[A branch above, a branch below, the shining cuckoo celebrates its successful crossing of the ocean.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much for giving me the honour to rejoin the House yesterday. Can I acknowledge all of my colleagues across the House in this 54th Parliament.

It hasn’t been long since I was speaking in this House last time. An election’s gone by but, in fact, actually, for a Government that did big talk that says, “We’ll get back in the New Year and we’ll get things going.”—actually, you didn’t get back so fast. It’s only four weeks on my attendance register that I’ve missed. But I’m pleased to be here and pleased to make a contribution in this general debate today.

It hasn’t been easy, though, sitting on the sidelines at home, watching this House over those mere four weeks give an assault on vulnerable workers in Aotearoa in this country, an assault on Māori—indigenous people of Aotearoa—and an assault and broken promises to our Aucklanders and ratepayers of Tāmaki-makau-rau. This Government was elected on what I call the three Cs: addressing congestion, cost of living, and addressing crime in our biggest city in this country. But where it counts—and the days are numbered for this Government’s 100-day plan; they haven’t got much longer to go to fulfil the promises that they made and the big speeches, the big talk that they made in this election.

Tom Rutherford: Talk about congestion.

SHANAN HALBERT: I will talk about congestion. The people of Auckland suffer from congestion the most in this country. And anyone who knows anything about infrastructure and transport in this country actually knows the investment under the previous Government: $77 billion pipeline planned for the next five years. But, actually, what’s important is the investment that’s required in this country: $177 billion, actually, is what the infrastructure sector is asking us for. Politics aside, we know, we say that we need to invest in infrastructure in this country to get us to the place that we need to go.

But we are going backwards, and we have seen that in the last couple of days in the legislation that has been pushed through this House. Yes, I will use the word “outrageous”, because as I stood on that side of the House last time, people on this side of the House said it was outrageous, that it was an assault on democracy that we were pushing things through urgency in this House. Well, ana, here you are, an assault on democracy.

As we talk about three waters and repeal that piece of legislation, I heard in the general debate today, one, two, three speakers from the Government side actually talk about water infrastructure. They talked about issues in their local electorates, but what we saw today was actually a repeal of a plan. Politics aside, we can disagree with each other’s plan, but that was a plan in place to address the issues that this country faces. My biggest concern—and I’ll come back to Auckland here—is that the repeal of this legislation will increase water rates in Auckland. Last year, we saw an increase of 9 percent. Without three waters, without water infrastructure legislation, we can see that rise up to 25 percent that Aucklanders will be paying in their water rates in the coming years. I won’t stand here for that.

Alongside that, we see the impact of transport projects being cut by the Minister for Auckland and the Minister of Transport, the Hon Simeon Brown—the $1.7 billion hole that is left in transport infrastructure in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. The question is—and the people of Muriwai asked this question—where is the Minister for Auckland at a time of need? Who is advocating for us? I’ll say it again: where’s the Minister for Auckland? Who is advocating for Auckland in this shocking repeal, no plan Government that’s in front of us.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.

This bill is about keeping people out of poverty and that is a matter which is close to Anahila Kanongata’a’s heart and my own. That member was the author of this bill, and it’s really pleasing to me that I’m able to now continue in this work and bring it to this House. The central purpose of this bill is to limit the amount that can be compulsorily deducted by court orders to repay the debts of beneficiaries from their benefit.

Now, this Government is in the midst of passing legislation to limit the increases in benefit rates, and that’s going to compound the problems of people who are on benefits and who struggle to repay their bills. Benefits are intended to be enough for people to get by on and not a great deal more. In fact, we know as a fact, through the work we’ve done in child poverty reduction, that there are many people who are on benefits who are in poverty. So when things go wrong, when there’s extra expenses and money is borrowed or credit is run up and the creditors chase them up, it causes real hardship.

Now, obviously, when people borrow money they have to pay it back and it’s entirely appropriate that the law and the courts provide procedures and systems for the collection of that money. But we have moved on from a repressive system. Debtors’ prisons are a thing of the past, workhouses are a thing of the past, writs of arrest are a thing of the past. We recognise that when we allow people to collect their debt, there is a balance to be struck; that we need a humane system, a system that doesn’t make people go hungry, go cold, go without shelter, and not able to care for their children and their whānau. That’s what this does.

It is, in fact, a very modest bill. I have discussed this bill and these problems with a number of entities in the finance sector, and certainly some of them would say that there should be no collection of debts against beneficiaries through these attachment orders because, by definition, they won’t have enough to live on. But the member who drafted this bill, Anahila Kanongata’a, has indicated that she thinks it’s appropriate that that amount be capped at 5 percent. So 5 percent of the net amount of the benefit can be deducted, but no more. Because at that level, it’s an indication that their payments are being made but it won’t throw them into the kind of hardship that would otherwise be the case.

There are certainly plenty of studies where beneficiaries have found themselves in trouble and they have had very significant outgoings deducted from their benefits in a way which leaves them—and, of course, the first: rent has to be paid. There are other compulsory outgoings and the thing that is last on the list is often food. So they find themselves with only a few tens of dollars a week to feed themselves and their family, and we know what then happens: poor nutrition, and poor nutrition leads to poor health outcomes. So what this bill does is to cap the amount that can be deducted. It’s a very simple bill, and the bill itself, as can be seen, is a very short bill simply amending the District Courts Act 2016 to insert this limitation. So it’s a simple bill and I’m hopeful to get the support of this House because all it does is really prevent hardships.

We know this new Government has been very clear that it wants to address the cost of living crisis, and this is about the cost of living. We know that, most of the time, lenders act responsibly and there’s been a number of reforms to make sure that lenders lend only when it is affordable to repay. That doesn’t always happen, but the other thing that happens, of course, is that people’s circumstances change: that they might have borrowed money when they had a job, but they now find themselves on the jobseeker benefit. Of course, they can’t then make the payments on their car or whatever it might be, and they simply can’t make ends meet. They can’t pay their rent and their payments on their car and off they go to the court, a judgment’s entered against them. Having worked in that field, I know that once that kind of thing happens, penalty interest accrues, legal costs accrue, and the debt becomes many times larger sometimes than it originally was. Of course, that then becomes a millstone around the debtor’s neck—a trap from which they certainly can’t escape.

Now, there are procedures—we know there’s a no-asset procedure and a bankruptcy procedure—but there’s a lot of people out there who, for their own reasons, and quite good reasons, don’t want to go down that track. Bankruptcy has its own stigma and, of course, the no-asset procedure can only be used once, and, of course, people actually want to repay their debts. There’s a certain dignity and appropriateness in wanting to repay their debts and they often find themselves in this debt trap going through the courts getting these attachment orders.

There are no particular prohibitions in the current law as to the amount of the attachment orders. Judges are expected to undertake an assessment of the ability to pay, but there is also an expectation that they will be repaid, and quite often those attachment orders—which may only be $30, $40 a week, which to most of us wouldn’t seem a huge amount, but it becomes a crippling burden. So this is a simple piece of legislation aimed at making sure that the impost put on beneficiaries on main benefits, when they find themselves in a difficult position with an order of the court—a judgment of the court against them and enforcement proceedings for collection of that debt—that their income, their only income, isn’t reduced to such a point that they are thrown into fundamentally abject poverty.

So following some Victorian legislation in Australia, it’s a very modest move, it’s a humane move, and it’s one I hope this House will support. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to preface my contribution to the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill by discussing a bit of a background to this bill.

Those not in the legal profession may not know that attachments are the most common use of the law to enforce a civil debt, through which debtors could have their income, whether from Work and Income or from employment, already designated for payment to their creditor. In 2014, the law addressing this civil debt situation was passed to allow for collection of civil debts by an enforcement system. It has been troubling to note that by 2015, the Commerce Commission noted that the numbers of orders per month increased approximately 400 percent after that change—from approximately 200, to over a thousand. Public reporting has further highlighted that, in 2018, over 24,000 attachment orders for civil debt were granted against people on the benefit—beneficiaries. Only around 5,000 of civil attachments were made against people on wages—people who were working. In 2020, the Salvation Army also noted that only 14 percent of attachments in 2020 were placed on people who were working and receiving wages, leaving a massive 86 percent of attachment orders against beneficiaries.

The law, as drafted, seems to offer a limited prospect of reducing the debt burden on beneficiaries. The bill primarily targets orders made under the District Court. The District Court is not the only avenue for attachment decisions to be made, and other legislation allows for that in other jurisdictions as well, outside the District Court. For that main reason, there is a limited scope. It will not stop the large amounts of attachment orders being made to beneficiaries. Also, the District Court already has the power to limit an attachment order on beneficiaries. Currently, that limit is at 40 percent of their income.

I think that the object of the law in 2014 has mainly been to help people take responsibility for the debt that they take on. Yes, circumstances may change, but then the responsibility of taking more debt is a personal one and something that each individual truly needs to get a handle on in life. This is one of the major points in life, that when we take debt, we should be able to take responsibility for that and make repayments. The law, in that sense, also oversteps the decision that District Court judges are already enabled to make, limiting what attachment judgments that they can make decisions on and use the protected earnings rate at 40 percent to limit those decisions. The object, really, is personal responsibility.

If we look at the increasing number and percentage of attachment decisions from 2014 all the way to 2020, which is what we have in evidence, the fact is that a very large sector of persons who are receiving the benefit have found themselves unable to pay for one reason or another—some, surely, on legitimate grounds. But the Government also needs to be responsible in making sure that individuals are able to well foster that ability to make decisions about their expenses and their debt going forward.

The idea of limiting to 5 percent attachment judgments will not incentivise individuals from pushing themselves to taking on that personal responsibility of being mindful of the debts that they incur. We want to foster that knowledge and ability among everyone in the community, and particularly beneficiaries who are dependent on welfare for their daily means. Our objective of getting people back into work also falls within this attempt to get people out of the cycle of dependency and getting them to take responsibility and to get into work.

The bill, essentially, oversteps an existing ability of District Court judges to make that decision. Also, because it is limited to just the District Court, then, essentially, the scope is very limited and will not really—probably slow down the number of people on the benefit who are taking that well beyond their capability.

It is often that we have also heard about lenders’ responsibility, and this has been dealt with as well. While there is legislation for lenders’ responsibility, then providing for a limited cap on what can be attached in a debt judgment to 5 percent does not work to foster their responsibility among individuals to actually be mindful and to control their decisions in seeking debt or borrowing money.

I think that, very often, there is no discussion on personal liability; it has to be the liability of everybody else other than the person taking on the debt, to be conscious of what he or she is getting into. What we are focused on is, really, getting individual responsibility up and getting people to understand that they need to be mindful. It is a responsibility of everyone, and particularly if they are already struggling and having very little means or a very small source of funds or limited funds because their funds are coming from welfare. For these reasons, we do not support this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin by acknowledging former MP Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki for bringing this bill, and we’ll acknowledge the Hon Duncan Webb for picking it up. For us, this is a matter of justice, and it’s a matter of the systemic failures that have led to so many people on low incomes having attachment orders that basically end up stripping away so much of their income that it makes it impossible to survive. Unlike other jurisdictions—for example, in parts of Australia, there are mechanisms to wipe attachment orders when it becomes basically impossible for people to pay them—we have very little recourse to wipe those attachment orders and to adequately limit them.

So it was interesting to hear from Paulo Garcia, from the Government side, where he identified the problem right at the beginning. He almost got it right. He talked about how, actually, one of the issues that we have is that a huge proportion of those attachment orders are on people receiving income support and that those people are some of the people who are on the breadline. And yet, despite that, while also acknowledging the narrow scope of the bill and that we need to take systemic action, he didn’t speak of any intention by the Government to do anything about this. So what I’m hearing from the Government side is they’re not going to support this, but they’re also not intending to do much to resolve those broader systemic issues, despite acknowledging the extent of the problem which is that a huge proportion of people who have attachment orders are beneficiaries. A lot of them—a great proportion of them—are women and, equally, Māori, which I think becomes a Treaty issue in the sense of the Crown not meeting its responsibilities for looking after our communities. Once again, we’re back at square one by the Government admitting that they don’t want to do anything.

We have had so many advocates on this issue. In fact, recently, last year, we had a coalition of groups including FinCap, Child Poverty Action Group, the Dunedin Budget Advisory Service, Pakuranga and Howick Budgeting Service, Henderson Budget Service, Auckland Central Budgeting, Debtfix, Good Shepherd New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, and the Salvation Army as well as the Nelson Budget Service penning a letter to the former Ministers at the time, calling for attachment orders to be stopped for people on the benefit. They were the ones who recognised the extent of the issue.

Our front-line service providers are at the front line of recognising that attachment orders on those who are already struggling to survive does not do anything to incentivise better money management as Paulo tried to identify. Instead, all they do is they push people into needing more hardship assistance into more debt. And the key thing here in unpacking that so broken and beaten-up argument over personal responsibility is that you can’t actually make life choices when you don’t have the choice. Like, if you get stripped of so much of your money when you literally have no money left to make decisions on how you spend it, it doesn’t matter how good you’re at budgeting; you’re put in that impossible situation where you then have to take more debt to survive.

Part of these attachment orders on people on the benefit is that it creates a perverse cycle of debt and hardship that creates that poverty trap that people aren’t able to escape. Rather than just preaching about personal responsibility, we should realise the collective responsibility we all have to not have a system that pushes people into poverty, that traps people in hardship, and that fails to acknowledge why people may find themselves with those attachment orders in this place, because we’ve built a House that is broken and that entrenches inequality.

So the Green Party does support this bill. We do think that there is space to have a broader and more systemic conversation on attachment orders, but it would be naive to imply that there wouldn’t be a difference being made by reducing the amount an income can be deducted to 5 percent for somebody who’s on a benefit, and that it would really, really limit the negative impacts that really high attachment orders have on people.

This is one area where I do think we’re starting to fall behind as a country in recognising that attachment orders do not do good. In fact, they do harm, particularly for those people who have very little money already. So it could have been an excellent opportunity by the Government members to support this bill to the select committee to then to be able to hear—from the same people that the previous speaker was talking about who he doesn’t think have made the right decisions—about, actually, what led them to have these attachment orders. And then we could have had a constructive conversation on how to address it, but unfortunately it seems that the Government side is content with the status quo of trapping people in poverty.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call to say that we won’t be supporting this bill. Can I acknowledge the member in charge, Dr Duncan Webb. It’s good that you have taken on this bill. And can I also add that I can clearly see that the intention behind this bill is a good one, but that intention won’t be delivered through this bill that the member has on the Order Paper. That’s the reason that we have decided not to support this bill.

Clearly, the member is concerned about people, those who are on low incomes, those who are on benefit; if they incur civil debt, they have to repay that. And the attachment orders, yes, will make a judgment on how much should be returned and what kind of instalments. We can fully understand that. But what this bill does is it’s going to create a division between people: those who are on benefit versus those who are in employment. This kind of limit won’t work when people are in employment. In our view, it’s going to actually create a disincentive for people to get into employment. For example, if somebody has incurred a huge amount of civil debt while being on benefit, they will know that if they take up employment, they will have to pay that money back sooner or in bigger instalments than it would be because of this legislation. So overall, it’s not going to actually do good for these people, because the overall wellbeing of people is going to be better if they are in employment rather than staying on a benefit.

And not just that. As I was listening to Dr Duncan Webb, he mentioned that, yes, when people are in hardship, they might need more money, they go out and borrow some money and take some loans. That is the reality of life. Yes, people do borrow money. But if these lenders—the reasonable lenders, I’m talking about—see that this individual is on benefit and that this legislation will apply to them, they’ll know straight away that if they lend money to that individual who is on benefit, then getting that money back will be really hard. Or it would take ages and ages for that person to get that money back. So why would they lend that money to that person who is on that benefit? Actually, it’s going to create more hardship for that person, because that person will not be able to borrow that money or take that loan when they really need it. So I would like to put a big emphasis on this, that people do sometimes borrow money, but people will not be reasonable, lenders will not be lending money to people if they are on benefit because of this legislation, if it goes through.

The other point I would like to make is that courts make a judgment based on individual circumstances. So it’s not like everybody who is on one type of benefit—that their circumstances, personal or family circumstances, are exactly the same, and courts can judge that. So putting this percentage on whatever amount they are getting through Work and Income actually considers that everybody’s circumstances are exactly the same, which is wrong. Because individual circumstances can be judged by judges in courts and that amount can be decided; it could be less than 5 percent, it could be more than 5 percent. We should leave this kind of decision to courts rather than putting this percentage and seeing that everybody on one type of benefit should have the same kind of circumstances if they have civil debt.

So, in our view, this bill, as I said, yes, the intention is good, but it’s not going to deliver what it intends to. It’s not actually going to give any financial relief to these people, those who are on benefit and have civil debt. Actually, it’s going to create more hardship for these people and that’s why the ACT Party opposes this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this call for the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I will thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for putting this bill together. It is something that is new in front of me today seeing this. I haven’t had any consultation on this, so I’ve just read today and heard from Mr Webb what the bill’s intention is. As Mr Webb has just said, the intention would be to take this to the Justice Committee, so that is one thing that we probably would agree on if we got to that point.

But my question, quickly, when I started to observe this bill was why would we want to do this? And it isn’t very well explained throughout this bill. Probably the intention is good, because I think we are looking at people that are struggling with the cost of living. We’ve got people that we’ve heard about today in this House that are on benefits that are finding it hard to get by, and I think Mr Webb has tried to put this bill together in that frame of mind.

As we know, cost of living is a struggle for people in New Zealand at the moment; it’s a struggle for all of us. It’s a cost to pay rent—I understand that. From what Mr Webb said through his introduction, it’s a real hard thing at the moment to put food on the table. So, I understand, when we’re looking through this bill and we’re looking at 86 percent of attachments are to beneficiaries—that in itself speaks loudly.

Also, we look through the bill and we get to the point where we make this nominal figure of 5 percent, but there is no reason why we’ve got to 5 percent. I think I heard Mr Webb say he would have zero, but to get this bill up to the House, a 5 percent nomination was put forward. So, when I was reading through this, I was thinking, “Well, what about the victims of crime?” We’ve got the beneficiary who has caused the crime, and now we are going to say to them, “We will give you only 5 percent. You will only need to pay 5 percent of your benefit to that victim.” That’s where this starts to fall apart, because, in our society, we want law and order to actually do the right things; and that’s what we all want from our society. So, all of a sudden, if we passed this legislation, we are actually saying, “If you’re on a benefit, you go ahead and you commit a crime, and it doesn’t really matter because the highest amount you’ll get is 5 percent.” I think and New Zealand First thinks that’s wrong, because what about the victims?

So, as we progress through this, the attachments, we understand—is because it’s around being attachments to beneficiaries, this 5 percent figure that’s pulled out of the sky, but it’s the victims of the crime that will actually suffer here. Actually, probably, for a lot of people there will be no incentive to stop causing crime, and that’s the whole reason, in this case, if you can go up to—and I heard from the member on our side of the House, 40 percent is the maximum amount the court will actually put. So it is about personal responsibility. If you do a crime, you pay—it’s as simple as that. Putting a minimum of 5 percent I just do not think is appropriate. So, yes, the ability to pay if you’re a beneficiary is low, I understand that, but don’t do the crime in the first place. So New Zealand First will not support this bill. It does not make any sense. For that reason, going forward we will not support. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am actually really delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this bill, because, as it was being developed, I had a bit to do with the various budget groups who brought the issue to my attention. I think there are two things I want to address in this speech, which the last speaker, Jamie Arbuckle, referred to. He said, “Well, what is the reason for this bill? You know, people get into debt, but why this bill in particular?”

There’s a bit of a background as to what’s going on here with these attachment orders and why it particularly applies to people with benefits, and it’s to do with the industrialisation of attachment orders. So it used to be that in order to get an attachment order, a creditor, someone to whom money was owed would have to get the attachment order and then take it along to the person’s employer or, in this case, to Work and Income (WINZ)—actually on an individual basis—and get it all processed through the WINZ systems, and eventually perhaps get the attachment order being seen to. That’s sort of the process, sort of, 20-odd years ago—25, 30, maybe longer.

But it turns out that the contemporary process is quite different, because, at the moment, what happens is a person can get an attachment order and take it along to WINZ and it gets processed through the WINZ computer systems automatically—automatically, so the attachment just goes on straight away. In fact, so automated is this process that it turns out that there are companies that specialise in doing it. So they buy the debt and they get attachment orders on it, and they take these debts along to WINZ—the attachment orders—in bulk lots and get them bulk processed through the WINZ systems. But we have enabled the industrialisation of making poverty even worse through the WINZ systems. Now—

Simon Court: Debtors deserve to get their money back.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Of course people deserve to get their money back; there’s no doubt about that. But when a person is on a benefit, it becomes even worse and even harder to survive if a significant amount of money is being taken out in order to pay old debt.

It gets even worse than this, because some of what has gone on is irresponsible lending. So it’s lending where the person selling the products has not taken care, has not taken due regard, to ensure that the person is actually able to repay the debt. The attachment order process makes that worse.

Now, what this bill would do would ensure that if a person is going to lend to someone who is on benefit, or if a person is going to lend at all, because they cannot be sure if they’re going to get their money back, because they can’t do an attachment order so easily, they would actually have to go through the proper credit checks. In other words, it would make sure that people lending money did so responsibly. So that’s one of the first reasons to support this bill. It is because of the industrialised process—at the moment, the industrialised process encourages poor lending behaviour.

I just want to address the issue that was raised by the member from New Zealand First, worrying about the victims of crime. Actually, he’s got a point. He’s got a good point on that one. I think there is some regard that needs to be given to the priority of debt and which debt should be repaid first. I agree that reparations to victims of crime should be perhaps further up the list, but that is exactly the sort of issue that could have been discussed through a select committee process. I urge the member that if he wants to make that priority, this is an ideal bill to do it on, to take that issue to the select committee and discuss it in full. Now, let’s be quite aware that a lot of these attachment orders are not to do with reparations for crime. There will certainly be some of those that would be the case, but I’m going to urge the member to think about taking this opportunity to ensure that there is a full discussion of where debt should be prioritised, what sort of debt should be repaid first out of the limited resources that beneficiaries have. I take his point that it is important to ensure that criminal reparations are properly repaid, but that should not mean that we don’t discuss this bill at all; in fact, it should create an extra reason to discuss this bill.

So for those three reasons—(1) because of the industrialisation of attachment orders, (2) because of the poor lending practices, and (3) because of the way we can talk about the prioritisation of reparations to victims—I think that we should support this bill through to select committee.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question in question time today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears not.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In a supplementary answer to question 10 from Te Pāti Māori, I answered that the number on jobseeker benefit has gone up by 76,000. It is actually 69,100.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, Minister Upston.

Bills

District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know the Māori Party’s speaker didn’t speak before but we’re OK on this side of the House if she wants to give the speech now.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Does the Māori Party wish to take a call?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Aroha mai, we’re not speaking on this today. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): OK, this is very messy, and it’s very difficult from the Chair to manage the calls when someone doesn’t take it. Very helpful if the party could please give the Chair notice of their intention so that we don’t have this confusion.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Yes, Madam Speaker, I’ll bring that up with my co-leaders. Thank you very much.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): So just checking National aren’t taking their call, because they were after the Māori Party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Well, this is the confusion because technically that was the Māori Party call, so now we’re up to call number seven, which is yours.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill in the name of my good colleague Duncan Webb.

Just acknowledging that this bill was originally in the name of Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, who had done a previous bill also in relation to debt on beneficiaries and had done some great work there in terms of bailiffs reclaiming things such as mobility scooters.

This bill limits the amount that creditors can deduct from benefit payments to 5 percent, and it’s really timely, as I think it’s been mentioned already today, that on a day where the Government is eroding the financial ability of beneficiaries in the future, that they’re also voting against this bill, which would seek to reduce the incidence of poverty by reducing the stress on beneficiaries. So it’s a double whammy today for anybody who is on a benefit, thanks to the members opposite who proclaim to be fighting the cost of living crisis.

This bill does so by amending the District Court Act 2016 to ensure that an attachment order on its own—that is, making sure it’s discounted any impact the deduction notice may apply to a judgment debtor’s earnings—cannot lead to a deduction of more than 5 percent of net earnings; a judgment debtor who is in receipt of a main benefit. I think it’s really disappointing that we don’t have the opportunity for this to go to select committee to hear submissions from those people who are directly affected by being on one of the main benefits.

Generally, as we’ve heard today, benefits are typically pretty tough to get by on as it is. When people get into financial trouble and they can’t afford large repayments, particularly in a cost of living crisis, it’s really important to give consideration and that’s what this bill does. Other jurisdictions in other countries prohibit entirely the attachment orders in respect of benefit payments. So for New Zealand this is an incredibly modest move. So, again, disappointing to see it’s not being supported to select committee when in other jurisdictions you have an outright prohibition on attachment orders. This would be a modest move and it would still require beneficiaries to carefully manage their finances.

The way that this bill would work—and its aim—is that there are absolutely no prohibitions right now in New Zealand on attachment orders being made against beneficiaries despite the limited nature of their income and their ability to pay. It would be a good way of ensuring that there is some protection in place, that people do not get into debt that is simply unable to be repaid and get into an endless downward spiral in terms of poverty and being unable to repay fines and reparations.

Some additional information that might be of use: in August 2023 a man who received $452.74 a week in benefits payments had $96 a week to cover off his own debt repayments. So, given the cost of what weekly rents would be, I think he’d struggle to find a one-bedroom apartment for $350 or $400. That leaves insufficient funds for food, for other main utilities, and generally for living. Then he had $30 a week taken for a private debt collector’s attachment order, $40 went to the Ministry of Justice, $11.00 to the Ministry of Social Development, and $15 in child support. He was left with $356 a week; $270 had to go on rent, giving him $86 a week to live on.

I think it goes to the point that those people in New Zealand doing it tough right now don’t need bills like this being voted down. They certainly don’t need a change to the way that benefits are indexed to make it even tougher for beneficiaries to pay their bills. If those members opposite think it’s OK to live on $86 a week, I’d like to see them try and do it themselves.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak with reference to this bill that’s before us, the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill. I’d like to say that, like a few of my colleagues on this side of the House, I acknowledge the intention behind this bill, and it’s a good intention. And I’d like to say, despite this, we are opposing it. And I want to explain a number of reasons—but I’m going to focus on about three—why we’re opposing this bill today.

First, the bill, by way of synopsis, seeks to ensure that an attachment order on its own can’t lead to a deduction of more than 5 percent of the net earnings of a judgment debtor who is on a benefit. Now, the first reason why, I’d like to discuss, we oppose this bill is because the bill only affects attachments issued under the District Court Act, even though attachments and deductions exist in other legislation.

The second reason why I’d like to highlight that we oppose this bill is that there already is a mechanism in the civil court system where 40 percent of a debtor’s net income can be deducted. So, yes, there are mechanisms that already exist, so the court could change the amount of it if it thinks the debtor won’t be able to keep up with the payments. This is a mechanism that already exists, and either party can apply to vary this and to suspend or cancel the attachment order. This is a mechanism that already exists.

Now, the third reason I’d like to highlight as to why we are opposing this bill today is that limiting the amount the creditor can receive through attachment orders may also incentivise them to pursue other methods of enforcement. And we’re talking about methods such as seizing property. Now, while I studied law—and I used to work in the court system—there were a number of times that I came across people, defendants, that were going through the court system and one of the worst things that they could experience was having their property seized. And they used to come and plead—plead with the judges, plead with the magistrates. It’s something that affects their person in a way that we can’t describe.

So with this bill, even if we were to support it, there are those other mechanisms that exist, and so we oppose it for those three reasons amongst others. Now, I want to say this: Mr Webb, I understand, again, the intention behind which you are speaking to this bill. The National Party, we unashamedly align ourselves with the value of personal responsibility. You’ve heard it called around, and I know that people refer to it so flippantly on the other side of the House, but it is something we feel strongly about.

But personal responsibility for us, here, also comes along with being mindful of people’s circumstances, and when I look to what we are as a Government focusing on, we’re focusing on abolishing the previous Government’s prisoner reduction target, we’re focusing on stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports, and we’re focusing on enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings. This here—this bill before the House today—is a bill where there already exists mechanisms in place where people that find themselves in situations where it is hard to pay can apply for redress—for recourse rather. We do not support this bill today, as I said. I’ve mentioned three reasons why we don’t support it today. I acknowledge the intention behind the bill with the former MP that is no longer here, Anahila, but we don’t support the bill in this form today.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to make a few words and some observations about the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to first acknowledge my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, whose name this bill is under; and also acknowledge all of the work that my previous colleague Anahila Kanongata’a did as part of her suite of measures that she put in place through a couple of bills that she was very successful in with the theme of alleviating the pressures and the undue hardships that various people faced, through no fault of their own often. She came up with these quite simple and quite functional ways of helping that reality.

So it’s very upsetting and quite disconcerting to hear that the Opposition aren’t going to support this member’s bill. I’ve listened to the debate and heard them talk about things like personal responsibility and incentivisation and “Why would we do this?” The intention’s good—everybody acknowledges the intentionality—but no one wants to necessarily take that further step and do something practical that helps someone.

We heard my colleague from New Zealand First emphasise, over and over again, “What about the victims of crime?” Although that, as Dr Deborah Russell acknowledged, could make up part of some of these judgments or some of these attachment orders, it’s in the minority. It’s worth a conversation, though, and that’s why this should be supported to select committee—so that the Justice Committee can hear from people and can make those considerations about how to take this bill and perhaps turn it into something that adds some heft to it.

While we’re talking about personal responsibility, we’ve heard from contributors today talking about, “Well, what about the responsibility for responsible lending?” Sometimes it’s just one of those things where the quickest and easiest thing is always to blame the person at the bottom of the pile. What about their responsibility to make sure that people don’t get into that debt? It’s not saying that those debts are forgiven. It’s not saying that those debts don’t matter. It’s just saying when we’re dealing with people who, by definition, are already almost certainly receiving the least amount of money that you can possibly live on, why would you take any more than 5 percent?

Because vulnerability begets more vulnerability, and there are numerous examples of how that works—it’s something that spins out of control. Through no fault of someone—as my colleague Dr Webb, when he opened his first contribution to this bill, said—people can take out loans, for instance, under totally different circumstances. Maybe they had a job, maybe they had circumstances in their lives that, for all intents and purposes, they fully intended to be able to service this debt. But sometimes bad things happen to good people, and it’s up to us to be able to put measures in place to provide those safety nets for people—of which this bill is one.

So I’m very disappointed—this bill harms no one, it’s a step forward to making a positive contribution towards the livelihoods and the lives of people who often are the ones that are most vulnerable in our society—that the Opposition won’t be supporting this through.

However, I think the previous speaker, Rima Nakhle, spoke of three reasons and tried to assume a catalogue of reasons as to why this wasn’t being supported. But the theme that I’ve noticed through the Opposition’s contributions today has been searching for excuses. None of it was particularly logical; none of it really stood out. The first contributor, Mr Garcia, spoke for about eight minutes before I realised he wasn’t going to support the bill because he outlaid what was a pretty logical sort of argument in support. But even then, they couldn’t quite cross that threshold to do the right thing.

So it’s very disappointing, but hopefully we will be able to continue this work and that the people on the other side of the House feel a little bit sad about the fact that they haven’t been able to provide this support. Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this member’s bill, the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill, in the name of Dr Duncan Webb. I congratulate him on his advocacy and the work he’s done. But we here on this side of the House believe that there are enough protections in place to protect our most vulnerable while balancing up their responsibilities in and around debt.

This District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill, first reading, comes to us this afternoon and we’ve had a lot of considered speeches from my colleagues Rima Nakhle from Takanini, Paulo Garcia from New Lynn, and from many others as well. But, fundamentally, we do not support it.

The fact is that the bill amends the District Court Act to provide that if the debtor receives a benefit, the amount deducted under the attachment order cannot be more than 5 percent of the person’s earnings. This is intended to help protect debtors on benefits from being subject to excessive deductions. But we believe that there are protections in place already. If you look at the District Court Act, it already provides for a protected earnings rate (PER) below which a person’s net earnings from all sources, including benefits, cannot fall after any deductions, including any civil debt attachment orders, and if you look at the District Court Act, it already provides for a protected earnings rate and the PER is set at 60 percent, meaning that no more than 40 percent of a person’s net earnings can be deducted. That protection is already in place.

And, of course, deductions can include a range of Government or court orders, including child support, tax administration, student loan repayments, Working for Families overpayments, benefit overpayments, recoverable assistance, and fines or reparation payments. These deductions have priority over civil debt.

We believe also that the fifth Labour Government introduced the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, or the CCCFA legislation, in 2003 during the Clark years, and then it was heavily amended in the Jacinda Ardern years and, of course, it’s unworkable for a lot of people having to present their Netflix accounts to their bank manager at the ANZ. But we know that it ensures that the most vulnerable Kiwis make more informed choices. That’s what it was aimed at and that’s who it is meant to protect, and to some way it is protecting them in a greater form. It’s just been an overreach by the previous Government.

But these people that are going to loan sharks, which are heavily monitored and regulated these days, know exactly what they are agreeing to. So we cannot take people’s financial responsibility as citizens away with this bill. It’s something that the National Party is embedded to—the financial responsibility of an individual—and it extends to everyone. This bill, we believe, will not encourage self-responsibility to those already in debt. It simply reduces the amount that can be recovered.

We believe, looking at our priorities as a new Government, that we’re focused on victims. The justice system is going to be switched around so that the focus stands squarely on the victim, not on the criminal. We’re focusing, again, on self-responsibility, on localism, and on individuality. As you heard during question time today, from an outstanding justice Minister, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, colloquially known as “Goldie”, we’re stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 cultural reports. We’re enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings, and we’re abolishing—aren’t we, I say to the member for Pakuranga—the previous Government’s prison reduction. I do not support this bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That, frankly, was an embarrassment—an underprepared member coming along, reading the bill, and talking from a list of points about things which are utterly irrelevant. If you’re going to come to this House, treat it with the dignity it deserves.

Let’s just think about what this bill does. This is a bill about beneficiaries—a 25-year-old on a single person’s jobseeker benefit is given $337 a week net. That’s how much they get: $337 a week. What I just heard members from the other side of the House say is that it’s OK to take 40 percent of that in attachment orders. That would leave them with $202 to live off—another punch down from that side of the House to those in poverty.

They’re cutting benefits already with their changes to the inflation adjustment and now this is a modest bill, and what do they say? “No, don’t worry about it. They can live on $202.” The member Paulo Garcia, as Dr Tracey McLellan said, spoke for eight minutes explaining why it was a good idea and then trotted out the National Party line: individual responsibility, it’s the debtor’s fault. Well, maybe Mr Garcia hasn’t had the misfortune to lose a job by redundancy, or fall sick, or have a car break down when you’re on a low income and have to borrow money to get the kids to school on time. Things go wrong, bad things happen, and people get into debt and can’t pay it back. But, no, he would have beneficiaries in poverty, children in poverty. We heard today that that Government’s actions will see 7,000 more children in poverty, and here’s a tiny thing they could have got on board with—not even asking them to pass it today, just to send it to select committee.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar talked about it being a disincentive to work—you know, as if someone getting $337 a week needs any more incentive to get out to work than that. Poverty is not a choice. Helping people in poverty is not some kind of charity; it’s giving them dignity and saying that having to repay 5 percent of that $337 is in some way freeloading is absolutely ridiculous and shameful.

Now, Mr Arbuckle probably had the most thoughtful comment, which was, essentially, “OK, how does this affect reparation payments for victims of crime?” Well, in fact, they’re administered through the Ministry of Justice, but that’s a decent question. It was the only sensible question from the other side of the House, and it’s a good question to put to select committee to make sure we strike the right balance there, so well done, Mr Arbuckle. I don’t think it should be a barrier. I don’t think it’s the hurdle that he thinks it is, but that’s not for this debate; that’s for a thoughtful and informed debate at select committee, which the people on the other side of the House have absolutely said isn’t appropriate.

As for the member Rima Nakhle, who seemed to suggest that 40 percent of a benefit could be deducted and that was all right, there’s already a flaw. Don’t worry; benefits are designed to be just enough to get by on, and we know that for many people in their circumstances, it’s not. So to take 40 percent of it away would not just tip them into a bit of poverty, it would be abject poverty.

Over on the other side of the House, they just shrug their shoulders and say, “I’m OK. It’s called personal responsibility. I don’t feel hungry; I don’t care.” What we have on the other side of the House is an uncaring Government who really doesn’t understand poverty and who thinks it’s attacking the drivers of crime when it’s increasing the drivers of crime. So it’s shameful and sad to see that this bill won’t see the light of day because on the other side of the House, they just don’t care.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

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.

Motion not agreed to.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, we will now hear maiden speeches. I call on Hūhana Lyndon to make her maiden address to Parliament.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green):

I te tekau mā whā ka ū te whakapono e i

Ki runga i Ōihi, ka tū Te Mātenga e i

Ko te kupu tēnei, kei te rangi te Atua

Me huri koutou, me titiro ki reira e i

Ka huri te Māori, ka titiro whakarunga e i

Ka huri Te Mātenga, ka titiro whakararo e i

Ki te papa oneone, ki Aotearoa e

Taiapa rawa mai ki te pāraharaha e i

Ki te pātītī, ki te rōria rino e

Ki te paraikete whero nāu, e te Kāwana e i

Kua riro te whenua, e tere rā ki te moana e i.

[On the fourteenth, faith is confirmed

At Ōihi, Samuel Marsden stands

This is the word, God is in heaven

You all must turn, you must look there

The Māori turns and looks up

Samuel Marsden turns and looks down

To the earthy soil of Aotearoa

The wide spaces are truly fenced off

By paddocks, by iron shackles

By the red blanket that is yours, Governor

The land is lost, flee to the sea.]

“I te tekau mā whā”, a waiata tawhito that commemorates the first sermon in Aotearoa delivered by Samuel Marsden—“Te Mātenga”—on Christmas Day, 1814, in a place called Ōihi in the Bay of Islands. This waiata whakahē [song of opposition] was written a hundred years after that first sermon was delivered and reminds us of our colonial history. As our tūpuna looked to the heavens for guidance, our land was taken by the Crown for the cost of a red blanket, a hatchet, or a Jew’s harp. You see, the hapū of Whangārei only retain 2 percent of our tribal estate today. Our people were left destitute within our own tribal rohe. This is our story.

Ko Hūhana Lyndon taku ingoa. E ai ki te kōrero a Aperahama Taonui, “Ehara ahau i te rīwai. E tū rangatira ana ahau ki runga i tōku tūrangawaewae.”

[My name is Hūhana Lyndon. According to the statement of Aperehama Taonui, “I am not a potato. I nobly stand on my land where I belong.”]

I stand today with my rangatiratanga, on my tūrangawaewae.

Ahumairangi, Tangitekeo, Te Whanganui a Tara ki tōku rahi a Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Toarangatira, Ngāti Raukawa ki te tonga—e mihi ana. He uri tēnei nō Kāwharu me taku tupuna a Te Haunga.

[Tinakori Hill, Mount Victoria, Wellington Harbour, my people of Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Toarangatira, the southern branch of Ngāti Raukawa, I greet you. I am a descendant of Kāwharu, and my ancestor Te Haunga.]

My ancestor Te Haunga lived at Pāuatahanui. His rohe included Transmission Gully. Once upon a time, Pāuatahanui was pristine. The waters were pure green and blue. The fish life was abundant. This is not the case today. I am here for people and planet.

Parliament is a long way from where I grew up in Pipiwai, Tūparehuia, Ngāraratunua, and Matangirau in the North. I wish to mihi to my tribes Ngātiwai, Ngāti Hine, Ngā Hapū o Whangārei, Whangaroa hoki, Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu, ngā tini whanaunga [my many relations]. Thank you for nourishing me and nurturing me mai rā anō [since way back].

I come to this House with te reo Māori as my patu pounamu, and He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti o Waitangi as my korowai. Kāhore ahau ki konei mō te hararei e tātou mā—I’m not here for a holiday; I’m here to do the mahi—to tohe and to tūtūki for Te Tai Tokerau.

We’ve just finished a landmark Waitangi commemoration, and on 12 February, we remembered the largest signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Mangungu, Hokianga. But lest we forget the intergenerational pollution of the Hokianga Harbour, nō Hokianga ahau, e kore e warewaretia. [I am from Hokianga, and I will never forget that.]

I reflect on He Whakaputanga, the declaration of sovereignty made by our tūpuna to the world. Ko kore, kore rawa Ngā Hapū o Ngāpuhi i tuku te mana rangatiratanga ki te Karauna. E kore rawa Ngā Hapū o Ngāpuhi e tuku tō tātou tino rangatiratanga ki te Kāwanatanga. Ka whaiwhai tonu mātou, ake ake ake!

[The tribes of Ngāpuhi never ever ceded their noble authority to the Crown. The tribes of Ngāpuhi will never cede our sovereignty to the Government. We will continue to fight for ever and ever!]

On Monday this week, the marine and coastal area High Court hearings commenced in Whangārei for the Whangārei Harbour. It’s outrageous to me that as the hapū of Whangārei, we must stand before the High Court and plead our case to prove our connection and relationship to Whangārei Harbour since 1840.

Meinga meinga? Nā wai i teka? Mā te ture Pākehā e mana ko wai ngā hapū whaipānga ki te moana o Whangārei?

[Is that so? Whose is that lie? Is it really for Pākehā law to authorise who are the interested parties in Whangārei harbour?]

The Crown has the audacity to assume they have mana moana over Whangārei Harbour? After stealing the lands off our people, enabling intergenerational rape of the kaimoana, and releasing tūtae into the harbour for decades, now they think they can determine who has mana moana? Meinga meinga! [Is that so!] No! We will fight this process through the Waitangi Tribunal.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not a partnership document. It provides a constitutional relationship between two sovereign nations. As Moana Jackson has shared, “Treaties are not meant to be settled, treaties are meant to be honoured.”, e tātou mā. Te Tiriti is our road map for mahi tahi [collaboration].

I come into this Whare as a kaimahi mō taku iwi [as a worker for my people] and acknowledge that mana rangatiratanga [sovereign authority] sits with our hapū and iwi. Te Iwi Māori are intergenerational. We remember our past as we walk forward to the future. We’re always looking a hundred years ahead. Governments come and Governments go, but, like Tumutumuwhenua, we are from the soil of this land.

I am the eldest child of teenage parents and am fortunate to know three of my great-grandparents. Raised in the reo of my father, despite my age, I am youth adjacent. I’m a foundation mokopuna of Te Kōhanga Reo o Ngā Tau e Toru in Pipiwai. Ko Te Orewai te hapū, ko Ngāti Hine te iwi. [Te Orewai is the hapū, Ngāti Hine is the iwi.] Tihei mauri ora!

My upbringing is not too dissimilar to many whānau. We moved house a lot for my dad’s work, and I attended seven schools in primary and secondary school. But we learnt to adapt. In our housing, we had housing insecurity, like many whānau—living at the Ngunguru caravan park and in State houses—but we had a good life. With whānau support and getting a good education, my parents purchased their first home in Whangārei many years ago.

We were raised with a life of discipline, in academics and sports. Our hāhi was the tennis court, and our school was the Collins Encyclopaedia set that my parents invested in when we lived in Lower Hutt. My parents were heavily involved in our school lives, and this was backed up by strong granny support. I’m grateful to have my grandmother and her sister in the Whare today. We have four generations in our whānau. Tihei mauri ora to that!

As the eldest of my whānau, there are expectations and responsibilities. I am always mindful of my footsteps and my example to my siblings and those around me. Responsibility to the collective and paving the way for future generations is etched in my whakapapa.

In entering Victoria University through provisional entrance as a 16-year-old old from the North, I hit the books and joined Te Herenga Waka Kapa Haka Group and Ngāi Tauira Māori Students Association, and I lived my best life with my metes. I wish to acknowledge Tama Potaka and Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, my friends and colleagues of this House, alumni of Te Herenga Waka. I recognise it’s important for us to work across the Whare to meet the challenges for people and planet.

I’m blessed to be a single mother of three teenage daughters. Mokopuna raised in 10 years of Te Paparahi o Te Raki Waitangi Tribunal hearings, riding side-saddle with me across the North in events and hui. Like many in Aotearoa, our whānau is not without its challenges, but, as the Ngātiwai whakatauki shares, “Ahatia pukepuke te moana, ka whakawhitia e Ngātiwai”. [“Even though the ocean is rough, Ngātiwai will traverse it.”] To my tamāhine o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, I love you all very much.

My professional life has set the scene for my entrance into this House, having a diverse background in Māori public health: tobacco control in Māori providers, the DHB, and the Ministry of Health, and in education as a director at Northtec.

It was Ngāti Hine that gave me my first big break, working for my iwi. I was appointed by my elders to the role of CEO of Ngāti Hine Forestry Trust. During my time, we implemented our Billion Trees projects: 3,200 hectares of second-rotation Pinus radiata, and seeing our young people on the land planting 410 hectares of mānuka—tēnā koe, matua Shane Jones. We grew our portfolio in horticulture too, to 32 hectares of Zespri Gold, and established industry-based training to get our people into orchard or packhouse, and, finally, in an industry first for Aotearoa, a research project in partnership with SCION to plan our indigenous forestry future, underpinned by mātauranga o Ngāti Hine.

I was then appointed as the first raukura mo te whare o Ngātiwai [chief executive officer of the Ngātiwai Board], the Ngātiwai Trust Board. My elders of Ngātiwai trusted me to set a new operational direction and lead our iwi into the future. As the raukura, I led our team with passion and energy. I gave my all. I love and appreciate the opportunity to serve our people across Te Ākau Roa o Ngātiwai. Tēnā koutou e tōku iwi o Ngāti Wai.

While speaking about my iwi, may I pause and reflect on Cyclone Gabrielle, remembering it was this time last year when the big one hit us. In Tai Tokerau, we had communities without water, internet, and electricity, and with roads blocked for days. We aren’t like Te Tairāwhiti and Te Matau-a-Māui, but a year on the people of Pipiwai in the North still don’t have fresh drinking water from Te Awa o Hikurangi. The infrastructure breakages are still “a work in progress”.

But what the cyclone and earlier COVID lockdowns did show was that hapū, iwi, and marae can mobilise. Drawing on supply chains established during COVID, we worked to get support to those most in need. As Ngātiwai, Ngāti Hine, and Ngā Hapū o Whangārei, we mobilised a regional roll-out, connecting through our whakapapa. With manaaki at the centre of our mahi, we went out to support the community. There are many learnings from the emergency response and, earlier, COVID19. Primarily, Māori need to be resourced decision-makers, and let us get on with the mahi.

I’ve spent many years of my career focused on training and development across sectors, succession on our marae and in our hapū to grow our team. This team includes tangata whaikaha [disabled community], our rainbow community, tangata moana [Pasifika community], immigrants, and refugees, because together, through mahi tahi, we can break down the inequalities that exist for so many communities in Aotearoa.

Diane Ruwhiu described the Māori economy as a “sleeping and now waking taniwha”. Now, much is made of this taniwha economy, yet for all the power and pizazz of the catchy name, the economic taniwha remains leashed by the colonial shackles. This is not to undermine the massive strides that our collective Māori and private business interests have achieved and the many breakthroughs to grow the Māori economy, but te pani me te rawa kore [bereavement and poverty] still exists. Systems change is required, with a focus on the wider determinants of health, social, and environmental wellbeing that takes into account our colonial history.

Decision makers need a new framework underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi that ensures tangible economic gains and provides social, cultural, health, and taiao benefits to hapū and iwi. You see, Māori are natural greenies. We are kaitiaki. We are concerned for the health and wellbeing of our whenua, our moana, and our waterways because we are interconnected with the taiao.

May I speak to waimāori, waipara, and wai tūtae [fresh water, waste water, and sewage]. We have an issue with our piping, we have old infrastructure that was exposed during Cyclone Gabrielle. Wellington and Tāmaki-makau-rau, you’ve been put on notice. Rural New Zealand, you’ve been put on notice. This is not a new issue. Te mana o te wai is supremely important in our next steps, with urgent planning needed and investment for the infrastructure rural and urban New Zealand needs. What is our plan to address these important issues?

Te Rōpū Kākāriki, I salute you. You embedded Te Tiriti o Waitangi in your party’s constitution and move as a waka hourua: tangata Tiriti, tangata whenua. As the “Te Tiriti Party” in Parliament, I am proud to be a part of our team and I thank the 330,000 voters that brought into Parliament the largest ever Greens caucus in history.

I wish to mihi to the great Green Party co-leaders: first, Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons, then Russel Norman and the amazing Metiria Turei, and to our pou, James Shaw and Marama Davidson. E James he hautupua koe mō te taiao. Tēnā koe e te rangatira. [James, you are an esteemed luminary for the environment. Thank you, noble leader.]

I thank our party members and our whānau for supporting my campaign for the Te Tai Tokerau electorate. This was no easy task because the Te Tai Tokerau electorate stretches five hours just one way.

Can I acknowledge Kelvin Davis in his retirement but also for his work as a Minister and MP for Te Tai Tokerau. My whaea Mariameno Kapa-Kingi—first wahine to win the Te Tai Tokerau electorate—tēnā koe.

To Ministers of the Government and MPs who live and hail from the North, may we work hard together for Tai Tokerau and protect our whanaungatanga as we venture forth in this next term.

Hei whakakapi waka kōrero [To conclude my statements], our tupuna Kawiti is the first name on Te Tiriti, and he also signed He Whakaputanga. In his prophecy after the Battle of Te Ruapekapeka in 1846, he referred to the bite of the sandfly—the namu—“Waiho kia kakati te namu i te whārangi o te pukapuka, ko reira, ka tahuri atu ai.”—“Wait until the sandfly nips at the pages of the book, and at that time you must act.” Well, Aotearoa, it’s time to get out the insect repellent because we have a big namu trying to change the words of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I, along with my colleagues, will stand and fight for our papa pounamu [greenstone floor] Te Tiriti o Waitangi me He Whakaputanga with you, in this House, and out in our communities and on our marae.

I began my kauwhau with Aperahama Taonui, and I will end my kauwhau with Aperahama Taonui. I dedicate this to Marama Davidson: “Ka whakarongo ake au, ki te tangi o te manu nei te pītongatonga. Tōnā tangi ‘Patotoi, patotoi, patotoi’.” [I listen to the cry of the pītongatonga bird. It cries “Patotoi, patotoi, patotoi”.]

E Marama, ka patotoi ōu ngutu ki te tohe mō Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāhore anō nei kia tatū te mana motuhake o Ngāpuhi, o Aotearoa whānui tonu—Marama, your lips will be parched fighting for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as Ngāpuhi and Aotearoa are still waiting for this House to truly recognise te tino rangatiratanga o te Iwi Māori.

Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause, hongi, and harirū]

Waiata—“Te Whare e Tū Nei”

SPEAKER: To make her maiden statement to Parliament, I call on Darleen Tana.

DARLEEN TANA (Green):

Maranga mai e te iwi e

Whāia te tika i roto i te ngākau

Kei hea ngā hua o te whenua?

Aue aue te mamae o taku wairua

E kore au e mātakitaki

Ko te takanga ki te hē

Kia tūpato, whakarongo mai

Maharatia ngā tikanga a ō tātou tūpuna

Ruia atu e, i aue

[Arise, the people

Pursue the truth within your heart

Where are the fruits of the land?

Oh my, the anguish of my soul

I will not watch

The fall into sin

Be careful, listen

Remember the ways of our ancestors

Cast them wide, alas]

Ko Pou-e-rua te maunga, ko Waitangi te awa, ko Ngāti Kawa me Te Tiriti o Waitangi ngā marae, ko Ngāti Kawa me Ngāti Rāhiri ngā hapū. Ko Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Ngā Rauru ngā iwi.

Kei te mihi ki ngā mana whenua o tēnei rohe taurikura. Mihi mai ki ō koutou nei mokopuna ka tae mai ki te tū i mua i a koutou. Ko Hōhepa Kōpiri te tangata. Ko Te Āti Awa te iwi. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou koutou.

[Pou-e-rua is the mountain, Waitangi is the river, Ngāti Kawa and the Treaty of Waitangi are the marae, Ngāti Kawa and Ngāti Rāhiri are the hapū. Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Ngā Rauru are the iwi.

I acknowledge the authorities of the land in this thriving region. Welcome your grandchildren that have come here to stand before you. Hōhepa Kōpiri is the leader. Te Āti Awa is the iwi. Greetings and thanks to us all.]

Tēnā rā koe, Mr Speaker. Through you, I would like to thank the House for this time that is accorded to us for our kauhau tuatahi [maiden speeches].

At our swearing-in ceremony, we were told that we could pledge our oaths on the Bible or on a taonga of our choosing. I chose to do so on this taonga here. It is tohorā—whale bone—and it acknowledges my tūpuna here in Aotearoa from around the early 1800s.

Marupō, Pūmuka, rangatira nō Te Tai Tokerau [leaders from Northland] who signed He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti o Waitangi [the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi] on our tūpuna whenua in Waitangi.

Here also my tūpuna Hōhepa Kōpiri of Te Āti Awa, who signed Te Tiriti here in Whanganui-a-Tara. There is kōrero in my whānau. Hōhepa Kōpiri was born Joseph Phillips. Yes, a Pākehā, who was whāngai-ed by Te Āti Awa and went on to sign Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a rangatira Māori.

Here also is Hannah King Hansen, my great, great, great, great-grandmother, whose grave is in Kororāreka. Upon her gravestone are inscribed the kupu: “The first European born in Aotearoa.”

With such whakapapa, it might come as no surprise of my position when it comes to upholding ngā kawenata tapu, ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi me He Whakaputanga [the sacred covenants, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Declaration of Independence]. Kei te tautoko mārika ahau i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia e te whanaunga ko Hūhana Lyndon. [I wholeheartedly support the statements made by my relative Hūhana Lyndon.]

Every 28 October and 6 February, our hapū hosts the nation at Te Tii Waitangi marae at Toa Rangatira, where we commemorate the kōrero and the dreams and aspirations of our tūpuna rangatira.

In as much as my whakapapa might also suggest a predestined career in politics, my journey here has been quite unconventional. I did go to university after high school, which today sounds normal, but back in the 1980s, that was not a common thing for our people. I moved to Palmerston North, Massey University, got my bachelor’s degree in chemical technology, and went on to work as an environmental scientist for the next seven years.

In 1997, I was awarded one of two Rotary Foundation ambassadorial scholarships to study anywhere in the world. I did my Master’s in business administration at the Université libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium. I remained in Belgium for 17 years, working in corporate telecom, initially in IT, moving into strategic programme management, and then, later, head of talent management. My time at Belgacom was incredible and I was so far from home for so long. And at this stage, I would like to just acknowledge alle mijn vrienden, cher collega’s in Belgie nog. Een hartelijk, dikke merci. Ça fait si longtemps depuis qu’on s’est vu, vous me manquez tellement, nom d’une pipe!

I met my Danish husband, Christian Hoff-Nielsen, while studying, and together we have four beautiful children, Nikita, Joakim, Jules, and Louie. In 2014, we packed up our lives into six suitcases, left Brussels, and came to Waiheke Island. There, we set up Chris’ business, manufacturing, selling, and renting electric bikes. I swapped out my pencil skirts and high heels for a bike mechanic apron and steel cap boots.

In 2020, the Northland branch of the Green Party found me at Waitangi and asked me to stand as a candidate in that general election. I didn’t have a clue about politics at that time, but I did know how to ride a bike, so I did that. From Kawakawa, I crossed to Hokianga, up through Pānguru, Ahipara, Kaitāia, Te Rerenga Wairua, and then back down, eventually, through State Highway 10 to te Kerikeri, hoki atu back west to Ōmāpere, and this time heading south, down through Waipoua to Dargaville, to Ruawai, rolling through Maungatūroto—where they go particularly hundy on billboards, in my experience—to Mangawhai, and then back to up through to Waipū.

Now it was on that haerenga, āta haere ana, āta whakarongo ana [going slowly, listening carefully], that I realised that the whenua had a lot more, dare I say, important things to say than many of the people. The whenua was in severe drought, there was little or no topsoil, and it struggled to sustain life. It was the same in our awaawa and our moana. Sewage, sedimentation, overfishing—all contributing to the complete and utter degradation of the mauri of our taiao.

Of course, with my science background, I could speak to these things as the chemist or the geologist or the ecologist, but I knew the critical element was that deep, deep knowing that, actually, everything is connected. I stepped out of my husband’s business after that. I went instead to wānanga to tune into taiao through tirohanga ao Māori, learning pūkōrero, tuku iho, and maramataka, observing the tohu ki te rangi, ngā tohu mā runga, i te whenua, ngā tohu kei roto i te moana, and the tohu within myself. [I went instead to wānanga to tune into the environment through the Māori world view, learning traditional narratives and lunar calendars, observing the signs in the sky, the signs on the earth, the signs in the ocean, and the signs within myself.]

It was in that collective bringing together of the aeons of tūpuna wisdom and the rangatahi sass to create that new knowledge that I found hope. In spite of changing climate, in spite of collapsing ecosystems, and in spite of this insane idea that we just need more and more and more stuff, I found hope for our tamariki, I found hope for our mokopuna, and I found hope for our mokomokopuna.

It was on this day, 14 February in 2005, that we buried our dad, Te Wini Murphy Ngakoti Honetana. My mummy, Susan Rena Tana, is here today, as are my tēina, Chevy and Rena. E mihi kau ana ki koutou, e te whānau, me tō tātou tūngāne, ko Murphy. [I unreservedly acknowledge you, my family, and our brother, Murphy.]

I bring my dad into the kauwhau today because it was he who taught me that to be Māori means to be ordinary, which is to say that we are just part of the natural fabric of this land. We are no better than the manu, the rākau, the kōhatu me ngā tini a Tangaroa [the birds, the trees, the rocks, and the many descendants of Tangaroa], and we are certainly not any worse than anyone else, either.

My parents taught me never to whakahīhī oneself—you know, to lord yourself over another—never to whakaiti, or demean, another; if anything, to whakaiti, or to humble, oneself and to manaaki, or acknowledge, the majesty in the other. They instilled in me the knowledge that everyone and everything has mauri, has mana, and has tapu, and that it is indeed that sanctity that must inform the quality of our relationships.

My coming to this House is me heeding the karanga, me heeding the call, of Hinemoana rāua ko Papatūānuku [the ocean and the land]. I come here to bring their voices into this Whare, in whatever language each of us members of Parliament can understand. I get the need for economic growth and prosperity, but my inoi, my tono, my wero is simply that we do this in ways that regenerate rather than detract from the mauri and that we manaaki our hononga ki te taiao [nurture our relationship to the environment].

Ko te whakapapa tēnā. He tapu tēnā.

[That is genealogy. That is sacred.]

I also wish to thank those who supported me on my campaign journey to get here today, because, well, Hinemoana and Papatūānuku weren’t really eligible to vote. To all of our whānau Kākāriki, my never-ending love. Tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti, working together since well before 1820, if I go back to my nanny Hannah King Hansen’s day.

To Rolf and Inge—or, as my mummy calls you these days, my German mum and dad—thank you, thank you, thank you. To our children, I am sad that I’m not home much these days, but, you know, Dad and I gave life to you so that you could live, and Mummy is here to make sure that that life is worth living for you and for all of the children on our planet.

Lastly, a final short kōrero, if I may, about relationships. My decision to wear moko kauae came after a big kōrero in our family. As tino European Māori, you know, we had to cover off a lot of ground. It didn’t really help, either, when there were a lot of people out there talking smack out of ignorance. But anyway, after nearly two years, my Danish husband acquiesced, and so we took him back to Waitangi.

I recall sitting up when my whanaunga Kaitā had finished, tears bursting forth, with my mum and my auntie approaching to hongi me. Kua tae te wā—come the time—for my husband to approach me, he looked and he said “I don’t know if I can kiss that.”, to which I replied, “That’s OK, I’m sure I can find someone who will. But I give you first dibs.” Well, I’m pleased to say it’s been many a happy Valentine’s Day since then.

Every relationship—whānau mā—is a work in progress, and I look forward to working on those right here across this esteemed Whare. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Applause, hongi, and harirū]

Waiata—“Toro Mai tō Ringa”

SPEAKER: To make her maiden speech to Parliament, I call on Celia Wade-Brown.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ko Ranginui e tū iho nei, ko Papatūānuku e takoto nei, tēnā kōrua. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira me te iwi o te motu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. He tangata Tiriti ahau.

[The sky above, the land below, I acknowledge you both. The House that stands here, I acknowledge you. Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, and the people of the nation, my thanks and greetings to you all. I am a person of the Treaty.]

I’d like to acknowledge current and past leaders in this House, including Georgina Beyer from the Wairarapa.

When I made my affirmation, I brought in a pair of kahikatea seedlings. They symbolise many things. In particular, for me, they represent Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, our first Green co-leaders in this Parliament, who exemplified by words and action our four principles: ecological wisdom, social justice, appropriate decision-making, and non-violence. Their legacy lives on, and I can assure this House that the Greens, including my sisters, will care for nature, including wetlands and forests, rivers and oceans, birds and bats, eels and frogs, while also working for climate solutions and acting on poverty, ending discrimination, and calling for non-violent answers.

Te Taiao underpins our existence. As Simon Upton, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, said recently, “The economy is a subset of the environment.”

What whakapapa shaped my belief about the fundamental importance of nature? Well, on my mother Estelle’s side, it’s North West England for generation after generation, century after century. She was born in 1915 and was named Estelle for the stars that my grandfather saw when he fought on the Western Front.

My mother was a physiotherapist, painter, and a keen amateur botanist, and she taught me love for the natural world, despite us living next to the soot of the Paddington main line. That didn’t put me off trains, though, and I look forward to working with my colleagues Mike Butterick and Andy Foster and, of course, Kieran McAnulty on bringing trains more often, more on time, to the Wairarapa.

On my father Paul’s side, recent DNA testing confirmed family stories. My Sephardic Jewish forebears were expelled from Portugal in the 15th century, together with Portuguese Muslims. They became conversos in Northern Italy, and then they left the beautiful Italian lakes for the smog of London in the 19th century.

My father, Paul, left school at 14. He fought in Egypt and at Monte Cassino, and after the war, he stayed, for security, with one company until he retired. Immigration policies allowed—after my mother had died—him to join me in Wellington, and family reunification is so important, I will fight for people’s rights to bring their families here.

I grew up in that London smog, and I’m sure you’ll agree that the 1956 vintage is a good one, Mr Speaker. Clean air regulations have now vastly improved people’s health, so regulation is essential.

Our council flat was a good solution for medium-density urban housing, but it was very basic inside. My grandmother tended the basement coal boiler that provided hot water for all six floors.

What made our flat work for a young family? Well, it was having great public facilities nearby—extensive, free libraries, museums, and galleries; and parks and swimming pools—and excellent public transport meant we didn’t need a car. Public investment, not austerity, underpins social wellbeing.

I attended a State high school in Berkshire, where great teachers instilled a love of science and debate. After school, I went to West Africa, at 18, to work as a laboratory assistant in a girls’ school in Ghana. Moving to a country where I knew no one, where weekly letters—remember letters?—were the only communication with my family, was so exciting, and after that gap year, I completed my honours degree in philosophy in Nottingham.

Then I worked as a systems engineer at IBM, supporting the first computers into small engineering companies, and making some great friends at IBM, who are here tonight. I’ve also been a schoolteacher in a low-decile area.

My best life decision was to come to Aotearoa New Zealand, working for Databank in Wellington. I’d like to say that the digital economy, including games development and films, is a significant earner for this country, and not every export leaves on a ship or a plane.

I enjoyed the very first Island Bay Festival. An open day at Tapu Te Ranga Marae was led by the marvellous late Bruce Stewart, and that welcome—I didn’t even know I had to take my shoes off, I was so fresh to New Zealand. That welcome shaped my world view, and I’d like to also acknowledge Sam and June Jackson, Billie Tait-Jones, and many other Māori kaiako for opening my eyes to tikanga, land theft, tino rangatiratanga, and the beauty of weaving, singing, and oratory.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, we are justifiably proud of leading universal suffrage in 1893. We should be equally proud of He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti. I was delighted to be with the whole Green caucus at Waitangi again this month and to experience inspiring Māori leadership, supported by so many tangata Tiriti.

There is much conflict in this world, huge inequality within countries as well as wars between countries, and the struggles of indigenous peoples against not only an elite class—the 1 percent—but the huge corporations that dominate our world. I stood in the No Blood for Oil marches, against the Mururoa nuclear testing, and for homosexual law reform. I will stand up for social, environmental, and economic justice. I don’t support Israel’s attack on Gaza, but I don’t support Hamas terrorism either, and I will continue to bear witness to the Holocaust. Deploring violence can be loud and clear, without being anti-Semitic nor Islamophobic.

It was an honour to become a councillor and then mayor of our smart, green capital. Our council led the return of nature to the city, from working with Andy Foster on creating the Outer Green Belt in the 1990s, supporting volunteer conservation groups, and ensuring Zealandia—the first fenced sanctuary—was financially sustainable.

I’m still part of the world-leading Predator Free Wellington, bringing back the dawn chorus to this city. Those of you who watch my activities closely know I will not swallow a dead rat; I will feed it to the eels. Predator Free 2050 is a worthy goal I will continue to champion and work on across the House. It deserves sufficient funding, adequate legislation, and, above all, continued active public support.

I led this city through the 2013 earthquakes, taking decisive action in increasing earthquake resilience funding and partnerships, and I would like to acknowledge Mayor Foster and Mayor Lester for your part in continuing some of those initiatives. We initiated the robust Tākina conference centre in the heart of the capital, but homeowners, renters, and business need certainty and support over both earthquake resilience and climate adaptation for buildings across the country, whether they’re high-rise city apartments, coastal baches, or red-stickered, single-storey shops.

Earthquakes and water: I could make my whole maiden speech about the three waters, and I’m sure every other local government graduate could do the same. We spent millions and millions of dollars. We built Moa Point. We funded Omāroro Reservoir—35 million litres of drinking water on the city side of the Wellington fault. We investigated cross-contamination, diverted closed landfill run-off, promoted conservation habits, and set targets for leak reduction. Now, I’m sure the 2013 and 2016 earthquakes inflicted significant underground damage, yet we didn’t do enough.

There must be a serious partnership including iwi, central government, and local government to clean up our urban and rural streams and coastlines, and to provide healthy drinking water without nitrates, E. coli, nor microplastic contamination. Let more of our awa run free, rather than always choosing expensive infrastructure that may not stand up to increasingly frequent extreme storm events. A long view is needed, but with urgent action, funding, and cross-party accords.

I salute those farmers who earn a living, feed us, and manage their environmental effects well. People are planting natives, recreating wetlands, managing stock to reduce fertiliser run-off, and controlling introduced predators, including along the Ruamāhanga River. Central Otago has got the world’s first zero - fossil fuel orchard. Martinborough vineyards create habitat to lure back the kārearea. Modern primary production has got some great champions—we saw some of them yesterday at the lamb event—but nutrient pollution, unswimmable rivers, a lack of shelter for farm animals from the blazing sun, and sedimentation of coastal waters, killing shellfish, all show there’s a long way to go. I ask rural communities to remember the 20 years of investment from Jeanette Fitzsimons’ establishment of the Sustainable Farming Fund.

I’m proud of starting our capital’s cycle network—and, yes, my bike is in the basement—including commitment to the Great Harbour Way. We’re seeing more and more people choosing to bike, one of the best ways to reduce congestion. I am horrified by this Government’s reckless blanket cancellation of so many walking and cycling projects, robbing today’s children of their independence and health.

We made Wellington this country’s first living wage council. As the Council of Trade Unions says, “Rising profits contribute more than half of the inflationary pressure, while labour costs are less than a third. We need to tackle energy, rents, and transport costs, not drive down wages.”—and I quote—“For over 70 years, economics has been fixated on GDP … as its primary measure of progress. That fixation has been used to justify extreme inequalities of income and wealth coupled with unprecedented destruction of the living world. For the C21 a far bigger goal is needed: meeting the human rights of every person within the means of our life-giving planet. And that goal is encapsulated in the concept of the Doughnut.”—Kate Raworth, 2017.Or, as Jeanette Fitzsimons put it, the politics of enough.

I’d like to say that I’ve always recognised the value and delight of cultural diversity, adding Asian, African, and European events to the city calendar. It was ridiculous to have to fight Waka Kotahi to have the Carmen Rupe traffic lights in Cuba Street or the Kate Sheppard lights nearby.

All achievements on council required teamwork. Ehara taku toa i te taku takitahi, engari taku toa he toa takitini. [My strength is not that of the individual, but is instead the strength of the collective.]

After choosing to stand down in 2016, my seven years in the wilderness included walking all 3,000 kilometres of Te Araroa and, later, cycling Tour Aotearoa. Each journey between Te Rerenga Wairua and Motupōhue taught me about the history, people, and geography of this country. They were quite a good political detox tour, too—so I highly recommend it, James! But now I’m wrenching myself away from our off-grid tiny house next to the Tararua Forest Park and returning to politics.

I’d like to acknowledge the parliamentary staff—who are missing their dinner break—whose roles are under threat. Without the mahi of our public servants, our words in this House would be empty echoes.

I’d like to thank my husband Alastair—happy Valentine’s day, dear—our sons, Ramsay and Jono, my dear friends and family of different colours, diverse genders, and various political persuasions for their love and understanding, their kind support, and their gracious criticism. Thank you to all the Green Party staff, volunteers, and voters for making this the biggest Green caucus ever.

Finally, to my MP colleagues, I do look forward to working with you on projects, private member’s bills, and select committees to make our world and our country a better place for the most vulnerable people, and for all the species with which we share our planet.

We won’t become a smart, green country by 2040 with three-year flip-flops cancelling out each other’s policies and Budgets. Look to the Waitangi Tribunal, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and the zero carbon Act to understand how implementing shared values can have a lasting effect.

Manaaki whenua, manaaki tangata, haere whakamua!

[Care for the land, care for people, and advance!]

Let me close with the words of Kīngi Tūheitia: “Be who we are, live our values, speak our reo, care for our mokopuna, our awa, our maunga.” Tēnā koutou katoa.

Waiata—“E tu Kahikatea”

Sitting suspended from 6.21 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill

First Reading

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

I might take the first moment, if I can, to acknowledge the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle a year on from its devastating impact in 2023. I started the day in Wairoa, in the heart of my electorate, in a hīkoi with the community, commemorating what has happened, what has happened since, collecting taonga along the way, and coming together as a community to celebrate that. It was a very, very emotional time. I then travelled back to Napier to join in the commemoration there as well; equally emotional. I just want to acknowledge, in fitting with this bill, the mental health impact of that cyclone and many other devastating weather impacts around the country that we’ve had in the last year.

Mental health is an invisible pain that a lot of people deal with. So I just want to acknowledge everybody that has gone through a huge amount of loss—whether it’s physical, loss to their homes, or loss of loved ones. So I just want to take that time to acknowledge that and, at the same time, what has been done to make a big difference in people’s lives, whether it’s mental health, physical health, and the fixing of all matter of things that we can do for that community.

To talk about this amendment bill is really important. It’s something that we really shouldn’t have to be doing. This member’s bill came about because the addition of mental health – specific features of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill were not included at the time that it was passed. But this amendment bill is a step towards where we need to be in mental health in New Zealand. The fact that we need to mandate consideration of mental health and strategic planning in the health sector is a very sad but true fact that we have to deal with at the moment.

This amendment bill—as, hopefully, everybody has read—aims to have the Minister enforced to have strategic planning for mental health and wellbeing as part of health planning and strategy. The reason that’s so important is that today, in 2024, mental health is not on an equal footing with physical health. If we don’t lead from the top, as a Government, nobody else will.

We are still in a time where we treat mental health as an “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” issue. Sensitively, I will raise that I know stories, both personally and from people I don’t know, as well, who have to present to hospital with an attempt at suicide before they get seen. No cry for help less serious than that generates the attention that it should.

Now, a National Government has gone a long way towards that by having a mental health Minister. We’ve already committed lots of funding toward mental health, both I Am Hope and, again, I point out the work towards the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery and also the funding for those affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and Cyclone Hale and helping them get the mental health support that they need one year on from that cyclone. But we have to have a plan. We have to have a strategy. So it is vital that we accept that this amendment bill will go every step of the direction towards considering mental health in our strategic objectives and plans for the health sector.

Now, when we do that planning, we are setting the tone across the entire sector, both public and private, that outcomes for mental health and wellbeing are as important as physical health. We have a sky-rocketing number of mental health cases, attempted suicides, and suicides across our country—and across the world, in fact. Recently surveyed, 92 percent of surveyed New Zealanders—in just six years, there’s been a 92 percent—sorry—increase in Kiwis reporting that they have unmet mental health needs.

Now, I have long been a staunch advocate for mental health. It comes to people in many ways. It comes at different times. The people that struggle the most are, often, the people you don’t know are struggling. We have all sorts of campaigns to talk with friends, to be open, to share stories. We have an incredible number of NGOs stepping in to do what the Government should be doing. But we need to have a plan, and that’s what this amendment bill aims to do.

Now, I just want to acknowledge the current Minister for Mental Health, but who was the member that put forward this bill. I want to acknowledge Minister Doocey for his hard work putting this member’s bill together. I’m privileged to be able to take this on as the member responsible. It’s so, so important for us to have something like this set the tone for the direction that we are heading.

Now, the reason—and I did allude to it earlier—that the Minister put this amendment bill forward is because the then member had proposed these amendments to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill at the time, and they were put down, they were battered back. Now, whether that was political or for other reasons, now that we are putting this amendment bill forward, there should be absolutely no opposition to it, because it is such a simple, simple amendment that will have such a massive impact. The proportionality of a small amendment to absolutely specifically itemise the strategic planning of mental health and wellbeing will have such an impactful outcome on our mental health. So it is vital that our health Minister, our associate health Minister are able to, and mandated to, for all future Governments, have a strategic plan for mental health and wellbeing, because without a strategic plan you cannot look for funding, you cannot make a plan long term, you cannot plan for infrastructure, you cannot plan for long-term funding. All of this stuff is absolutely vital, but it’s common sense. It’s pragmatic. Like I said, absolutely no party should oppose this. It’s a small tweak, it’s something simple for our Government to do, but it’s something that our Government and our party before we were in Government has been absolutely advocating for and absolutely supportive of.

Now, a 92 percent increase of people that have unmet mental health needs is exactly where we need to focus. So if we’re looking at having a strategic plan for mental health and wellbeing, we can start right there. We have facts and figures. It is absolutely fundamental that we focus on those people.

Look, I want to speak, also, to the support that this amendment bill—and the amendments at the time, might I add, when the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill was brought in by the previous Labour Government—was overwhelming. We had support from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, we had support from the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand, we had support from Emerge Aotearoa, and we had support from Mental Health Advocacy and Peer Support Trust. Now, that is four organisations whose primary role is mental health, and they felt that it was an absolutely gross oversight to not have that amendment in the bill in the first place. There was intention to change, but it didn’t happen.

Unfortunately, without having this as a mandatory part in an amendment bill, then it just becomes out of sight, out of mind. It is absolutely fundamental that this is an explicit focus for us. We need to lead from the top. If the Government doesn’t change and make this the priority of health as equally considered as physical health, then neither will the rest of our country.

I still know, in many cases, and, sadly, very close to me, people who present with mental health issues in the workplace, and because it’s an invisible issue, it’s not considered in the same way as physical health. I had a very dear friend come to me and say that she feels that she would rather have a broken leg; she wishes that she’d broke her leg so that her employer would understand the importance of what she was going through. The employer’s going to take that from the top; they’re going to take that from the Government. If we have a plan and we put that in place and we lead from the top, then that is what’s going to get us the outcome. We need people to feel like they can talk to someone; they feel that they’re going to be heard; they feel that if they go to a GP, that they’ve got a path to support. They do not want to feel that they have to reach for the worst possible outcome to get the help that they need. Without a plan, we have no action forward. So, with that, I commend it to the House.

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

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m letting members opposite know that we will support this amendment bill. It is important but we’re interested to see what kind of impact this Government will be able to do to deliver on this strategic inclusion into the Pae Ora legislation. As the previous speaker, Katie Nimon, has said, there are many people in New Zealand who have experienced mental distress or illness in their life. In fact, half of New Zealanders will do so.

It is my great privilege to be the Opposition spokesperson on mental health, which is a passion I share with the new Minister, and I really want to tautoko to him on his role. I know that he shares that passion from a personal level and is very engaged in it, as I am personally through the experiences of my own family, but also as a fellow of the Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Foundation. Rosalynn was the wife of Jimmy Carter and did a lot globally around the destigmatisation of mental health.

So I know that we have a really committed Minister. My question is: by putting this into the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, will this have an influence, will it have an impact, or is it just a tick-box exercise? And I do note that the previous speaker hasn’t actually mentioned the lead strategy on this—I’ll speak to that in a moment—but also there is nothing on mental health committed by this Government in its hundred-day plan. There’s been a big talk around this, and we on this side are really keen to know what the Minister is going to deliver. Will he have the funding to deliver? Does he have influence in his Government?

I’m reminding this House and also anyone viewing that, actually, this inclusion is being built on the previous Government’s investment into mental health. It was the biggest ever investment, to lay a whole new foundation for the mental health system, and what this bill will do is ostensibly enable the long-term planning and delivery that’s required to improve mental health and addiction outcomes. The proof will be in the pudding. Again, I query how that’s going to happen in an environment where the Government is requiring Public Service cuts of between 6.5 and 7.5 percent. I also wonder how Māori will be able to deliver on this, given that there will be the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority.

So we will support this. It’s a good start to add to the other strategies, which the Labour Government introduced around the Māori strategy, Pacific health, women’s strategy, and rural strategy. What we hope it will do is cement in law the mandate for change as envisaged in the Mental Health Foundation report Kia Manawanui Aotearoa, which, as I mentioned, the previous speaker has not alluded to once in her speech.

We agree that without leadership, mental wellbeing promotion will be deprioritised. Leadership has to come straight from the top, and today in the Health Committee it was really good to hear a clear confirmation that the Ministry of Health is accountable for the operational delivery of that leadership around mental health. The strategy, though, we fear will reflect the inherent status quo bias towards an illness-orientated medical approach and service development approach if it doesn’t have the associated wellbeing promotion element to it.

And I note that the Minister himself has said that mental health promotion is one of the key pillars. He said that in his election document—it came after prioritising delivery of more services and enabling tino rangatiratanga around keeping mental resiliency. It was a reference to growing mental wellbeing at the grassroots level. The reason I’m slightly sceptical is because when we look at the wording, it first of all talks about a mental health and wellbeing strategy, and it talks about, in new section 46A(2)—inserted by clause 7—being “a framework to guide health entities for the long-term improvement of mental health and addiction outcomes.”

I query whether that is broad enough. I query whether other agencies should be involved, and I’ll come to that later in terms of how we promote wellbeing rather than a medicalised response. I note that the word “addiction” is not in the heading to new section 46A, which talks about the mental health and wellbeing strategy. When I look at the numbers around what the National Party had said they were going to commit to addiction, it was a four-year promise of $63 million for methamphetamine addiction treatment out of a total commitment—or promise—of $179 million. So it’s a significant portion of the money, and yet the word “addiction” is not in the nomenclature of the new section 46A mental health and wellbeing strategy provision.

So I have a few questions around that. Where is wellbeing?—obviously. Where is addiction? Where are the voices of lived experience? Where is the requirement in the legislation to include the voices of lived experience, which we know from so many reports is essential to the delivery of this? There must be proactive investment in health promotion. It needs to be community based. And who is accountable for the delivery? Obviously, the Minister will be. How is he going to deal with that?

The Mental Health Commission has already identified in several reports that there is a narrow sort of deficit model to mental health and wellbeing promotion. And what I didn’t hear in the Health Committee today—and I did ask about this—was any accountability from the Public Health Agency for mental health promotion. So what we need is for the new Minister to let us know how the strategy is going to be developed. Where is it going to be developed? Is it going to be a desktop exercise? Who will be involved in the consultation? Where is the voice of Māori? Where is the voice of lived experience? What is the element of addiction in it, given that it is not actually included in the provision in the bill? Those are my main questions.

The other element to this, if I talk about how I would like to see it broadened, is a meeting that I’ve had with FinCap, an NGO that supports 200 free financial mentoring services. Now, they have shown a strong research database showing the relationship between debt resilience and mental health. That doesn’t seem to be included in this. There is no reference to social determinants. There are no references to how this could enable people like, for example, former prisoners to be able to access bank accounts, which will support their mental wellbeing, support them into work, and therefore also reduce crime rates. I don’t see the whole-of-Government support for the provision. I support it, but it does feel a little bit like sloganeering.

The other questions I have are around funding, because, as a previous speaker said, funding doesn’t work if there’s no strategy. Well, strategy doesn’t work if there’s no funding. I know the Minister wants to see more funding. He said so to the Southland Rural Support Trust in January this year when he met with farmers and spoke about mental health. Will the Minister commit to getting that funding that is needed? Will he commit to getting the workforce that is so desperately needed? And, again, in the select committee today, we asked about workforce. We were told by the ministry that there are gaps not only in the workforce, big significant gaps, particularly in my part of the world down in in Taieri, in the deep South, but also in the knowledge, in the data baseline of what we know about where the gaps are. So that work has yet to be done. So I do think it’s really ambitious for the Minister to say he’s going to deliver on all of that when we don’t have workforce strategy to do so.

My final point is around the fact that I do support this because it’s explicit, but I would also note that anybody who’s read the health strategies from the other sectors will see a really strong focus on mental health. In the rural strategy, for example, there is almost a dominant focus on access to mental health services and provision of wellbeing. So there could be an argument to ask why this is suddenly needed to be inserted. It makes me suspicious that this could be a little bit more of the sloganeering that we’ve come to see from this Government—great on slogans; how are they going to deliver?

I have more faith in the Minister than that. As I’ve said, the Minister is really invested in this. He wants to make a contribution. I hope he can make a contribution. The questions I have are not really around his commitment to this but around his Government, which hasn’t committed to anything around mental health in the hundred-day plan. Will he have the influence and the support of his caucus colleagues? Will he have the support of his Minister of Finance, who is currently trying to make a 6.5 to 7.5 percent cut in the public health sector? How is he going to manage all of that and deliver on this great ambition, and what is the strategy going to look like? I’m looking forward to seeing that work from the Minister. I want to support him. I think it’s great that we have a Minister of Health and I’m looking forward to hearing the further contributions in the House on this today.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Greens will be supporting this bill through the House tonight and through select committee, and encourage members of the public to have their say at that select committee stage. I just wanted to acknowledge the member Katie Nimon for taking it on board: congrats, it’s not often that you get your first bill in front of the House in the first few months. But I also wanted to acknowledge and appreciate my colleague the Hon Matt Doocey for the mahi that we’ve done over the last six years in establishing the Cross-Party Mental Health and Addictions Wellbeing Group.

Just to give our listeners at home and those in the Chamber some context behind that cross-party group on mental health and addictions wellbeing, I also need to acknowledge a former member of Labour too—Louisa Wall—for her help in getting that across the line. This was one of the many recommendations out of He Ara Oranga, the mental health and addiction inquiry, which published, I believe, in 2018 or 2019. The cross-party group was one of the recommendations of that mental health and addiction inquiry, and it recommended, effectively, that this cross-party group could look at Governments across generations or across the three-year cycle to see that the recommendations for systemic change, for resourcing, and for funding were actually being meaningfully implemented.

I think there’s a really important point, as was actually raised by my colleagues in the Labour Party—Ingrid Leary in particular—about the fact that there isn’t yet, I believe, enough mind paid to the far more stigmatised element of mental ill health that is, of course, substance addiction and abuse. I’m really interested here to see what progress we can make through the select committee to shine a spotlight on that, because successive Governments have commissioned advice on addiction. This was also the case in He Ara Oranga, that mental health and addiction inquiry, but also Turuki! Turuki! Move together!, the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group review, also tabled in my first term, 2017-2020. Both of those recommended that in order to actually meaningfully deal with the issues of substance abuse and addiction, we needed to take them outside of the criminal justice sector and place them squarely within health. And that’s something which we’ve seen no Government, successively, be willing to have a backbone on actually meaningfully implementing. But we have an incredible opportunity here, should this Government like to walk the talk when it comes to their commitments to data and evidence.

As other speakers have already alluded to, this bill has kind of actually already manifest in a strategy that does exist out there, albeit this bill does require that it is mandated for future Governments to do it, so there is of course some value in that. That long-term strategy, or that 10-year strategy, as others have alluded to, is Kia Manawanui Aotearoa. And, again, I believe that there’s a really important point to be made here about the fact that we also need to see an overhaul of the mental health Act in totality. This was something which the former Government was meaningfully looking into, and I acknowledge that in the briefing to the incoming Minister for Mental Health, it was something that was acknowledged that officials had been working on for several years now, especially with the incredible complexities with regard to compulsory assessment and treatment orders.

So, I guess, in a nutshell, the Greens agree that it is important that successive Governments are mandated to produce these strategies and that it’s the case that they should be consulting with stakeholders across the health sector. Noting, of course, that it currently already exists—there is a strategy out there—but that we have continued to see successive Governments ignore the evidence and advice that they have commissioned, which has not been convenient in fitting with political narrative and not doing that hard stuff.

I guess, just with the final minute and a half that’s afforded to me, if I may speak to some of the broader thematics that we have looked into in the cross-party group on mental health and addictions wellbeing, I just wanted to acknowledge the Minister as well for the fact that I believe he is intending to ensure that mental health strategy in this country is akin to the mahi that the Hon James Shaw undertook with the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act in our ability to produce cross-partisan strategies and commitments to resourcing, for example. One of those key pieces of evidence that we do need to be looking into is how we meaningfully tackle substance abuse and addiction through, again, using the evidence, which says that we need to take it out of the criminal justice sphere but also that we need to be willing to invest meaningfully in youth one-stop shops. This is a model which we looked into in our second report out of that cross-party group, which, we found, has phenomenal results for our young people, with a no-wrong-door approach. I find it mind-blowing that we don’t have a youth one-stop-shop in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland—in our largest city.

So I just, in closing, wanted to also acknowledge something which the Minister will know I’ve said many times before, including on our special debates on the cross-party group reports: that I find it also rather upsetting that while we can acknowledge that mental ill health is in crisis, we still are not yet willing to address the social determinants. I think there’s a massive opportunity for cross-party consensus there.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mental health is an issue that touches every New Zealander. I think every single person in this room will have somebody—whether it’s whānau, whether it’s your friends or yourself—that has experienced some kind of mental health. It’s clear that mental health services are facing serious challenges, and it’s time for us to approach this issue with a fresh perspective.

Despite the significant investment announced in Budget 2019, almost nobody is satisfied with the state of mental health and addiction services in our country. In fact, this is a real shame, and it’s something we honestly should not be proud of at all. Our youth suicide rate is a heartbreaking statistic, and it’s an area where New Zealand, a country accustomed with leading the world in many areas, unfortunately has the worst record. People seeking treatment often describe a system that is complex and difficult to navigate. Sometimes they simply are giving up. There are disparities based on location, lack of options for services that meet individuals’ and the community’s needs.

Non-governmental organisations have voiced concerns about the lack of fairness and genuine partnership, citing a power imbalance as Government agencies often prioritise their own services over community providers. There’s also been a notable absence of a whole-Government approach to mental wellbeing. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill represents a positive step forward. It provides a strategy that we desperately need in this space. I agree that the mental health Act needs a full overhaul, but this is a good starting position, and I’d like to congratulate the member the Hon Matt Doocey for bringing this forward and, now, actually, Katie Nimon.

New Zealand has some of the highest rates of mental health issues globally, which I just discussed. However, these statistics—our mental health system is still struggling with those long wait times and limited access to services. Good mental health is not about the absence of mental illness; it’s about our overall wellbeing. It enables us to lead fulfilling lives, contribute to our communities, and reach our full potential. It’s also closely linked to our physical health, with poor mental health increasing the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

Grassroots organisations and NGOs play a crucial role in reaching our vulnerable communities. They understand the unique needs of our communities and can tailor their services accordingly. However, many of these organisations are facing financial challenges and staff shortages. By investing in these organisations, we can assure that everyone has the access to the support they need, regardless of where they live.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting with various organisations now that I’ve taken on the spokesperson role for mental health within the ACT Party. Some of these not-for-profit organisations are the sole support providers in our rural areas, such as Twizel, where access to public services can involve a really long journey to get to your public health system. These organisations are essential in bridging the gaps in meeting the needs of our remote communities.

A lack of choice and services is a significant issue for those seeking assistance. A one-size-fits-all approach to mental health care can be more harmful than helpful. Individuals need to be able to access care and services that best suit their needs. While we support the devolution of funding to communities and their organisations, we must also ensure that there are strict criteria for funding services and that services are monitored to ensure New Zealanders receive high-quality care.

The public sector also has a role to play in supporting mental health. This includes funding and regulating mental health services as well as working to reduce the stigma and promote mental health literacy. We need a coordinated approach that brings together Government agencies, NGOs, and communities to make mental health a priority for everybody. I’m proud that this Government is addressing the issues that have previously not been addressed adequately. Mental health is a pressing issue and demands immediate attention. We need action. The ACT Party believes everybody should have access to high-quality mental health services, regardless of their background or their circumstances. We support this bill, and I eagerly await the select committee’s recommendations. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): It’s time to talk. It’s time to talk about mental health, which is why I’m very honoured to speak on this bill because it’s a topic that’s very dear to my heart and, as I have mentioned before, I haven’t spoken in the House much but I did speak a lot about mental health in my maiden speech. I speak from personal experience and also now being in the helping profession myself and having a lot to do with the addictive process and what it is like to go through and to assist clients with that.

I’m very honoured to be able to stand up and be a voice for some people who feel they don’t have a voice. There are many people out there who are silently suffering and I would like to assure the member in the House that it’s not a tick-box situation here. It really is something that I know New Zealand First is very committed to, and I know as a coalition we are very committed to, and we’ve already said that we will support the Mike King I Am Hope Foundation.

So that is something that we are committed to because we really do know that there is a new pandemic, one might say, within our country, of loneliness, unresolved grief that people are feeling after these last few years, and the addictions as well. People don’t speak up because they are too ashamed to speak up, and the fact that we’re putting this in writing is extraordinary because this is the first step to people being able to say it’s OK to talk about mental health. For someone to be able to put their hand up and say, “It’s OK for me to say that I’m not OK.”, and to know that they are still loveable and they are still worthy and they will not be in any way treated differently because they’ve put their hand up to say that they’ve got something that is harming them inside but we can’t see it on the outside.

So I know I’m coming from a different angle here but I really want to assure the members on the other side that you can rely on us to deliver on this. One of the things that I have noticed, actually, about some of the wording in the bill is to not only say that we are going to put something in place and speak about it but having outcomes and to have deliverable outcomes. So, yes, it is about measuring, it is about being on top of everything as well, and not just speaking to it but being specific on what these outcomes are going to be.

Yes, I know that some of the outcomes are long term but we can also measure short-term outcomes and sometimes short term is just one day at a time for some people, and it may just be that there is a service where someone can pick up a phone and say I need help. So it is very important to have this—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Imagine if we had that service!

TANYA UNKOVICH: So, yes, it would be great.

Hon Member: What’s the number?

Chlöe Swarbrick: 1737.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Yes, OK.

Hon Matt Doocey: Started under the National Government.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Yes, no, absolutely. Oh, no, no, no. Yes. So let’s talk about what mental health really looks like and, unfortunately, so many people don’t want to speak up because they feel that they are going to be vilified and those of the people out there—

Hon Member: Gaslighting.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Yes, gaslighting, and all that sort of stuff, which is so common at the moment, so people are feeling silenced. Well, I committed when I came to Parliament that I was going to be a voice for the people who don’t have a voice, and if I have to speak louder, then I’m going to speak louder because the message has to get out there and we are going to be committed.

This entire coalition is committed—especially the people from New Zealand First; we are all very committed to supporting this bill to the House. Thank you.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. First of all, I’d like to confirm that Te Pāti Māori will be supporting this bill. We’ll be supporting this bill because it is simple and practical. We also note that the founder of this bill, our colleague Minister—gosh, I had better remember: Matt—Matt is one of the good dudes on this side. And even though I called him Chris Luxon for much of the last three years, we must give credit where credit’s due.

I think one of the things that Matt has done is he’s absolutely shared vulnerability and made it OK, and I think it’s really important that we help to destigmatise and use our sphere of influence in the right way. Another thing he did was he reached across cross-parties for engagement, even though one of those cross-parties only had two MPs at times. It mattered. And this is something that really matters to us.

And Te Whare Tapa Whā, which I’m sure many here in the Whare will know, is that we must prioritise mental health alongside every other health objective. So I’ll get that bonding out of the way with you, Matt. It probably won’t happen with you guys ever again, so let’s enjoy it!

But we do have our w’ānau who are desperately in need of help, and they’re in need of us to be able to understand and draw bridges across the systems and use legislation at times to help. So we totally agree with the Green Party’s view that there must be an overhaul in our Mental Health Act and, in fact, the system.

Sadly, what we have seen is a prevalence of mental distress amongst Māori, and we are 50 percent higher affected than non. Māori are 30 percent more likely to go undiagnosed than anyone else in Aotearoa. And our rangatahi suicide rates are beyond any imagination of what it is that we must think about in our solutions.

I want to share, while we’ve got this opportunity, which is why Te Pāti Māori’s health policy—and I don’t want to make this about pitching for our health policy—

Carl Bates: But you’re going to.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —but the reason we specifically talked about—be quiet, Carl—our kaupapa Māori mental health service is because we know we have such dire issues. And our dire issues require us to actually take a really unique view. So we believe we’ve got to work together, but until we can address the inequity and the issues that we have, we believe that we must have a kaupapa mental health service so our mental wellbeing becomes something prioritised first.

And it was something we really talked about when the Pae Ora legislation came out. Part of that was adopting and delivering recommendations from He Tapu te Oranga o ia Tangata: Suicide Prevention Strategy. And I know, Matt, that you will know a lot about that—Minister, sorry—and also that we talked about providing free mental health services in every community. So we all know the number—1737—but it’s not always accessible when digital equity is an issue in a lot of rural areas. We also talked about the fact that we need desperately to be able to normalise and make accessible that our w’ānau get tautoko and awhi when they need it and how they need it, by those they recognise and by those they can relate to.

So a Māori mental health approach must be different. It must be different because our dire and our desperation is so much worse than everyone else. That is not asking for a separatist system; it’s actually asking for a targeted approach to stop the horror that we see going on. And I really appeal that, as a follow-up, we continue to focus on what some of those solutions will look like.

Look, I want to say a couple of other things before we conclude. We are in dangerous land of some of our rhetoric as we tension ourselves between whose way is right or wrong. And I can’t say this enough: Te Pāti Māori’s neither left or right; we’re Māori, first and foremost. And with some of the language, the Tiriti principles bill, the smoke-free environment, and the belief that there is an anti-Māori agenda going on out of this House, we fear that we’re creating harm. And so we will continue to support movements that appeal for unity.

So I just want to say, yep, finally that we do support this bill. We caution on all our responsibilities that we have to make the world a better place, but particularly when it comes to our mental health. So ngā mihi, and I’m really pleased, Matt, that I didn’t call you Christopher Luxon once in this whole speech. Kia ora rā.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): It’s a pleasure to speak in support of this bill in the name of my good friend and colleague Katie Nimon. It’s really pleasing to see her pick up the ball and run with it, passed from the very safe hands of National’s new Minister for Mental Health, the Hon Matt Doocey. He’s done great work in this space. I just want to acknowledge that on the many occasions he’s come and visited my electorate when we visited the local youth one-stop shops, we’ve held public meetings, actually one of the first things that he has always acknowledged is that this is one area that, across the House, people work on together. He’s always acknowledged the cross-party work in mental health, and we’ve heard that from almost all the speakers today. I think that’s really admirable.

You know, so often the snapshots that get put on TV shows are the heated moments; they show the tension—actually, I don’t know that that’s great for people’s mental health, to be fair—but it doesn’t capture some of the real meaningful work that takes place. I want to commend not just Matt but all of those across the House who have contributed to this, and particularly some of the contributions today. You know, to hear the Greens and ACT speaking together on the same topic, New Zealand First and Te Pāti Māori, I think is really encouraging.

I wonder if this is actually not the time for politics. What if this was just one of those moments? There will be lots of days this year, there will be lots of questions, there will be lots of speeches, there’s lots of times to heckle and get in the shots, the witty comments—they’re fantastic, but is this the issue to do it on? I just wonder if this is the moment that we can actually show some leadership across the House to New Zealand on this issue, that, actually, this is one thing that we can unite on. I heard the criticism about sloganeering—you know, it could do more.

Frankly, I think it’s great to see this happening, because two years ago this was apparently a step too far for the House. Actually, I think words matter. I think the change is meaningful. I think it matters that we are role modelling, we are demonstrating to the people of New Zealand that we care, that this matters, that this is important. It’s important enough to National to have the first Minister for Mental Health. It’s important enough to this House to put through a bill that says, actually, mental health is important in our strategy; listening to the advice of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is something that we want Ministers to take note of.

I won’t be the only person in this room today that in the last six months has been at a funeral of a friend who’s made a terrible decision. I won’t be the only person in here today who’s been supporting someone or who has supported someone struggling with mental health, who has walked next to them. There will be those who will have even more, perhaps, darker experiences than me. That’s really important.

But this is something that we can’t afford to pass by, not in this moment. Just this week, on Monday, I was meeting with our local police, and they were telling me that 70 percent of their time is taken up—at least 70 percent—just with domestic violence and mental health now. This is a huge issue in our community. I speak with social workers. I spoke with a doctor from Victoria University—90 percent, she reckons, of the issues they are seeing now in our young people are mental health. Making even small, symbolic changes is still meaningful, and it’s worth it.

I think of Raechel and the team at Kāpiti Youth Support in Paraparaumu, in Kāpiti, in my district—the amazing work they do as a youth one-stop shop. I think about Glenn and the youth one-stop shop in Levin, in Horowhenua, and their amazing work. I’m really fortunate that I have two in our electorate—two of just 10, I think, around the country—showing them that, actually, we care; that, actually, this matters; that, actually, their contributions are valued; that this is a meaningful first step.

To hear criticism that we’re not doing anything in the first hundred days, and yet here we are in the first hundred days, saying, well, we’re actually not going to let this go past and we’re not going to make this a political thing. We have the opportunity to all join together, to all take some steps forward together.

So let’s finish. This is not about me; this is about people who I have seen, their work in the community; people who have struggled—it’s about them. So let me finish with a couple of quotes from the experts. We heard from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission when they criticised the 2022 bill, talking about mental health being—and I quote—“almost invisible within [it].” They wanted more explicit referencing. The Mental Health Foundation said it showed an—this is a quote—“absence of any ownership [or] leadership”. Well, we have the opportunity today to show that ownership, to take some leadership, and do what the Mental Health Advocacy and Peer Support Trust said, to have the Minister give regard to the advice from the commission, to bring this forward, to bring mental health into the Act. That’s why I’m supporting this bill and commending it to the House.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I’d like to commend that last member who’s just resumed his seat’s remarks, and, really, perhaps the House could join in some reflection on what a bipartisan approach to mental health would mean. And perhaps those members who campaigned on the idea of where did the $1.9 billion in mental health spending go think, if they want to newly embrace bipartisanship on this issue, they could take some time to use the resources that they have as parliamentarians to educate themselves on it.

Now, I’m not going to try to persuade you on my view on that, but members could educate themselves on where that money went, and they could educate themselves on the Access and Choice programme that has served over a million people around the country, and realising that when they were representing to the public that nothing had come out of those funds, they were actually undermining a service that is hugely important. Often there’s no wait to get into these services around the country. They’re your first port of call. You can walk in when you’re at your general practice’s office. There are specific services for Māori, Pacific, and young people. Now, if we’re to take a bipartisan approach, I would hope that a service that has been stood up during a pandemic and tremendous challenge for the health system could be respected and treasured by the Government, rather than having its standing diminished.

This bill is about implementing a statutory strategy. We, as my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick has already mentioned, have a strategy, but not a statutory strategy, on mental health and addiction. That strategy is called Kia Manawanui. I’d like the debate on this bill to answer some questions about why a statutory strategy is required or not—perhaps the Government would like to focus some of their remarks on that. And why this strategy and not others? Why not a cancer strategy? Why not the elderly? Why not a child health strategy? Strong cases can be made for all of these as well. How long would we like the Pae Ora bill to get?

But I think what I suspect with the statutory strategy is that some of the members opposite had no idea that we have a strategy, and therefore didn’t focus their remarks on why we needed a statutory strategy instead. I think we can all agree that a strategy is fine, but I wonder if we haven’t made a case for why a statutory strategy needs to be in place in the arguments that we’ve heard so far. Why spend the extra money and time if the existing one isn’t good enough? I’d like to hear from the Government what their strategy might be. What is the sequence of actions they would take to change the situation they’re in? Do they think targets will change the situation? I’d like to hear their logic for that. Would they like to focus on the complex needs that people with severe mental illness have? How to crack the difficult nut of their housing and challenges and interactions with the justice system? I’d like to know if they thought we got it wrong when we accepted the review in the last Government that said that we needed to focus on early intervention, because that’s why we set up Access and Choice. What is the strategy that you have in mind?

But, in particular, my view as a former medical practitioner is that we have to look at the cause of mental illness. We need to look at the early life experiences that really make people much more likely to have mental illness. We need to particularly look at experiences of violence and abuse, experiences of poverty and addiction, experiences of marginalisation. Those are all factors that contribute to mental illness. So I have questions about what the Government’s mental health strategy will be, and I have questions about why they’re passing this bill on a day when they drove 7,000 more children into poverty. I have questions about how you are promoting mental health when you’re now creating excuses for why the police don’t need to attend family violence. I have questions about how you’ll promote the mental health of Māori if you’re no longer letting their children hear their reo in their school and in public life, and how you think that in their schools they shouldn’t hear the true history of this country. This divisive Government will do more to split the haves and the have-nots, Māori and non-Māori, and they will show hypocrisy when it comes to mental health.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, I have a question: why is that former health Minister—Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall—asking the new Government for answers when she had six long years to address these issues? Remember, that last Labour Government came in and promised to transform the mental health system? I won’t be lectured to by someone who wants to talk about taking a bipartisan approach when she, as the last health Minister—like the former health Minister Andrew Little—refused to meet the cross-party mental health group as the health Minister. One of their own recommendations from their own inquiry was the establishment of the mental health cross-party group, and their health Ministers refused to meet it.

Ingrid Leary—and I respect Ingrid a lot, but after hearing her question “Where are the voices of lived experience?”, those voices of lived experience were the submitters who turned up in the select committee process for the Pae Ora health reforms and said time after time after time that mental health was invisible, and those members did not listen then. But now we have a backflip, a U-turn, and a flip-flop. They’ve been dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept that, actually, legislating to put a mental health strategy into the Pae Ora health reforms is the right approach.

The question was asked in the last call about “Why not have a strategy on X or Y or Z?” Yeah, I agree, but it comes down to priorities, and under this Government, mental health will be a priority—that’s why we’re legislating it as one of the strategies under the Pae Ora health reforms. Clearly, under the last Labour Government, it wasn’t a priority, and that’s why they did not legislate for it. Yes, we have a long-term, 10-year strategy—Kia Manawanui—but the issue is that that is not about the Pae Ora entities that we are talking about today.

So the question was posed: what will the strategy be about? Well, it will be about the implementation of all the ideas in mental health that those members talked about but that they delivered very little on, and if that former health Minister wants to talk about the $1.9 billion and sheet it back to us in Opposition, how about the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, which they established? Its first report said that despite the $1.9 billion in funding, there was no material improvement. So she should look at their own entities, which were saying that to them.

Actually, what happened was that this former Government—the Labour Government—in mental health got sucked into just thinking it could make big, wide announcements. It was $100 million there, $100 million there, $200 million there, and then, months later, the diligent Opposition spokespeople with their written parliamentary questions would find out that very little would happen. Now we hear from officials that even at the time, when big announcements were being made, the officials knew that they couldn’t deliver on them, and what’s shameful about that is those members were raising hope for some very vulnerable New Zealanders. Announcements were made that people knew couldn’t be delivered on.

So, yep, a valid question: what will the strategy be about? It’ll be about ensuring that we have implementation.

They kicked off an inquiry. They should answer the question as to what happened to the 48 recommendations. They’re sitting on a shelf in their office, and no one’s ever looked at them again.

It will create an implementation plan, and you need only look at some of the submitters who talked about mental health being absolutely invisible in the Pae Ora health reforms. That’s what this strategy is about today: it will prioritise mental health within Pae Ora, within the Ministry of Health, within Health New Zealand, within the Māori Health Authority, and within the other entities.

So they will prioritise mental health because they know that the Government wants them to prioritise mental health, because when those members deprioritised mental health by not putting it in the strategy, they made mental health invisible—and you don’t need to listen to us. Go and talk to the Mental Health Foundation. Go and talk to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. They all said that, and that’s what this Government is delivering today. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): It’s always a strange day when a Minister comes down from their office to defend a member’s bill from one of their backbenchers, but, none the less, here we are.

On Boxing Day morning, I received a phone call that no family member wants to receive. My niece, my twin brother’s daughter, had taken her own life, and I want to mention her name here so it’s on the Hansard so that she’ll be remembered for ever, as she will be in our hearts: Tī Karohia-te-mārama Hēnare. It was mentioned at Rātana and it was mentioned again at Waitangi, and I agree with members across the House that talk about mental wellbeing, mental health and addiction matters do impact on each and every one of us in this House. I’m no exception. So it’s in that vein that we remember those people.

We also thank the many kaimahi—workers—who work in the mental wellbeing sector around the country. I’ve met thousands of them, from Kaitāia all the way to the Bluff. In my time as an associate health Minister, I’m proud of the work that we did. When I listen to members across the House talk about why this is now a priority, and also in the fact that this bill also mentions the Māori Health Authority, it’s the Māori Health Authority that soon will be on the chopping block. It’s the Māori Health Authority that led the work that allowed us to spend $136 million on Access and Choice for Māori communities right up and down this country. I visited 27 Māori health providers and mental wellbeing providers from Kaitāia to the Bluff, organisations most people have never even heard of. As the member who’s ushering this bill through the House has already mentioned, the work that they were doing was to put a fence at the top of the cliff. It wasn’t the kind of clinical support that everyone thinks of when they think of mental wellbeing. It was the whānau who sat down with the young men and women, the whānau in communities to say, “We’re here to help you.”, and I had the grand opportunity of meeting them right up and down the country.

In fact, not only did we fund them, we changed the way that we can procure the services that they have, because most of the procurement services in the health system—and Minister Doocey will understand this as he comes to grips with his portfolio—are extremely hard to get to the level that the Government requires with respect to sound procurement. Well, that’s all fair and well, because those measures are there for a reason. What that does, however, is limits the scope and the opportunity to support the whānau that need it the most.

It’s interesting how across the House many have talked about the one-year anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle. Only one or two members that I heard, at least in my time listening to the debate, mentioned COVID and the compounding effect that COVID had on our communities. In my time meeting with health organisations, the Mental Health Commission, and so many others, here are some statistics that I hope, when this legislation passes through, this Government will understand when they look towards how they support it: 72 percent of young Māori under the age of 25 are impacted by mental health issues and addiction issues—let that one sink in: 62 percent of Māori under the age of 42 continue to suffer from mental health and addiction challenges. Our colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has already talked about the under-reporting amongst Māori communities for those with a mental illness and addiction struggles. Let the science dictate what we’re trying to do here to achieve the kind of support that we’ve all spoken about in the House here today.

My encouragement, in the final minute that I have on this part of the bill in the first reading, is to say, if any of the members on the other side of the House want to look at some really good models and want to look at some really sound science, I encourage them to go and see the person who we consider to be the guru on these matters, in particular on Māori health, and that’s Sir Mason Durie, the man who built Te Whare Tapa Whā, who allowed us to look towards the entirety of a person and their wellbeing to understand their spiritual, their physical, their mental wellbeing as they progress through this world. It’s really important I mention that, because it was also Sir Mason Durie who was the architect of Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority—yet we know what’s about to happen to that. That’ll be a debate for another day, but it’s important that we look towards what this means in terms of outcomes, how we can continue to support our communities so that we can be stronger and better placed to support all of them into the future. Kia ora.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I appreciate the opportunity to reply to what has been spoken about in the House this evening. I just want to acknowledge the cross-party support first—I think it’s very important—but just to go through and address a few things as this time affords me to do. Now is not the time for questions; that’s question time. Asking questions of the Minister and what he’s going to do and how he’s going to report on it is for question time. This is a member’s bill in its first reading that is going to make a deep impact because one of the other points that members opposite made, or questions asked, was: why, then, does this have to be statutory? Because when else does it become so explicitly prioritised than when it is mandated?

So I just want to thank, first and foremost, the Green Party and the member Chlöe Swarbrick for pointing out the hard work that Minister Doocey has done in this member’s bill. Like I said earlier, I’m really pleased to be shepherding this through the remainder of the process, but exactly that cross-party work is what needs to continue to be done. This is the first step in the right direction. Many of the questions raised are maybe the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh step, but we first have to mandate the strategy. I just want to acknowledge the member of the Māori Party. I think, in fact, we are all good dudes on this side—I do just want to acknowledge that. I can speak and I do speak with bias, but I do think that we are all good dudes over here.

Look, it might already be, in document, a mental health and wellbeing strategy, but will it always be if we don’t mandate it? That’s what we are here to do—to formalise the process as it should have been done. Just to acknowledge the irony of saying last year when the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill was going through that it was a step too far, now it’s not a step far enough. I’m just a little bit confused by that and I think the Minister took the words out of my mouth: you can’t just throw money. So without a mandated long-term strategy with continuity, we will continue to be just throwing money at problems without having strategic objectives—continuity, long-term plans. So let’s make it statutory. I think that’s vital.

But I just want to acknowledge a couple of other things before I finish off. Some of the things mentioned in one example was digital equity. I want to take this opportunity to talk about that, because absolutely we have 1737, but that is what a mental health strategy within the health system will help us understand: the broader outcomes; the broader inputs that we need, because—and I can speak to this on a public transport aspect and I always find a way to bring that in—how do you expand the ability to have demand-responsive transport if people can’t use an app to book a ride? How do you have people access digital mental health services when they don’t have access to that? That is all what a mandated statutory strategy allows us to look into.

I also want to acknowledge substance abuse. This is absolutely an enormous part of our mental health epidemic in this country—and across the world, of course, and I did acknowledge that earlier. We are not not acknowledging that, but mental health and wellbeing—as is said in the amendment to this bill—encompasses all aspects, and that absolutely includes substance abuse.

But the one thing I really want to leave on, in this last minute of my time, is that mental ill health does not discriminate. Now, I acknowledge that members opposite talked about the population representation in Māori and young people—absolutely it does. But every single New Zealander is entitled—and that is the worst word we can say, but it’s the absolute truth—to mental health issues. It is not because of their background, their upbringing, necessarily. Some of the people you would expect to be the happiest, most vital, most able people in the country have the most severe mental health issues. A strategy absolutely will target those most in need, but will not overlook those that also need it the most. So we need not define every single person by their background, but by their mental ill health, and that is what the strategy will do.

So I am absolutely thrilled to be supporting this through its first reading. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill

First Reading

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I move, That the Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Madam Speaker, he mihi. Tēnā koutou ngā mātāwaka, tēnā hoki koutou ngā mema o tēnei Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te whaikōrero mō taku pire kua tae mai ki mua ki te aroaro o te Pāremata. Kua tae tēnei ki te wā ki te whakature i ngā tūru Māori, he tūru motuhake.

[Madam Speaker, some acknowledgments. I acknowledge you, the people of many backgrounds, and I also acknowledge the members of this House. I stand to speak about my bill which has arrived before Parliament. The time has come to legislate the Māori seats, seats of special character.]

I am very privileged and proud to speak in support of this member’s bill, which has a great deal of history. My colleague the Hon Rino Tirikatene introduced a bill similar to this in 2018, and it feels right for me, after speaking about his legacy recently in the House, to acknowledge that legacy by continuing his work to make sure that the Māori seats have equal protection to the general seats.

On his bill, Mr Tirikatene said, in his first reading, although it’s small, it is a treasure—“Ahakoa he iti, he pounamu.” This is a short bill and I hope that members around the House take the opportunity to read it. It’s on the Table along with a positive New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet from the Attorney-General, the Hon Judith Collins.

It is a simple bill and it is easy to understand, but I’ll take you through it so that there’s no confusion about what the simple provisions do, because they do speak to those provisions in the Electoral Act which are about making sure that we have fairness for the participation of everyone in our democracy.

The Electoral Act sets out the rules of the elections. Some of those rules are so fundamental to the way that our fair play within the elections work that you cannot change them or get rid of them without the 75 percent support of this House. That’s because it would be unfair for any one parliamentary party or any one Government to be able to change those things that we say are fundamental to the way that we can vote and exercise our right to participate when it comes to our democratic choice.

Sections 268 and 269 of the Electoral Act set out that 75 percent majority rule. There are not many other rules within the Electoral Act which are subject to those rules of the 75 percent majority, but one is section 35—that’s called “Division of New Zealand into General electoral districts.”

So we’ve got this provision here on one side which deals with the way that general seats, which many members of this House here tonight will hold, and that is entrenched. No one can change the rules around those. Section 35 determines how many people should be in each electorate and how they should look in the future as the population grows. It’s so fundamental to the way we organise ourselves in our New Zealand democratic system that it’s not possible to gerrymander the population represented within it. That’s something we need to preserve and both major parties have always been committed to preserving. You would need a 75 percent majority to do that, and so, in effect, you’d need everyone around this House to appreciate that there was a consensus to be able to make some changes there.

Section 45, on the other hand, is the rule which means that the Māori seats exist. It determines how many people should be in each electorate for Māori and how they should look in the future as the population grows—sounds very similar to section 35, right? But the difference between section 35 and section 45 is only that section 35 requires a 75 percent majority to change it, to change the population that is represented by those seats, and section 45 does not require a 75 percent majority.

So a simple majority of Parliament could change the way that the representation in those seats worked, that gerrymandering the population within those seats would not be protected by a 75 percent majority, that changing the way they looked in the future would not be protected by a 75 percent majority. This is what this bill intends to correct. It probably was not and should not have been the intention of Parliament when it passed section 35, which is the rule about how to determine general seats to protect those in a way that the Māori seats were not protected. Because when we look at the history of the Māori seats, they were about giving voters who chose to be on the Māori roll the same representation as those voters who would vote in the general electorates.

That’s why I’ve brought this bill to the House tonight. This is about seeking Parliament’s ability to debate these issues, and I hope we can get to select committee to have these kinds of discussions about how we see the future of our democracy working, how we see the representation of Māori roll voters being protected in exactly the same way that people in a general seat and the MPs in a general seat who are campaigning to them are protected in the future.

The bill seeks to protect both section 35 and section 45. There is no change proposed to the way that the general seats are calculated, because they are of equal importance to our democratic system, our electoral system, and of equal importance to the way that we play the game in Parliament and that we come here. So I hope we can all agree that that even playing field is something we want to continue into the future.

The Māori seats are also a good part of our little democracy. I like our system of government, and it’s not perfect, but I think we’ve got the most no-nonsense system in the world that suits Kiwis’ attitude of no-nonsense when it comes to lots of things. It makes me a proud advocate not only for our parliamentary democracy but also for our constitutional monarchy, which is, in itself, one of the most stable forms of government in the world. It’s something we’ve inherited from Britain, but, look, we’ve made it our own. It’s one of the best examples historically of Kiwis taking something which was not designed by us but fixing it up with minimal fuss and making it work, and we’re still making it work. Our democracy is something that we should be incredibly proud of, and our parliamentary system is one of the envies of other democracies within the Western world. We’ve got the rules basically right. I think that we can agree that if we keep on the even keel here of a recipe which is working, we can make sure that our Māori seats continue in the future in the way that they have worked since 1867.

There is a proud history there which we can all look to and say that we’ve had representatives in Parliament who have won those Māori seats from many of the parties represented here today, and they’ve made a huge contribution. It’s the history of the Māori seats that I want to see this bill through. They’re about us taking on something that wasn’t designed for us—but we made it work—that we created in 1867, and they immediately provided a political flashpoint for organising within Māori communities and around Māori issues, particularly land rights, and, at the time, health issues like alcohol use. Important leaders within Māori society have represented their people by being elected in their seats: Māui Pōmare, my tupuna James Carroll, and Apirana Ngata. The first wahine Māori was elected in 1949, Iriaka Rātana, and generations of Māori leaders have followed her through the Māori seats, like Nanaia Mahuta.

They’re also popular. Every five years we have a referendum on the Māori seats—it’s called the Māori electoral option. More than half of Māori voters choose to be on the Māori roll, and there are 261,000 of us who choose to vote in one of the Māori seats—yep, that’s me. Me and my dad go down to the Anglican church in Manurewa and we cast our votes for Peeni Henare. He is an excellent local MP for me and my father. He loves him probably more than me.

I believe that the Māori electoral option is another way of engaging some of the most under-represented voters within our democracy. Parliament works better when it thinks like the New Zealanders we represent, but according to official figures, approximately 11.5 percent of eligible voters are not resisted to vote, and that’s 440,000 New Zealanders. We should be doing everything we can, no matter what our political affiliations, to increase the number of people who are engaged with our electoral system in the Māori electoral option, and organising around the Māori seats is one of those ways we can reach into communities who have some of the lowest levels of engagement in our democracy.

Māori are less likely to be enrolled to vote than other New Zealanders, and when they are enrolled, they are less likely to exercise their vote than other New Zealanders. Giving options and actively talking about the importance of voting is something we can do for that community to encourage participation, and we should be doing it.

I want to briefly comment on the vet from the Hon Judith Collins in her capacity as the Attorney-General. It is available for members on the Table. The Attorney-General has provided a positive rights analysis when considering the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of this bill. Crown Law have provided advice that should give MPs around the House some comfort about the ability for this bill not to impinge on the rights of any other voters, including their electoral rights and the right to participate in our democracy. This is simply making the rule for Māori seats similar to the rule for general seats, and that is why there are no rights implications that Crown Law have identified.

I draw again on the words of the Hon Rino Tirikatene to finish: He taonga ngā tūru Māori. Māori seats are a treasure. Neke atu i te kotahi rau tau te tawhito. They’ve been around for well over 100 years. He mana tō ngā tūru Māori. The Māori seats still have mana. He taonga whakahirahira. They are a treasured taonga of our people and this country. I commend this bill and I hope we get a 75 percent majority tonight.

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

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, can I just take the opportunity to congratulate the member, Arena Williams, for her bill.

I’m only new to this House but I know how hard it is to have a bill pulled. It’s not easy and it’s one of the few chances as backbenchers that we have to make a contribution legislatively to our nation’s democracy. So I just want to pass on my congratulations to the member: you’re a passionate, intelligent, competent member. I’m sorry that the member cannot vote for herself in her electorate. However, there is a history of a long line of Prime Ministers who also have not been able to vote for themselves in their electorate so maybe, who knows, time will tell about what happens in that member’s future.

So I just wanted to again extend my congratulations to her. I know how proud your whānau would be of your bill coming through and I hope you have the opportunity to have another piece of law come before the House in the future because, sadly for the member, the day for her bill to pass through the House may have to wait another day because we in the National Party, on this side of the House, unfortunately for the member, will not be supporting this bill to progress any further.

There are many reasons why, a lot of which my colleagues will outline to the House over the next hour or so, but I have just two key reasons that I wanted to outline to the House this evening. The first is for constitutional reasons and generally, in my view, it is constitutionally inappropriate to entrench legislation like this, first of all through the member’s bill process. I understand for the member there is no other way to get this kind of change through the House. The member was previously in Government and the previous Government didn’t choose to progress the bill through their legislative time frame. So I understand that but there are still constitutional objections to progressing entrenchment legislation through the member’s bill process.

Beyond that, there are a number of philosophical and constitutional objections to entrenching parts of legislation in general and, indeed, whether or not this House has the ability to entrench practically and bind a future Parliament by the current Parliament.

The second reason that I will be speaking against the legislation is a practical reason. The reason I wanted to say practical reason is because I suspect some of the intentions behind this bill, from the member and members opposite, is to protect the interests of minorities in this country and to try to alleviate some of the disparities that we do see on a population basis between particular ethnic groups, particularly for Māori, Pasifika, and other groups.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that this bill does anything to improve those outcomes. I think the time in this House could be spent on other initiatives that would much more quickly and more effectively progress the rights and the health of Māori and Pacific and all other peoples in our country who suffer the injustice and unfairness of misfortune or life, or who don’t have the opportunities that maybe some others of us in this House have had. So that’s the second point I wanted to make, later on in this contribution, about the practical reasons why we shouldn’t be following it along.

I picked up on the member’s note about it receiving a clean bill of rights vet. Now, I hope the member realises that there is no stronger advocate or person who is more interested in the Attorney-General bill of rights vets than—I was about to say me in this House but then I look across and see the Hon David Parker sitting there, who wrote quite a few of them. Of course, the Attorney-General herself, colloquially known as JC Casey to her friends and colleagues, and then of course Chris Penk I’m sure would be interested in that too. But I’m glad it received a clean bill of rights vet. We can’t say that for all pieces of legislation that go through the House and I’m sure we won’t say that for all pieces of legislation that will ever go through the House. In fact, if the Electoral Act itself was passed through the bill of rights vetting process, some may say and some case law may indicate that the Electoral Act itself may not have passed a bill of rights vetting process. But I won’t be commenting any further on that due to my sincere and long-held respect for the courts and their decision-making process. Of course, if Parliament wanted to indicate its displeasure, it could do so through the legislative process.

I just wanted to also touch on another comment that the member made that this could not have been the intention of Parliament. Well, of course it’s the intention of Parliament. Parliament passed the law, Parliament drafted the words that are in the law, and in the years that have passed since Parliament did pass that law, it has not been changed—not for want of trying, and I acknowledge the Hon Rino Tirikatene and his contribution. However, Parliament has passed this law; it is the law. By definition, it must be what Parliament intended to be the law. So I don’t hold much truck with the argument that it can’t possibly have been Parliament’s intention to have any kind of difference or disparity on that.

I was, at one point, a public lawyer; I dabbled in the public law. I won’t say it was a particularly long-held career or that I was particularly effective at it, perhaps, but I did have some very good lecturers at University of Otago. I just want to acknowledge the Otago alumni who are here with us tonight, gathering in and around the precinct. Lots of very good lecturers, the likes of public law Professors Nicola Wheen; new recruit Dr Edward Willis; and, of course, Andrew Geddis, the, I would say, lead public law commentator and constitutional law expert in this country.

They did teach me very well and I say that Professor Geddis taught me well, although I have a sneaking suspicion that I may have failed one of his electoral law papers. So that doesn’t bode very well for the rest of my argument and take that with a grain of salt. But what I did learn through my education at that fine institution—and I’m sorry the member in charge of the bill chose to go to the second-best law school in the country—was that, you know, entrenchment is a serious process to be taken seriously. We entrenched very, very few provisions in our statute books. The member went through quite a few of them and so I won’t be repeating the provisions which are entrenched, regardless of how long that may take in the House. But the legislative entrenchment process is not a step you take lightly.

It purports to allow one Parliament to bind a future Parliament. What it says to the people of New Zealand is that we don’t trust the people of our country to make decisions for themselves in 10, 20, 30 years. We want to bind you to adhere to the values and systems and settings that we want to put in place now and not give you the democratic choice and freedom to change those decisions later on very easily, regardless of the outcomes that they may have, regardless of how the shifting sands of time of New Zealand’s societal fabric may move throughout those years.

That’s one of the reasons why we don’t have a strong, what you might call, written constitution in this country.

Hon Member: We can do it for the South Island; we should do it for Māori.

JAMES MEAGER: I actually agree with the member wholeheartedly; we have a pretty well-functioning, very good, exceptional constitutional system in our country. I think there’s a good adage to the rule “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” So perhaps the member, in her ending contribution, can reflect on that as well.

Of course, I want to talk about the philosophical implications of trying to entrench a Parliament. Of course, we are the masters of our own destiny here in this House. While some scholars may say it takes a 75 percent majority to overturn an entrenched provision, of course all it actually takes is a majority vote in Parliament to change the Standing Orders or suspend the Standing Orders and then remove that particular piece of legislation. Because the only thing that binds Parliament, until perhaps a bit of case law tells us otherwise, is the fact that Parliament’s Standing Orders require that 75 percent majority. So there is a very sound philosophical argument made by much, much, much smarter people than I and much more educated people than I, that there is no possible way for Parliament to entrench itself and bind itself in the future. So I just think, to the member, it might be one of those occasions where we are trying to do something which actually will not work in the end.

Just in my last 90-odd seconds of contribution, I just wanted to touch on the fact that there are some things that we could be doing in our country which would support the plight of individuals who whakapapa Māori and who are suffering from illness or incarceration or poor education or poverty on a population basis, which is at a much more disproportionate level than anyone else. I would say too, generally, that argument: it’s not my DNA that makes me any worse off, it’s not what’s in my genes that makes me sick, it’s generally the environment, the context, our upbringing and our backgrounds, the societal conditions and, I suspect, poverty, low education, exposure to the criminal justice system, which makes the biggest impact. So if we can actually focus our efforts on those areas rather than trying to drag ourselves into a constitutional debate about whether or not we can entrench ourselves, I think that’d be a much more productive way to proceed.

Finally, can I conclude by acknowledging that this bill has been before the House before in 2018. It was before the House under a Labour Government; it failed before the House under a Labour Government under the name of the Hon Rino Tirikatene and I just wanted to pay my respects and acknowledgement to Rino for his long service in the House. He served in an electorate that I voted in 2008 and I just wanted to acknowledge his contribution on this particular piece of legislation or this bill. But we won’t be supporting it and I wish the member all the best in her future.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, ngā mihi ki te Whare e tēnei. So, as we all know, it’s Valentine’s today, but something else significant happened on this day in history and it was when Kanaʻina aliʻi took one for the team and killed the notorious coloniser Captain Cook. And, as you may know, one of the principles of the Green Party is non-violence, so I won’t reflect too much on the actions and the means by which this happened, but I will say that it does serve as a warning to us all: dishonour the mana of indigenous people at your own peril.

That’s why we are supporting the bill in front of us today. Because over the last few months we’ve seen this Government unwind decades of mahi that was meant to even out the playing field for tangata whenua, because legacies of colonisation are still all around us, poisoning our people and poisoning our planet. And like with the Maōri electorates, the Government could wake up tomorrow morning and decide they don’t like Maōri electorates anymore and decide to get rid of them like they’re doing with literally everything else, because Maōri seats do not have the same protections as general seats, like the one that I am elected to represent—the coolest electorate—Wellington Central.

I’m not surprised by the fact that Maōri seats are not afforded the same rights and protections as general seats because this Pākehā system was not designed for us. In fact, it was designed to actively exclude us. There is plenty of evidence of that shameful part of our history, and even today, that continues because this House withholds the right to vote from people currently in prison. And we know that that is disproportionately Maōri—that’s another way that our democracy excludes Maōri from participating and being represented in this system. The member before me, James Meager, said “If it isn’t broke, then don’t fix it.”, and I think there’s some truth in that, in that the system is functioning exactly in the way that it was designed, which is to exclude tangata whenua.

I’m the first Maōri MP for Wellington Central and my electorate falls in the Maōri electorate of Te Tai Tonga held by my brother Tākuta Ferris. I’m lucky to represent a city that is Green to its core, and the people I represent are lucky because we can’t face any backlash over our staunch left-wing support. But I can’t say the same for the people that Tākuta represents, because, unfortunately, the Maōri seats become a political football every single election. You have different parties coming out of the woodworks promising to abolish them, which would actually be a real tragedy, because, at the end of the day, I can’t do Tākuta’s job and Tākuta probably doesn’t want to do my job, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have the same rights and protections as each other. At the end of the day, protecting Maōri seats and affording them the same protections as everybody else is really the bare minimum. It’s the very least that we can be doing to honour Te Tiriti and express it in the mahi that we do in this House.

And it’s nothing to be scared of. When I spent four years on the Wellington City Council, we had mana whenua representation around our council table, and we had a Maōri ward, and I found that working alongside Maōri and that kind of arrangement meant that we were making better decisions, we were informed of the history long before this House was even set up, the history of this whenua—the history of this land—and it’s nothing to be afraid of. So I commend Arena Williams for her mahi on this bill and say that we fully support it. Kia ora.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on this bill. ACT will be opposing this member’s bill, the Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill, and I’d like to briefly set out why. Our vision for New Zealand is in keeping with our liberal democratic traditions, and we’re committed to universal human rights and growing ethnic diversity in a modern multicultural liberal democracy.

I think it’s worth noting that over 1.2 million New Zealanders were actually born overseas, and so while we need to appreciate our history, we also need to take into account our changing community. The Māori electorates were originally introduced as a temporary measure during the early days of our democracy and at this stage there’s no need to make a change in an age where we are now a multicultural, liberal nation with a Parliament that governs for all New Zealanders.

ACT has consistently opposed race-based representation and believes this kind of identity politics has no place in the 20th century where there are many Kiwis with different ethnic breakdowns making up this country. Even if we exclude the members who represent Māori electorates, Māori MPs are now overly represented in this House, proving that Māori can be democratically elected to this House. We don’t need to entrench these seats.

Today we have MPs like James Meager, who spoke earlier, and the Minister, who’s here in the House tonight, who have won general electorate seats. In fact, we have 33 MPs of Māori descent in the 54th Parliament, the most ever.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, but are they all real Māoris, though?

TODD STEPHENSON: We have long believed in this concept of one person, one vote as the foundation of democratic institutions worldwide.

Hon Willie Jackson: Are they real Māoris?

James Meager: Do they count?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): Order!

Hon Willie Jackson: We’re just asking if they’re real Māoris.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): Yes, I hear you, the Hon Willie Jackson, but I do want to hear the speech. I know we don’t always agree but we all have a chance to make a speech.

TODD STEPHENSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. We oppose the entrenching of the designated seats. Furthermore—and I think this has been spoken to by Mr Meager—when we’re making changes to New Zealand’s electoral law, this needs to be done in a considered way, and I don’t think a member’s bill is appropriate.

In fact, Minister Goldsmith on 16 January made some initial comments around the independent Electoral Commission and its final report and noted that the Government will make a formal response to the review in due course. That report contains over 140 recommendations, and I think we need to think about those changes and ones like this and that broader context. So, for that reason, the fact that it is a member’s bill, we won’t be supporting it.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this call on the Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill. I must say, preparing for this speech tonight, one may be a little bit confused because in my hands here I have this bill, which is the bill that we are debating tonight, and in this hand, I have another bill that only six years ago we were here with this one with a slightly different name.

This bill seeks to amend provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 to provide Māori electorates with the same protection as general electorates. The provisions relating to the general electorates are currently entrenched, but provisions relating to the Māori electorates are not. As I’ve already raised, this bill is the rebirth of the electoral amendment bill sponsored by Rino Tirikatene of Labour called the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill. That bill was debated in 2018. So six years later, here we are with the same bill that has had a name change to make it sound more palatable. That bill used the word “entrench”; this bill replaces it with “equal protection”, but everything else is the same.

New Zealand First’s position on the outright entrenchment of Māori seats is clear: we do not support temporarily empowered politicians like ourselves deciding what the constitution of Parliament should be. That is a decision that the people should make, and the people should make that for a referendum. So to the member who has put this bill up, that is actually New Zealand First’s stance and a way forward for a future member’s bill.

In 2019, we advocated for a referendum on the matter as an Amendment Paper. And that was not supported across the House, but had the opportunity to go to a referendum but was not supported. We are the party that believes in freedom, we are the party that believes in democracy, and we are the party that believes in equal citizenship.

Now, this is the rub. We’ve had this debate before. And if Labour was serious about this debate, and the provisions in this bill, they would have simply passed it using their parliamentary majority between 2020 and 2023. The opportunity was there, you had the numbers, and you couldn’t convince enough other people in the House with those types of numbers—that is shameful.

So a referendum, from New Zealand First’s point of view, is the way forward on this bill. So we’ve been here; we’ve done it before. We’ve done that, had the debate, and New Zealand First will not support this bill. Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tuatahi kei te mihi atu ki a koe, Arena, mō tēnei pire, me te mea hoki kei te rongo atu awahau i te wairua kei roto i te pire nei. Tika tonu. Tika tonu, tika tonu tō kawe mai, tō pīkau mai i tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare.

Engari kei te rongo atu awahau i ngā kōrero kei ngā taha e rua. Kei te tika tonu wētahi o ngā kōrero kei tēnei taha. I a koutou te mana whakahaere o te Kāwanatanga kua hipa ake, he aha te take kāre i pāhi tēnei tū āhuatanga i tērā taima?

Nō reira ka huri au ki roto i te pire nei, me te mea hoki that this bill Te Pāti Māori will support.

[Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge you, Arena, for this bill, and, furthermore, I feel the spirit within this bill. It’s very appropriate. It’s very appropriate that you bring it here, that you convey it here into the House.

However, I hear the statements on both sides. Some of the statements on this side of the House are very true. When you were the ones in power in the previous Government, what is the reason that this was not passed at that time?

So I will now turn to the contents of the bill, and also say that this bill Te Pāti Māori will support.]

Our representation in Parliament is enabled by the Māori electorates, and our longstanding policy, reiterated in our 2020 manifesto, is that they should be entrenched. As we now hold six of the seven Māori electorates, it’s a great importance that we champion this kaupapa and strongly support it through the House.

While it will almost certainly get voted down by the Government, we can use it as an opportunity to reset and to resist the Government’s anti-Māori and anti-Tiriti agenda, and push our Toitū Te Tiriti kaupapa. The Government continually failed to support legislation that would make the electoral system more equitable and accessible to our people. It’s almost as if it is deliberately planned to keep our people disengaged from being able to have their voice represented in the House.

Political representation is our basic right, guaranteed in article 3 and article 2 and article 1 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There should be no barriers for Māori participating in the electoral process. I heard you speak about the last member talk about a referendum. A referendum for Māori, as we only make up 20 percent of this country’s population, to put it in the hands of the tyranny of the majority would mean the fate of Māori having a true, authentic, unceded, and unapologetic voice here in Parliament.

I have seen these barriers being maintained by both sides of this House, from the previous Government when they voted against my own member’s bill—that was very similar; that had a whole lot of things in there to ensure that we got to pass the Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill that aimed to fix Aotearoa’s racist electoral system, but also aimed to address the fact that the Māori electorates are still not afforded the same protection as the general electorates. Now, you’re talking about equality here. You’ve entrenched the Pākehā electorates, the general electorates, but you will not entrench the Māori electorates.

Miles Anderson: They’re not Pākehā electorates.

RAWIRI WAITITI: What kind of—oh, they absolutely are. They absolutely are, because they were established back in the 1800s—1867, the Māori seats were implemented to control the Māori voice in this House. It wasn’t about, “Oh, we’re going to give them some seats.”, because you know why? Through democracy, we would have had the majority. Back in the 1860s, we would have had the majority in your democracy. But, no, you entrenched us to four seats. This is why we need to entrench these seats. Regardless of whether the population is at 20, 30, 40, 50 percent, Māori should always have representation. It is not about race. This is about rights. This is our right to be able to participate in this country’s democracy equally. That’s what the Te Tiriti o Waitangi promised.

So this aims to address the fact that the Māori electorates are still not afforded the same protections. This is the deliberate way to help facilitate the Crown’s removal of the electorates now that they are a seat of electoral power for tangata whenua. Decisions on the future of the Māori electorates must always be the decision of tangata whenua—nobody else. Too many non-Māori are deciding what is good for Māori. It is about high time you allowed us the space to be able to come up with our own oranga. We are not the problems waiting to be solved; we are the oranga for our people. It is about time that we had the space to be able to do that.

So, in closing, I just want to say we are supporting this bill. While Te Pāti Māori supports this bill, it is a continued reminder that this particular bill works towards what we were trying to do in one hit in the last member’s bill that we presented. There will still be issues with electorate boundaries not being redrawn after each election to reflect current enrolled voters. We’ve inherited an electoral system that was purposely designed to prevent Māori from participating in our democracy and remains one of the most racist areas of law this country has. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Small history lesson for the member from New Zealand First talking about the Māori seats: the survival of his own party depended on the Māori seats in the 1990s. In fact, it was my cousin Mr Tau Henare who actually won the Tai Tokerau seat that allowed his party, the New Zealand First Party, to come back in here. That party quickly forgets that—when it suits them, they’re Māori, and when it doesn’t suit them, “That’s how we roll.” is what we heard on that side. So if they want to talk about democracy, they are literally using the seats that we are trying to entrench to keep their voice in Parliament. Now, the irony that they’re not going to be voting for this particular bill just absolutely astounds me.

Rawiri Waititi: Not even Winston could win a seat then.

Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s exactly right—not even Mr Peters could’ve won one of the Māori seats. I know that winning a seat is hard. I’ve been fortunate enough to win the Tāmaki Makaurau seat for three occasions. In fact, my family have held Māori seats for 36 years—not quite as long as the Tirikatene family, the original holder of this bill, now in the name of my good colleague Arena Williams, but we have been involved in this Parliament, in this democracy, for some time.

I want to acknowledge my colleague and my tuakana Mr Rawiri Waititi, because he’s right. It was used to actually push our representation and our voice down. While I heard members on the other side of the House say, “Oh, well, no, no, that’s not what it did.”, actually, one only needs to read the Hansard from the time that bill was passed—the Maori Representation Act, to up until recent times, in fact, in the 1970s and 1980s, and, some might argue, today—to see that that voice has been silenced. In fact, many of the Māori members in the late 1800s weren’t even allowed to speak in the House—despite having representation, despite having been voted into this House, were unable to speak. Now, we want to talk about democracy and how great it is for our people. That’s why this bill is looking to make sure that these seats aren’t lost into our future.

Let’s be very clear: we’re not an outlier here. There are other democracies in this world who have done very similar things, actually—done very similar things. Singapore is a country that comes to mind, that makes an allowance for an electoral option for their people. Now, all the way to the other end—and I know my tuakana Rawiri Waititi’s going to love this one—I visited the Sámi people in 2017. Under their democracy, they’ve been afforded their own Parliament. Now, imagine that—imagine that. That’s not our bill here today. So let’s start somewhere—let’s start somewhere. Let’s start by entrenching and making sure we can protect these seats for future generations. Who knows, maybe a future Henare might come into the House and continue to extend the length of time that our family has been represented here—maybe, I don’t know; we’ll just leave it there for the tamariki, mokopuna.

But let’s also be clear: that’s not just a Māori legacy thing, because the second - longest-serving family in this House has been—nobody?—the Nash family. Sir Walter Nash, obviously, was a member of Parliament for a long, long time, and my good friend and gym buddy the Hon Stuart Nash, obviously, held a seat for some time, too.

The point is, in our young democracy, where we’ve been able to be agile and evolve our democracy to better represent our country, this is one of those steps that we’re giving the opportunity for the House to discuss, to debate, and to vote on to make sure that we continue to hold our unique space when the world talks about democracy.

Now, the world has looked at New Zealand as leading in so many spaces. Once upon a time, it was smoking; nowadays, it’s not. Once upon a time, we were leading in health initiatives for our people. In fact, indigenous peoples around the world came to New Zealand to see how Māori were doing it. Here’s another opportunity for us to do that, and, sadly, we’ve heard from the other side of the House that they won’t be supporting this.

But I will say this, in my final contribution: we will not give up. We will make sure that this conversation continues to be had in order to protect these seats, the Māori seats, and the evolution and growth of the Māori seats as the Māori population continues to grow into the future. Right now, there are seven Māori seats. I have no doubt, with the way that—is there any member from the Bay of Plenty? Anyway, I can say that, for example, in Rotorua, two out of every three tamariki that are born—two out of every three tamariki—in the hospital in Rotorua are of Ngāpuhi descent. The numbers are only going to increase. That means that the Māori seats will increase. We’re offering the opportunity to protect them. I’m sad the other side won’t be supporting this, but let me remind us: this conversation will never end.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I’m very pleased to rise against this member’s bill today, and I just reflect on the accusation as to why the Māori electorates were set up under the Maori Representation Act of 1867. Perhaps members need to go on and amend Wikipedia, which is pored over by different scholars. You need to make a change, because they say—Wikipedia, which is pored over by scholars—they were created, Māori electorates, in order to give Māori a more direct say in Parliament. And isn’t Te Pāti Māori a wonderful example of that in the last few weeks and months?

I think Jamie Arbuckle, member Arbuckle, said it right when he said why didn’t the Labour Government use their parliamentary majority? And I even see you resonating to that, Madam Speaker. Fifty percent, an MMP record—50 percent. How many MPs did they have, 65 MPs? I don’t know, they disappeared, but it was 65, 66, something like that. They had the opportunity to use that parliamentary majority. And the powerful Māori caucus—remember we used to hear about that, the powerful Māori caucus? Why didn’t they put this forward as a Government proposal when they had an absolute majority?

Entrenchment is not appropriate through a member’s bill. As my colleague, the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, said—and of course he is a man of the law; he was trained at one of the world’s most southern universities, Otago, and, of course, those cold, crisp winter mornings gave him the clarity that he brings to Parliament. He said that he had constitutional concerns. This is our own in-house scholar from Otago university. There were practical reasons—he took us through it in his Address in Reply debate speech. Most importantly, he said it does not actually progress the wellbeing of Māori, and that is a very good point. He said that in 1993, with the Electoral Act changes, it was Parliament’s intention then not to entrench Māori seats. And it is a rarity—if you look at the other provisions within the 1993 Electoral Act, those that have entrenchment status are few and far between: it’s around the length of the parliamentary term, the division of general electoral districts, the allowance for adjustment of the quota of electoral districts, the voting age, the method of voting.

We do not support this bill coming through as a member’s bill. It’s wholly inappropriate. The sponsor, Arena Williams—I appreciate the passion and the vigour that she’s brought to this. She acknowledged that we’ve, basically, got it right—that New Zealand’s made our constitutional inheritance from the UK—that we’ve made it our own and we’ve, basically, got it all right. And if that’s the case, let’s not try and fix something that’s not broken. She says she hopes it will lift engagement and lift Māori participation in voting. Well, that is a long bow, and where we need to put our emphasis—and where the Justice Committee will be putting it—is when the Auditor-General and others will be reviewing the electoral processes in and around the general election 2023. That is how we can look at how we can lift participation in Māori voting.

In the meantime, where we can spend our time in Parliament, as my learned colleague James Meager said, is improving, focusing on actually lifting Māori outcomes, lifting Māori out of dependency, reducing the cost of living for Māori, cracking down on law and order for Māori, growing the economy for Māori, lifting incomes, growing the economy, doing everything in favour of Māori. That’s what this Government’s focused on. So I do not support this bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So it’s all on, Mr James Meager, is it? It’s all on, Mr James Meager. The future of Māori is all on, Mr Meager. I would have backed Tama Potaka before Mr Meager. But, you see, this is the problem. This is the problem—this is a good kōrero. This is a good kōrero because it puts the question up: can you be Māori and be strongly Māori within these mainstream parties?

And this is the problem, you know, Māoridom debate, because Mr Meager over there, he’s not the first brown hope in terms of Māori politics. I think the first one might have been Mr Winston Peters, some years ago, who was going to carry Māori aspirations, hopes, and dreams. Then we had my very good brother Mr John Tamihere come along, and John, of course, was the hope and was carrying all the aspirations for Māori, you know. And, of course, in those days, John was very much into, you know, “We are the world” and had interviews with the New Zealand flag in front of him. And, you know, it wasn’t until he actually lost the Auckland mayoralty that he sort of turned to the other side, eh, Rawiri? Now, of course, my brother’s got a different sort of strategy. And then, of course, we’ve had Mr Shane Jones, Peeni Henare’s uncle, who was another great brown hope. And I say this because this is what this brings. And what happens is you get successful and you do a lovely, great maiden speech and all the Pākehā media adore you, and you think you are the great brown hope and you’re going to carry Māori aspirations and you are the one. You are the one, so you believe that you can deliver within the system.

This bill is so important—and I support my colleague Arena—because it gives our people the opportunity to be strongly Māori all the time. That’s the question—that’s the question. Can you advocate in a kaupapa Māori sense within the current system? And I say you can sometimes and, then, you can’t most of the time, like Mr Meager over there and, sadly, my good friend Tama Potaka, who’s going through all those dilemmas because he’s got all the background, all the training, but he’s got this conflict, because he’s got a dirty, rotten, filthy party, who want to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): Order! Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It’s just a view, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): The member has spoken for about three minutes.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He’s got a party that is pushing against Māori aspirations, Madam Speaker, and so this bill gives Māori members the opportunity to be Māori, and that’s why we entrenched this bill so that you can stand for a Māori seat and push those aspirations—as my good friend Peeni Henare has done for a number of years, as Rawiri Waititi does in the Waiariki, as Cushla Tangaere does on the East Coast—and not worry about upsetting some of your redneck friends or not worry about—who’s David Seymour’s think commission? You don’t worry about upsetting the Atlas group who are supporting the ACT Party. You don’t have to worry about that.

This bill is incredibly important because it allows our people to be pro-Māori and to advocate kaupapa Māori all the time. And I mihi to Rino Tirikatene-Sullivan for his bravery and our candidate—our MP here—Arena Williams, because it takes some courage. Democracy’s a funny thing. You know, it changes all the time. When Māoris talk about it, we get accused of trying to change democracy. When David Seymour and Mr Goldsmith come to a deal, oh, well, that’s just New Zealand today. But they’re doing a deal on behalf of Epsom; there are deals being done all the time in terms of democracy. This bill gives us an opportunity to really bring in a new type of democracy, and I absolutely tautoko this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next speaker, democracy is indeed really important, but when we’re debating a bill, we need to actually be consistent with what the bill is about and not use words that might bring the House into disrepute and, you know, might actually assist members of each side of the House to throw words against each other. Thank you, Hon Willie Jackson. Can I just check: is there another call before we close this bill out?

Arena Williams: No, we’re at call 11.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): I think there is another call. I’m sorry, Arena.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I feel that I’m so ill-fit to delve into this debate with the—

Arena Williams: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, may I ask the member to yield his four minutes 45 to me to speak on this bill?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): It’s not actually a point of order, Arena. But I will put the request to the member. Would you like to yield your time?

PAULO GARCIA: No, Madam Speaker.

Rawiri Waititi: But you said you’re unfit.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes. If you will hear me out, then we could go further. So when I say I’m ill-fit, I’m ill-fit to wade into the amazing speeches of everyone doing battle about Māoridom and rights of Māori. I am, essentially, an outsider myself. I have come from the Philippines. When I stand here, because I have already become a New Zealand citizen, I view everybody as my brothers in New Zealand, and I feel that everyone is a New Zealander in this House. I understand the passion. I understand the need to forward interests. But, at the same time, I am amazed at how divisive the debate has been going.

What we have is a view that was, as has been said, raised already by former Labour MP Rino Tirikatene, who I actually had great respect for at the time we coincided in the 52nd Parliament—now it’s been brought again. That first bill was voted down after the second reading; now it is again here with us. It is truly striking that it was not brought when it could have fostered much further during the past three years, when Labour had that capacity to get it through. It is brought out now when the politics and the debate about Māori rights is extremely hot and out there in everyone’s attention.

However, I must say, the bill seeks to entrench into the constitution matters that do not need to be entrenched. To be entrenched through a member’s bill is not the way to do it. There are 300 clauses, and only a handful are entrenched. This is not the process, nor the time, to bring out an attempt again. We believe, therefore, that entrenchment is really an unusual tool in legislation at this time, especially so through this process. Also, once constitutionally entrenched, provisions like these would require a 75 percent majority in the House to make a change, and if the intent is really to go through ensuring the entrenchment of the provisions that are sought, then this process is not the appropriate process.

This Government is focused on delivering on all the items, all the statements that we have made. We are focused on delivering on the economy and making sure that law and order is back on track. This bill is not a priority and we do not support this bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Equal rights for Māori and non-Māori citizens, equal protection for voters to participate in our democracy, equality in the eyes of the law under our constitutional framework—these are the things that by voting down this bill, the National Party members, the ACT Party members, and the New Zealand First party members in the House tonight are rejecting. This is a bill which simply corrects an aspect of our constitutional framework in the Electoral Act which would treat the rights of voters in general seats as different from those of voters in Māori seats. It would be a simple change that would be able to be effected tonight if those members had chosen to support it.

In the time that I have, I want to talk a little bit about the role of Parliament here, because we’ve heard some speeches from the National members particularly, and they were all surprisingly almost exactly the same line about how a member’s bill is not the way to progress something like this change. And it does worry me, because it is something that goes to the heart of what we’re debating tonight: about what the role of Parliament is, about what the role of elected members are within it, about how our democracy should function, and about the role of the executive. The idea that you should not do entrenchment when the executive has not introduced the bill is bananas. The idea that Parliament cannot advance a provision that requires consensus or effective consensus is not something that we should stand for in this House—any member. It’s really important for Parliament to always maintain its own control—its independent control—of things that require us to step outside of the daily fracas of politics and think about the kind of democracy that we want to design. Coming to this House with prepared speech notes from your leader’s office and reading out prepared lines about how the executive is key to Parliament’s decision-making betrays an underlying lack of respect for the role of Parliament in determining how we should operate as a democracy, and we should not tolerate it.

The member James Meager talked about the role of backbenchers to introduce these kinds of bills, but there is a bigger role for backbench non-executive MPs in this Parliament: it is to hold the executive to account and make sure that the rules that we all play by are fair for everyone. There are parties in this House who will not be in the executive in the short term; there are parties in this House who may never be in the executive. The rules that are determined for them and for the major parties are just as important, and every single party in this House should be well represented when we think about how to discuss those rules.

It’s right that when we look at the history of the Māori seats, all parties around this House have an interest in them. We’ve been there; we’ve campaigned in them. If you’ve been a party member of Labour, of National, of the Greens, of the Māori Party, of New Zealand First, you’ve probably been out there, in your t-shirts, campaigning in a Māori electoral seat. We all have an interest in the future of them. We all should have an interest in protecting them, regardless of the electoral outcome that we predict in the short-term future because they’re important for the long-term future of us as a nation, of protecting the kind of democracy that we are proud of, and of protecting the kind of democracy that stands out in the world as one that is stable, one that is respectable, and one that people have faith in.

I’m really disappointed tonight. It’s good that we can have the kind of debate around the House where even something like this, we can approach it jovially, joke with each other, look at the history and take hits on both sides. But this is a debate that has had the outcome of missing another opportunity to make sure that the equal protection of Māori in our law and in our constitutional framework is upheld by this Parliament. It’s a sad day when parliamentarians cannot agree by consensus that the rights of Māori should be the same as every other citizen. And it belies a bad-faith approach by parties who would seek to enter into a Treaty principles debate, where they say they want equal protection of Māori and of non-Māori citizens, when, in fact, they had this opportunity to grant equal protections but it was clear that equal protection, in their politics, only means for non-Māori. I am very disappointed by this debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

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.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) on behalf of Cushla Tangaere-Manuel (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move, That the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an absolute honour and privilege to take this call in the first reading of the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I am standing in the place of our new member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, who sadly cannot be here tonight. She is the sponsor of this bill. She is unable to be here this evening because she is with her Wairoa community commemorating one year of Cyclone Gabrielle, so I want to acknowledge Cushla’s absence and say it is an absolute honour and privilege to represent in this first reading on her behalf.

When I think about my colleague Cushla, she was sworn in as an MP on the Tuesday and by the Thursday they had the first pull from the biscuit tin. Just two days after being an MP, before she’s even done her maiden speech, she was fortunate enough, lucky enough, to have her number pulled from the biscuit tin. So I’m sad that she’s not able to be here tonight to talk to this bill because I know that when it was pulled—and she did have an opportunity to speak to media at the time—it’s something that she has belief in and experience to support why this is such an important piece of legislation to introduce.

So, for the House’s benefit, what this bill proposes to do is to amend the Local Government Act to permanently allow local authority members to participate in local authority meetings remotely and to be counted towards the quorum for those meetings.

Now, I’ll talk from my experience as a former elected member in the Far North District Council. The Far North district, like many of our rural district councils and regional councils, covers an extremely large geographic area, and at the time I found it difficult that we were not able to participate remotely. We were not able to do that because the law simply did not provide for local councils to be able to make that available to elected members—prohibited by the law.

In the COVID pandemic and in recent severe weather events, we have actually seen the need for the ability to have remote participation, and temporary measures were put in place to allow that to happen. What this bill is proposing is to have that in the legislation so it is something that is available permanently. I think in 2024, with the advanced technology that we now have, everybody is very used to the comment, “You’re on mute”. “You need to unmute yourself” has become very, very common.

This is a very practical thing that this House can do to support local government. I don’t want to dwell too much on what happened earlier in the day in what we have done—or this House has done—that doesn’t support local government and isn’t practical, but this is something that the House should support and is a practical tool that we can give to local councils to allow them to operate effectively and efficiently.

So if I can perhaps bring some background and context to the contribution tonight to help people who may not be able to relate because they don’t live in a large rural area like I do. In the Far North district, there are currently four elected members who live north of the Mangamuka. The Mangamukas have been closed on and off for several years now. It takes them over two hours to get to the council chambers in Kaikohe. Being an elected member is not necessarily a full-time job for many—and the remuneration certainly isn’t that of a full-time salary. So many elected members have families, have other work commitments, have community commitments, have business commitments. In an area like the Far North, where it takes you four hours to get to a meeting and return and then be there for the meetings—and, in some cases, very long meetings—that is something that can be quite difficult.

Now, when we’ve had severe weather, it has been unsafe for members to travel from their areas to council chambers, so meetings cannot take place because quorums cannot be met. So this change to the legislation would allow the remote participation and in circumstances like severe weather, like we’ve seen, or in illness; too sick to attend a meeting but can still, you know, and not wanting to share things but can still do it by remote participation is an option for those who have—another issue we have is cancelled flights. So when a flight is cancelled—and that happens often in our regional airports—and they can’t make it to council chambers, having an issue in terms of getting a quorum, one, but also being able to participate in the important business that council does.

So I think, from a rural perspective—and I’d be interested to hear what others have in their contributions this evening—that this change will give councils more flexibility and it will ensure that they are able to participate. It supports democracy, will have elected members being able to participate in the decision making of local councils, and it will increase the opportunity for officials to meet and vote on matters of importance to their local communities. This will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the tools that our local elected members have available to them.

So I bring that contribution to the House this evening from my own personal experience as an elected member, and from my observations of elected members in my area that is home in the Far North district. I look forward to the other contributions from those around the House and them supporting this bill to give our local councils effective tools so that they can do their mahi. Kia ora.

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

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Madam Speaker, thank you so much. We here in the National Party are standing against this. It’s another overreach—an unnecessary overreach—by this Labour Party, and, in fact—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Giving them the ability.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, giving them the ability, she says, to be able to do this. Well, they have the ability. Through their standing orders, councils have their ability, through their standing orders, to allow for remote participation. In fact, I was just consulting with my colleague here, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, and he produced—he always has these documents on him—two standing orders, one for the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and one for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, just two examples out of the mighty bay.

These standing orders make it very clear what a member can do. As long as they give two days’ written notice, they can attend by audio or audiovisual link where the member is at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impractical or impossible, when a member is unwell, and where a member is unable to attend due to an emergency.

So these, amongst our 60-odd territorial local authorities’ (TLA) standing orders, are in practice. I would call this electronic entrenchment. It’s not required, it’s already in practice, and, in fact, we on this side of the House would argue, and many of us have some experience in local government—of course, Tom Rutherford has been in and around in senior roles in local government; Ryan Hamilton, a long-serving Hamilton city councillor. We here on this side of the House believe that when you put your hand up for local election, the responsibilities and the rules and the expectations are very clear—are very clear—and that is that you have to front up.

It’s particularly important, when we’re asking as a House here, to get our public servants back into the city post-COVID. When the Chamber of Commerce and business associations here in Wellington city are telling people to get back to work to support the auxiliary businesses, the cafes, the sandwich bars, and the restaurants and the likes, then we just make ourselves and make our colleagues and local government exempt from turning up; it is totally unnecessary, given the standing orders that most territorial authorities have. Frankly, if you haven’t got a good enough excuse, if there’s not an emergency, or if you’re not unwell, then you should be there and that is the expectation. You can’t say, “Well, my house is too far away.” or “I live on a metal road.” or “It takes too long.” You put your hand up knowing the parameters and expectations of local government.

Again, Labour had six years—six long, long years during COVID—and a lot of these measures post-COVID, they’re trying to continue, to carry them on. It’s not required when it’s within the Local Government Act which was amended, I understand, Carl Bates, in 2023 to allow standing orders to give councils the discretion to allow for remote participation. Listen to this busy-body, bossy Labour Government. I think Local Government New Zealand’s going around talking to MPs and senior staff in Parliament as we speak, promoting localism, promoting that they have the ability to make the decisions for their communities. They are not wanting Government to throw more stuff on to them. They don’t want that Wellington overreach; they want to make their decisions inside their own chambers.

Yet this explanatory note—if I can read that—“The Bill will amend the Local Government Act 2002 to permanently”—to permanently—“allow local authority members”—i.e., forget the public; let’s just worry about the elected representatives here—“to participate in local authority meetings remotely and be counted toward [a] quorum for those meetings.” “To permanently allow”. Well, we don’t need that. Frankly, people, like the general public—those kind of people, the general public—they are fronting up in huge numbers to long-term plan submissions and the likes, as we speak, 10-year plans, 10-year budgets, and they want their local representatives there.

We don’t want a situation that Wellington City Council has got themselves into over the years, where half of them are sitting there in their pyjamas. We don’t want a situation where the Wellington City Council was taking submissions for their long-term plan last, and an American prankster with 150,000 YouTube followers got on as a submitter and said a whole lot of rubbish, and eventually the Wellington city councillors woke up about five minutes later and realised they were being pranked. Why is that? Because there’s such a distance between elected members in the flesh and those who are teleporting themselves electronically in.

The public deserves better. The local representatives deserve their colleagues to do better. Frankly, allowing them, potentially, to sit up in bed with a cup of coffee, and their dressing gown on to participate in a local government meeting as an absolute right of that person is not necessary.

As we’ve said, the standing orders of most of the TLAs, if not all of them by now post-COVID, allow for remote participation with good reason and with notice. That is working a treat.

We on this side of the House do not believe that this needs to be mandated. This is another example, isn’t it? We thought we got rid of it on 14 October, but it’s now coming back in members’ bills, Tom—it’s coming back in members’ bills one at a time. It’s “Wellington knows best!” That was not what Local Government New Zealand wants to hear. That’s why they’re not meeting with their members of Parliament. They say local decisions is where they want it at. They support local decisions, local control of water assets, and water control as well—they want it local, and it’s all going back.

There’s a global movement away from centralisation—and, man, we saw a lot of it over six years, didn’t we? Geez, let’s not go through the list, because I’ve only got two minutes left. But we saw a lot of busybody “Wellington knows best” centralisation that’s now being repealed at speed—at speed. Forty nine action points in 100 days. How are we going? It finishes up on 8 March, I think. That’s why this Government is pushing through on urgency.

But despite that, and despite a record—a record—electoral swing, a rejection of the busybody, big government model of the last administration, they are now coming out. They’re coming back out. It’s like the last throes of the orchestra on the ship. They’re just coming back out via members’ bills trying to entrench us on different things, and including allowing some of their friends in and around local government, as a matter of right, to be able to sit there in their pyjamas and participate, when ratepayers are trying to make submissions. As representatives—

Shanan Halbert: Far too experienced for such a bad speech!

CAMERON BREWER: —we need to expect more of our colleagues that put their hands up for local government. That member over there might have sat watching Parliament TV in his pyjamas for the last few months, but we need to expect more, and, frankly, the public expects more of their representatives. They put a lot into submissions, and we are united in the fact that the local government amendments of 2023—the fact that these guys had six years—and the Green Party could have helped them out. How many seats did they have for six years? Did they have 70-odd seats with the Green Party? They could have pushed all this thing through. But no, no, no, no; they didn’t. They didn’t; they just amended the local government to put it back on the councils, but now they’ve changed their mind, six months later. So we do not support this and nor do the good people of New Zealand.

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.