Tuesday, 27 February 2024

TUESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2024

TUESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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.

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

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

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered for the Clerk to present.

CLERK:

Petition of Andrew Munro requesting that the House introduce legislation requiring cat owners to stop their cats from killing our local bird life

petition of Alistair Reese requesting the House legislate to recognise the oral agreement “4th Article” as part of the Treaty of Waitangi

petition of Alisha Riley requesting that the House urge the Government to increase the GST threshold in its 2024 tax policy work programme.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: 2022-23 annual report of the Nursing Council of New Zealand.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. There are no select committee reports. I present the report of the Ombudsman entitled Children in care: complaints to the Ombudsman 2019–2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been presented—no bills.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Health

1. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Health: What updates can she provide, if any, on the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act 2023?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): The Government has committed to begin work to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 within its first hundred days. I will be taking a paper to Cabinet next week seeking approval to progress this work.

Jamie Arbuckle: Why does the Minister want to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Therapeutic Products Act was not fit for purpose. Appropriate regulation of medicines and medical devices is vital to ensure that these products do what they claim, are high quality, and that product approval pathways do not make them inaccessible or unaffordable. We also know that the current fragmented and outdated approach to the regulation of natural health products means that New Zealand is missing out on a significant proportion of opportunity to grow jobs and the economy. We need to develop a fit for purpose regulatory system for both.

Jamie Arbuckle: Will repealing the Therapeutic Products Act adversely impact medical safety or health outcomes of New Zealanders?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Act has a commencement date of 1 September 2026, so no changes are required from the health sector or industry. I have received advice that implementing the changes required to meet the commencement date would’ve been extremely challenging. This poses the real possibility of poor outcomes for New Zealanders.

Jamie Arbuckle: How does the Minister intend to progress work on replacing the Therapeutic Products Act?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Government has an opportunity to replace the Therapeutic Products Act with legislation that protects consumers without creating unnecessary red tape on industry. We know that communities, the health sector, and industry have concerns, and we intend to listen to those concerns as we develop new proposals.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So will big pharma, that’s tried to control this part of the market in New Zealand for the last 2½ decades, be finally, again, put back in its place?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We are confident we will have effective legislation that will deliver good outcomes.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do. In particular, I stand by the Government’s action to conduct a ministerial inquiry into problems within the school property system—problems driven by a culture of mismanagement under the previous Government’s Ministers of Education, which have resulted in hundreds of projects facing huge escalations in both cost and scope. I also appreciate the member’s most recent supportive remarks correcting earlier comments from Jan Tinetti denying there was even a problem. This Government stands by all of its actions to address the shocking educational outcomes delivered by that member’s Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it correct that school property capital expenditure for the Botany electorate increased from $3.7 million in 2017 to $11.9 million in 2022; if so, which of those projects does he believe were of low value?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If the member would like to ask a specific question, I’m sure I can give him a proper answer for that. But what I would say to you is: 350 schools were misled by the previous Government: “We’re going to rescope your school; we’re going to redesign it.” Twenty before Christmas; 250, now 350; billions of dollars, lots of promises, no delivery, underfunded—a pattern of behaviour we’ve seen many, many times.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon on the smoke-free law changes made by the previous Government: “We’ve been really supportive. Anything to remove, you know, smoking harm I think is a good thing.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he stated, “We believe … we can lower smoking rates with the legislation that exists today.”, had he seen the Treasury advice that repealing the smoke-free environments Act changes will net the Government $500 million a year in extra revenue with more people smoking for longer?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I have seen is the results from the last year, which has seen daily smokers go from 8.6 percent to 6.8 percent just in the last 12 months, with the legislation that we’re going to readopt.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Associate Minister of Health advise Cabinet that the Ministry of Health estimated rolling back smoke-free law changes would cost the health system an estimated $5 billion and that smoking currently contributes to an average of 12 deaths per day in New Zealand; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Associate Health Minister is very committed to lowering smoking rates. The smoking legislation that we’ve seen over the last decade has actually halved daily smoking in this country. We are very confident that this will continue to lower smoking rates across this country.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the advice that Cabinet received from the Associate Minister of Health. The Prime Minister didn’t address that.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that he will if he’s asked again. You can ask him again with no penalty to you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Associate Minister of Health advise Cabinet that the Ministry of Health estimates that rolling back smoke-free law changes will cost the health system an estimated $5 billion and that smoking currently contributes to an average of 12 deaths per day in New Zealand; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our decision is very clear: we’re going to adopt the existing legislation—that previously existed just a month before the election—that has driven smoking rates down. Smoking rates are going to continue to fall under the existing legislation that we’re going to readopt.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t a difficult question; it asked what the Associate Minister of Health had advised Cabinet with regard to the cost and the number of people who die per day from smoking, and the Prime Minister hasn’t addressed either of those issues.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think so. I assumed that that was part of the advice that he had got that lead to the answer. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister—[Addressing the Rt Hon Winston Peters] that’s not you—answer that one more time. Sorry, my apologies. I apologise to the member because I realise he’s only at the mid-point in his career, so it could happen. Anyway—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Unlike the previous Government, we don’t discuss stuff that happens in Cabinet—unlike Stuart Nash.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Prime Ministers have regularly in this House been asked what advice Ministers have provided to Cabinet and have given answers on that.

SPEAKER: Yes, previously. He just said they don’t do it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that the legislation that’s seen the most dramatic change in the decrease in smoking levels in this country—that law was written by New Zealand First, and not these people over here that are screaming about it right here, right now—

SPEAKER: Yeah—first part of the question’s good.

Hon David Parker: Point of order. In respect of your most recent ruling, sir, there’s a difference between advice that a Government—

SPEAKER: Could you speak more into your microphone, if you wouldn’t mind.

Hon David Parker: I think the microphone might be off.

SPEAKER: I don’t think it is; it just needs to be up a bit. But carry on.

Hon David Parker: As to your point of order, sir, there is a difference between advice that is provided to Cabinet and Cabinet discussions on what is before it. There is no obligation on the Government to disclose the discussions in a Cabinet made by different Cabinet Ministers, but Ministers can be asked what information was provided to Cabinet.

SPEAKER: They can, and, in due course, they’re likely to release it. They don’t have to release it here in the House. And further to that point, it wasn’t my point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Your intervention there may well have been an acceptable answer for the Prime Minister to give; it’s not exactly a ruling, though. The Prime Minister is, effectively, refusing to answer the question.

SPEAKER: Well, to the part of your point of order, you’re quite right—I’m an unrecognised talent. You’ve got another supp?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Associate Minister reject proposals to stop tobacco being sold near schools?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because, as I heard Ayesha Verrall—Ministers take a range of advice on a range of topics, and she’s free to do that. We have a clear programme forward: we want to lower smoking rates across this country and we’re going to do it with the existing legislation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Associate Minister of Health reject proposals to raise the purchase age of tobacco to 25, given the advice from the Ministry of Health: “there is strong evidence that starting smoking after 25 is uncommon.”

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ministers take a range of advice on a range of topics.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Kiwis are continuing to be hit by high inflation and high interest rates. According to Statistics New Zealand, inflation in New Zealand was higher last year than in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the European Union, which would suggest that claims made by previous Governments that this was all an international problem are not borne out by the data. Inflation is a big challenge. That’s why we are taking urgent steps through our 100-day plan to beat inflation and rebuild New Zealand’s economy.

Dan Bidois: What impact has this inflation had on low-income people?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, inflation is a thief in everyone’s pocket but has hit our lowest-earning New Zealanders particularly hard. According to Stats NZ, living costs for low-income households, as measured by the household living-costs price indexes, rose by 20 percent in just the three years between the end of 2020 and the end of 2023. That compared to growth of just 18 percent over the whole nine years that National was in Government. So it’s no surprise, then, that last week we learnt that more children were growing up in material deprivation and poverty thanks to the last Government’s disastrous economic mismanagement. That’s the price of Labour: more tax, more spending, and more families struggling with the cost of living.

SPEAKER: Just remember that there is a rule that says you don’t use Government supplementaries to attack the previous Government, and I will be very vigilant on that from this point on.

Dan Bidois: What recent trends has she seen on inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In good news for Kiwis at the checkout, food price data released earlier this month showed food prices are increasing at their slowest annual rate since 2021, at 4 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All our own work.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Compared to this time last year, there have been big drops in the price of tomatoes, Mr Hipkins, down 52 percent; and cheese, down 27 percent. But it’s very early days. We know beating inflation won’t be an easy fight, and that’s why we’re working hard in our 100-day plan to bring down costs on business, clear out the wasteful spending, and unblock the regulatory bottlenecks that are suffocating economic growth and putting more pressure on the price of everything. And we’re not stopping after 100 days; there’ll be plenty more coming after that.

Dan Bidois: What actions is the Government taking to support Kiwis with the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, just this week, the Government is legislating to end the Auckland regional fuel tax, delivering Aucklanders relief at the pump from the start of July after years of being fleeced to pay for projects they don’t want, like cycleways and speed bumps. And there will be more to say later this year on our plans to deliver tax relief for New Zealanders. But this is a fantastic early announcement to support Aucklanders with the cost of living and let them keep and spend more of their own money.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has she received on the proportion of the Budget operating allowance that will be required to meet cost pressures in Budget 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Can I first congratulate the honourable member on her appointment as Opposition finance spokesperson. I look forward to our exchanges in this House. I know that the member opposite has had enough experience in the Beehive to know that the calls on the Budget operating allowance are both Budget-sensitive but also subject to change on a weekly, if not daily, basis. However, I am able to be helpful in saying to the member that I received Treasury’s briefing to the incoming Minister in November, which has been released, as has the accompanying slide pack. That slide pack contained a paragraph which stated: “Current budget allowances are expected to be sufficient to fund critical cost pressures only, with limited room for new spending in the absence of reprioritisation and savings”. What’s clear is that future Budgets are under significant pressure because of the previous Government’s woeful fiscal and economic mismanagement. Fortunately, this Government is committed to reprioritisation and saving.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it correct that 79 percent of the new operating allowance in Budget 2023 was for cost pressures, and does she expect Budget 2024 will require a similar percentage to meet cost pressures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the definition of “cost pressure” depends a little on who’s doing the defining. Say, Mr Robertson would probably define the urgent need for more back-office bureaucrats as a cost pressure. I wouldn’t see it the same way, so I’d be reluctant to endorse the figure that the member has used. However, what I would share with her is that what we know is that even before this Government formed, the previous Government had pre-committed 68 percent of this year’s operating allowance, and we know that the sum of the fiscal cliffs they’d left behind, at $7.2 billion, would more than have evaporated the entire operating allowance before we funded another single cost pressure.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So therefore does she regret calling the money that has been set aside for cost pressures a “buffer” that could be used to pay for tax cuts if she cannot find other sources of revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am both confident and happy about the fact that we have elected a coalition Government that is doing the hard and essential work of reprioritising low-value spending across Government. Members opposite may have been happy that on their watch the amount spent on consultants and contractors boomed, the number of people hired in back-office roles boomed, and there were low-value programmes, but our Government makes no apologies for being on a drive to ensure that dollars spent go to front-line services, go to delivering on our commitments such as more police, and go to ensuring New Zealanders can have more income in their back pockets.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister’s definition of “cost pressures”, then, include discovering the books were nearly $2 billion short of funding the pharmaceuticals New Zealanders have been led to expect?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member makes a very good point, because we had a Government that was prepared to short fund funding for essential pharmaceuticals, leaving a fiscal cliff that we, as a responsible Government, are committed to filling. They managed to hide the commitment to the Crown in the books by doing that kind of time limited funding, and that is a practice that we won’t be continuing.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: In light of that answer, is she committed to meeting the cost pressures required to deliver core public services such as health and education?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, because our Government is committed to front-line services, and not backroom bureaucracy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, therefore, is she prioritising tax cuts over providing Kiwi kids with healthy classrooms they can learn in; properly paid teachers, nurses, and police; and the indexation of benefits to wage growth that would support our most vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member is going to have to keep up with the changing position of her leader, because this morning, as he detailed, he acknowledged that if he had been faced with the property situation inherited by our Minister of Education, then he too would have said, “Actually, that’s not affordable. We’re going to have to reassess it.”, because that actually—as the member should know—is a responsible way to approach things. What I can say about this Government is that we want to ensure that we are delivering the classrooms needed for roll growth and the schools needed for roll growth and that we’re ensuring that the school property programme is well funded, that it delivers good value for money, that it’s fair, and that it’s proportionate. We’re going to be doing that while at the same time ensuring there is funding for schools and for hospitals, and—by eliminating waste—tax reduction for working Kiwis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund, started in December 2020 and still existing now, is a cost pressure, and are there many other programmes far more worthy than this woke stupidity? [Interruption]

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy—

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister raises—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. The questions are being asked in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll ask it again.

SPEAKER: Yes, you can ask it again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—you’re getting better at the job every day. Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not the Public Interest Journalism Fund, started in December 2020 and still going now—costing a colossal $55 million—is a cost pressure that could have been far more worthily spent on schools and hospitals, and not some woke programme supported by the other side?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point, which is that the outgoing Government was extremely creative in their definition of cost pressures and essential spending. I well recall the COVID money that was used to fund consultants delivering a three waters plan, and the COVID money used to rent offices to include those three waters consultants in. So, on the other side of the House, we have people who claim that everything is essential. Well, on this side of the House, we know the value of New Zealanders’ money and we’re going to ensure they get to keep a bit more of it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thanks, Mr Speaker. The concern I have here is that already you have pulled the Minister up for using patsy questions to attack the Government. In that instance, you waited until the end of the question, which is fine—fair enough. But it was very clear very early on that that was the intent of that answer, and she wasn’t pulled up.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I apologise for being a bit slow. Another point of order over here?

Hon James Shaw: Oh, it’s the same one, Mr Speaker—just sort of noting that the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have a standing exemption from the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. The first member that raised that point of order talked about “patsy questions to attack the Government”. Now, surely he got that wrong, so therefore the second point of order must fail as well.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m not quite sure I follow that. But I take your point, Mr Shaw.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, follow the Hansard.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Follow the Hansard.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I will. I’ll have a wee look.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—thank you.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

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

Hon James Shaw: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said to the Bluegreens conference in 2023 that “National in Government will use the best scientific, financial, and environmental information available to us to chart a responsible, fair and sustainable way forward on environmental matters.”, and, if so, how is this consistent with proposals for the new fast-track consenting process for permits to be approved by Ministers rather than expert panels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do. I do stand by those statements I made earlier.

Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that “This is a Government that’s going to be focused on lowering emissions and making sure that we meet our climate change commitments”, and, if so, can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as the Te Kuha coalmine in the proposed fast-track legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re going to be a Government that’s going to deliver on our emissions commitments and also grow our economy. We’re not going to turn off growth opportunities in sectors across this country when we’ve had three of the last four quarters left to us in decline by the previous Government.

Hon James Shaw: Can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as Te Kuha coalmine, in the proposed fast-track legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have been on the record to say that we actually want to overturn the oil and gas ban, because we need gas as a transitory energy source as we make the transition to clean, green energy going forward.

Hon James Shaw: Can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as Te Kuha coalmine, in the proposed fast-track legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to you: no projects have been brought forward to Cabinet yet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—supplementary question.

Hon James Shaw: How—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I’ll let him finish his run.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With respect, I mean, that questioner has had his primary question with three following questions, and somebody rises to their feet to try and make this thing more factual and doesn’t get a chance to get his point away before the next question is given to that side.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but I can’t know that because I haven’t heard your question, but I’m hearing his first.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but you heard my request for the next question.

SPEAKER: I have, yes.

Hon James Shaw: How will he, as the Prime Minister, ensure that any potential conflicts of interest for the listed projects that are proposed to be approved by Ministers are raised and discussed to meet expectations in the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we have not had fast-track consenting legislation come before the Cabinet and it has not yet been discussed. What we have is a very good process to make sure we’re managing potential conflicts of interest, real or perceived. We have clear processes around that that make sure that we’re compliant with the Cabinet Manual.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister and his Government considered the fact that there is a preference in using New Zealand coal rather than to be importing inferior Indonesian coal, which was the practice of the former Government? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Question No. 6.

Question No. 6—Health

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

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, in particular my statements that I’m absolutely committed to the Smokefree 2025 targets, and to providing practical, targeted help so that smokers who are addicted to nicotine can stop.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was she advised by officials that repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act would mean that the smoke-free goal would not be met until 2061?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I received a range of advice from officials, and we’re continuing to develop good legislation and programmes to achieve the Smokefree 2025 targets.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question. Was she advised: yes or no?

SPEAKER: You can’t ask for a yes or no answer.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: She could address it.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it was addressed, by saying that a range of advice was sought.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I don’t think it was.

SPEAKER: I know you don’t think that, but I’m here and you’re not, so—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the Minister advised by officials that repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act would mean that the goal was not reached until 2061?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I said, I’ve received a range of advice. Some of that advice was based on statistical data that was not current. In the last three years, we have seen 219,000 people have stopped smoking, with vaping playing a key role. Importantly, 79,000 of those who stopped smoking—36 percent of those who quit—were Māori. We are now receiving statistics where we have a smoking rate of 6.8 percent of New Zealanders daily smoking, which is down from the 8.6 percent, which was one of the statistics that that data was based upon.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How does she justify repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act when she was advised that that bill would substantially close the difference in life expectancy between Māori and non-Māori?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We were absolutely committed to achieving the smoke-free targets, and we are going to implement systems that target addicted smokers, and not generalist, virtue-signalling approaches that are unproven.

Andy Foster: Has she received reports on the tobacco black market?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: There has already been a substantial black market for cigarettes and crime attached to tobacco retailing, and Customs are seeing a high volume of seizures of tobacco, both large and small, and through multiple channels, and an increase in large seizures. It is noted that the previous Government invested $10 million in the 2022 Budget for a dedicated tobacco enforcement team in Customs, and we will continue with Labour’s unworkable, woke, virtue-signalling plans. This experimental prohibition regime will make this problem even worse.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does she refuse to be interviewed on why she is repealing a law that would save $5 billion in health costs, and don’t New Zealanders deserve to know the answer to that?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have been interviewed on numerous occasions on this issue, and I am looking forward to having media interviews on the effective legislation and regulations that we will introduce to ensure that people who are addicted to nicotine smoking will have the tools to quit, and that youth vaping will decline.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s policies and actions?

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

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he justify introducing legislation to abolish Te Aka Whai Ora two days before the Waitangi Tribunal’s urgent hearing into Te Aka Whai Ora, when his Government has known since 19 January that an inquiry was set to take place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we opposed it from its very conception, we spoke about it extensively in Opposition and opposed it in Opposition, we campaigned on it in the election campaign, and we put it into our 100-day plan as part of forming a new Government. It’s been very well signalled that we do not believe that bureaucracy is the way in which we drive better health outcomes for Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that by ignoring the tribunal’s request to introduce legislation to abolish Te Aka Whai Ora after the inquiry has been completed, his Government is bypassing judicial process and oversight?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, the tribunal will again have the jurisdiction to consider a claim after the legislation comes into effect. But we have been very, very clear in our opposition to the Māori Health Authority. We do not believe it’s the way in which we deliver better health outcomes for Māori—period.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he justify dismantling the Māori Health Authority in the same week as repealing smoke-free legislation, when Māori die seven years earlier, on average, than non-Māori and smoking is our leading cause of premature death?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have seen tremendous halving of smoking rates amongst Māori—from memory, something like 37 percent down to 16 percent in the space of a decade—under the legislation that we’re supporting putting back into law. So we’re going to continue to drive smoking rates down for Māori and for non-Māori, and we’re going to continue to get better health outcomes for Māori by using local iwi providers—localism and devolution, not centralisation and control—and I thought that member would appreciate that.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister trying to say that New Zealand is not actually governed by the Waitangi Tribunal but instead by a Government elected by the people at democratic elections?

SPEAKER: Well, that was a really interesting statement. We’ll move on to another supplementary.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he consider a Government’s use of urgency to progress a political agenda without public scrutiny to be an abuse of the democratic process?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In Opposition, we opposed the Māori Health Authority from its very conception—we have opposed it in Opposition. We went to the election campaign and said we would dismantle it. We formed a Government; within a matter of days, we had a hundred-day plan to dismantle it—49 actions in 100 days. That’s what we’re doing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Look, I—

SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for a bit of silence.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe, te Pīka. The question was the use of urgency—

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, sorry—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She’s raising a point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, were you raising a point of order?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Point of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My question was addressing the use of urgency, not the campaigning spiel. It was to address: “Was the promise in the 100-day to utilise the use of urgency?” That’s the question that was asked.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, the Prime Minister doesn’t have direct responsibility for the use of urgency. The Government may move it, but the House decides. So the Prime Minister may want to make a comment, but the question is not quite in line with the primary.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said before, it’s entirely—well, it’s been incredibly well signalled by our Government that we want to dismantle the Māori Health Authority. Why? Because we believe in actually delivering better health outcomes for Māori. We’re going to do it in a different way.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check with you whether the rules around talking on cellphones in the debating chamber have changed, or whether, in fact, the tobacco lobby should wait until after question time to contact the Deputy Prime Minister with their feedback.

SPEAKER: Now, I just think—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. Mr Speaker. That’s a disgraceful insinuation, especially when somebody’s going to be out of this House within a few weeks. But the real point is: no, I was pursuing a lawyer that acted illegally, and I’m going to make sure I win against him. That’s what the phone call was about.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t use cellphones now.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the deputy chief executive of MSD, who told the Social Services and Community Committee, “They do not get punished, that’s unfair—they do not get sanctions. They do not get sanctioned, they do not get sanctions for not coming to our work seminars”; if so, will she commit to ensuring people do not face sanctions for not attending work seminars?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I thank the member for his question, and on behalf of the Minister and in answer to the first question: yes, because the discussion at select committee on this topic was incomplete as the committee abruptly adjourned and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) made clear in a later answer to the committee that those who failed to turn up to work seminars can be sanctioned. I understand that MSD thought the member’s question at select committee referred to job expos and work seminars. To clarify, job expos do not automatically result in a sanction for non-attendance. For the vast majority of job seekers, attendance is encouraged and voluntary. In some circumstances, MSD will require attendance at expos, which can result in a sanction. To answer the member’s second question: no. This Government has reset the welfare system’s expectations, including applying sanctions where job seekers refuse to comply with their obligations. We expect job seekers to attend work seminars as part of the reasonable steps they must take to become work-ready and find work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is she able to quantify how many people get sanctioned for missing work obligations, such as failing to attend work seminars, but she can’t quantify how many people enter employment as a direct result of engaging with work obligations?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The information is collated on an individual basis, so those that attend work seminars will then have noted in their files whether they got employment from it or not. But MSD doesn’t collate all that information up and have one source of information about how many got into employment from attending job seminars.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How then can she be confident that the work obligations she wants to impose on people will help them get into jobs when she can’t show any evidence of these work seminars meaningfully supporting people into stable, secure employment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There are 190,000 people on jobseeker benefits. That’s a 70,000 increase under Labour. So, clearly, nothing was working previously and it behoves us to ensure that we try a variety of means to assist people into employment, including work seminars, including job expos, and, as I explained in my previous answer, that information about whether attending a work seminar got someone into employment is kept for that individual; it’s just not collated up across the country.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident that work seminars support people into employment when the people in charge of running them could not be up front with select committee members about the consequences of not attending these seminars and she is refusing to present evidence on whether they support people into employment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I don’t believe that the people were refusing or misleading in any way. They made it very clear that they had misunderstood the question at select committee, that they thought it was both job expos and work seminars. We know that the job seminars do assist people in getting into employment. We know that it helps with getting their CVs together; it helps with learning interview techniques; and we know that, for example, at a recent seminar in the top of the South Island, 82 Kiwi job seekers turned up and 64 received interviews from that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit to reporting outcomes of these work seminars, and, if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I explained, those outcomes are reported and are recorded on an individual basis; they are just not collated right across the country. So, on an individual basis, someone turning up to a work seminar, it will be recorded whether it was successful in supporting them into employment or not.

Ricardo Menéndez March: If these outcomes are not collected nationally, how does she know that forcing people to attend work seminars to avoid facing sanctions is supporting people into meaningful, secure employment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We know that there’s a range of things that have to be done to assist the 190,000 people to have a really good chance to get into employment. Obviously, things like getting help in putting CVs together, getting help in interview techniques, getting help with getting their driver’s licence—all those things assist towards it. We know that the fact that an extra 70,000 going on to the jobseeker benefit since the previous Government was in power has meant that it hasn’t worked. So we should be trying every single thing we can to assist people into employment.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about restoring law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): On Sunday, the Government announced a raft of measures aimed at addressing harm caused by gangs. Gangs’ insignia will be banned from public display, gang gatherings will be disrupted by police-issued dispersal notices, gang associates separated by court-issued non-consorting orders, and, finally, we’re giving greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This Government is serious about restoring law and order.

Paulo Garcia: Why is addressing the harm caused by gangs important?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because gangs cause serious harm. They spread violence, deal in drugs, and create intergenerational drama. For too long, they’ve been allowed to behave as if they’re above the law—they are not.

Paulo Garcia: What statistics has he seen on law and order in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In the past five years, gangs have recruited more than 3,000 new members and there has been significant escalation in gang-related violence, public intimidation, and shootings. Violent crime has increased by 33 percent; gangs play a significant part in this.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What is the purpose of his non-consorting orders when sections 112 to 123 of the Sentencing Act already have a comprehensive framework for non-association orders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the purpose of the non-consorting legislation is to stop serious gang offenders meeting with particular other serious gang offenders to create crimes. That is a piece of legislation that we’ve learnt from some of the Australian states, and it’s making a real impact on disrupting the gang activity. So the real purpose is to make it more difficult for the gangs to operate effectively in this country.

Paulo Garcia: What impact will the ban on gang insignia in public places have on freedom of expression?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it will have an impact on gangs’ freedom to intimidate and create fear. Gang members want all the rights of being a New Zealander but none of the responsibility that comes with it. Expressing fear and intimidation is not a form of expression that this Government supports.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What is the purpose of his reforms around the sentencing of gang members when section 9 of the Sentencing Act already makes it clear that being a gang member is an aggravating factor?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the purpose of this legislative change is to also remove the need for a connection between being a gang member and that specific crime that has been caused. We want to make the broader point that gang membership has an impact on the overall wellbeing of this country in terms of law and order. The other point of it is this very simple idea that a political party would campaign in Opposition to do something and, when elected, they do it. That’s what we’re doing in this legislation.

Paulo Garcia: How are the commitments to restore law and order progressing as outlined in the Government’s 100-day plan?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, well, thank you—this Government is making excellent progress. We’ve abolished the prison target reduction, we’re stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports, we’ll soon introduce legislation to implement our package to tackle gangs, and my colleague Minister McKee will have further announcements to make on restoring law and order very soon.

Hon Nicole McKee: How would incorporating gang affiliation as an aggravating factor during sentencing enhance the safety of our communities throughout New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, by giving greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor in sentencing, courts will be able to impose more serious punishments on to an individual who has an association with gangs. We’re restoring serious consequences for crime and delivering on our commitments as set out in the coalition agreement between both ACT and New Zealand First and the National Party.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Hon PEENI HENARE (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 they were given.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by this answer regarding the repeal of the Māori Health Authority: “we’ll take on board all discussions and all dialogue from all parties.”, and, if so, why did his Government bring forward the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, bypassing the urgent inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’ll always remain open to any dialogue from any parties and from any citizens, from Māori, from anyone who wants to help us advance the cause of Māori health outcomes.

Hon Peeni Henare: Why, then, could the Minister’s bill not wait two more days for the urgent claim to be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal, or is it this Government’s intention to avoid the Waitangi Tribunal on all matters?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Waitangi Tribunal will still be able to critique the legislation after enablement, so we’re very comfortable with the position that we’ve taken. What we’ve also wanted to do is give some surety to staff with the Māori Health Authority so that they can see a vision and a pathway forward.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does the Minister accept that this Government’s breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will lead to further claims before the Tribunal and further court litigation, or will he just simply do the right thing and remove his bill?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is that we will involve Māori in the monitoring and the delivery of health services to improve Māori health outcomes.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11—a point of order?

Hon Chris Bishop: A question.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. Away you go.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does the Minister accept that given the Māori Health Authority did not exist until two years ago, the abolition of it cannot possibly be a breach of the Treaty?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is, as the member says, that the Māori Health Authority has been challenged, and we seek to do a better job with Māori health outcomes.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I should have been a bit quicker there. That question did seek an opinion that’s outside of the Minister’s scope of responsibility.

Hon Chris Bishop: It followed on from the primary.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Chris Bishop: It followed from the primary.

Question No. 11—Education

11. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about school property?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yesterday, I announced a ministerial inquiry into the Ministry of Education’s school property function. This review will address the challenges the Ministry of Education face in not being able to deliver the current pipeline of school infrastructure projects—in particular, the failure to sufficiently implement a value-for-money approach, schools having expectations beyond what could be delivered on, and significant cost escalations. It is important to understand why these challenges have emerged in recent years to ensure we can deliver the school property our children deserve. I want to ensure that the school property portfolio is meeting the core infrastructure needs of schools.

Katie Nimon: Why is this inquiry needed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The coalition Government has inherited a pipeline of projects that were unable to be delivered on. In September 2023, the Ministry of Education began a review of property projects. In January, I was informed that up to 350 projects needed to be reviewed for cost-effectiveness. By their own admission, the ministry have advised me that these challenges are due to building-cost increases but also due to scope creep and over-reliance on bespoke designs and over-engineering add-ons, like extensive landscaping and infrastructure. A ministerial inquiry will consider how we can best achieve a portfolio that is managed efficiently and effectively and delivers cost-effective learning spaces that are functional, warm, dry, and fit for purpose.

Katie Nimon: What has she heard from principals since she announced the inquiry?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have been talking with principals about their property concerns since the day I became the Minister. Since this announcement, I have already received reports that principals are welcoming this inquiry. On RNZ this morning, Vaughan Couillault of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand—SPANZ—said that principals are really pleased that the Minister has listened to the sector. I also received communication from a school board member saying, “I would like to applaud the Minister for undertaking the Ministry of Education property review. It is badly needed and overdue.”

Hon Jan Tinetti: Will the inquiry into school property she announced yesterday look at the cuts the previous National Government made into school property and the subsequent impact on school property assets; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I think it’s brave of that member to ask a question, given that this morning on air she said that all of the properties in her portfolio, when she was the Minister, were funded and factored into the Budget. Just mere hours later, her leader had to correct her and say that he would not guarantee absolutely every single one of them. He would probably have also asked his officials to rescope the work.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we waited till the end in the hope that there would be any attempt to address the question. That was certainly responded to but not addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve also got to accept that that was a politically motivated question—and somewhat loaded—and, therefore, there’s a high degree of leniency in the way it’s answered.

Katie Nimon: What can schools expect while the inquiry is under way?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I received an email from a principal today whose build was supposed to start in July last year and has been delayed. She stated, “All we want in this community is good, clear communication and a pathway forward.” I have made it clear to the Ministry of Education my expectation for schools is to receive timely and accurate information about their projects in the coming weeks. While the inquiry is under way, I will be working with the ministry to find solutions for schools facing critical pressures in roll growth, condition, and compliance. I want to be clear that school property is a priority for this Government, and our inquiry will ensure that we deliver cost-effective, warm, dry classrooms to as many schools as possible.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Will she guarantee no cuts to school property capital expenditure?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes.

Question No. 12—Environment

12. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made regarding the clean-up of old landfill sites?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): On Saturday, I had the pleasure of announcing that the Government is granting $6.6 million to clean up four historic New Zealand landfill and dump sites which are vulnerable to extreme weather events and coastal erosion. The Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund grants will go towards fixing former landfills and dump sites.

Grant McCallum: Why is it important that these sites are remediated?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: These sites are in low-lying coastal areas and near river margins, leaving them at risk of being compromised by storm surges, rainfall events, high river levels, and flooding. This funding will address the risk of the sites being breached by a natural event, exposing waste materials and contaminating the surrounding land and waterways. Historic landfills can become a threat to communities and the environment through the effects of extreme weather events. The Government supports local government to deal with the legacy of land contaminated by past practices, directing funds each year to sites considered regional priorities. This funding will help restore these contaminated sites so they no longer pose a risk to communities and the environment.

Grant McCallum: What specific projects have been funded as a result of the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Starting in Southland, the Bluecliffs land site is situated on a former gravel pit located within Te Waewae Bay. Coastal tides and the Waiau River mouth flooding have eroded parts of the site and surrounding areas. That council has been granted $1.35 million for its remediation. The St Andrews Beach landfill project will focus on developing a remediation plan led by Environment Canterbury. They have been granted $135,000 towards this planning project. Nelson City Council is leading a remediation project after sawdust contaminated with arsenic and other chemicals was exposed by erosion in a car park at Tāhunanui Beach in June 2023. That council has been granted $134,000 towards the planning of this project. And, finally, Gisborne District Council is receiving $4.98 million to develop a remediation plan and carry out remediation works at the former Tokomaru Bay landfill. The retired land site area is susceptible to flooding—

SPEAKER: Good—this is really good. What about you table it?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Recent—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just, that’s it.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Enough?

SPEAKER: Yeah, well and truly.

Grant McCallum: What else is the Ministry for the Environment doing to help local communities with historic landfills?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The ministry is now working with regional councils to refine the assessment tool and use it to evaluate landfills that have not yet been assessed. These assessments will help councils make decisions on how to manage the risk associated with the vulnerable landfills and contaminated sites, such as reducing the level of contamination, better containing the sites, or removing the contents of landfills. I wish to thank the ministry and councils up and down the country for their continued work in this space.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Will the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund be spared the 6.5 to 7.5 percent funding cuts?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The remedial contamination fund will be used in the way that it’s going to be best used to help the environmental and community outcomes of this country. The 6.5 to 7.5 is being concentrated, as we have been asked to, on the backroom functions, not on the funding that we get out to the grassroots where the work is being done.

Urgent Debates Declined

Use of Urgency

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi about seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the use of urgency. An urgent debate can only be held about a particular case of recent occurrence. An accumulation of information or a series of leads does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers’ rulings 221/2 and 221/3. More importantly, it is the House that decides whether urgency will be held. While Ministers may move a motion for urgency, Standing Order 58 requires the House to agree before urgency can be held. Urgent debates are not a mechanism for debating decisions of the House. The proper forum for that is the Standing Orders Committee. The application is therefore declined.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just in relation to that ruling, by my count, the Government has put 16 bills through urgency and one item of Government business not through urgency. So, recognising your point about the accumulation, there has to be a point at which we’re able to debate whether it’s appropriate for a ratio of 16 urgent items to one to go through the House, because the Government has the majority and is, essentially, railroading the House. We’re at the point now where they can’t argue that just because there was an election means that they can overturn parliamentary democracy.

SPEAKER: Well, I think there are a couple of points. The first thing is all Governments have a majority—that’s just a fact of the way the Westminster system works. All Governments, from time to time, use urgency, and, as I have just ruled—just ruled—it is a matter for the House. Now, the public will make a decision about how they view these things, but that is a calculation for the Government.

Hon James Shaw: So it’s OK to use urgency for the next three days—

SPEAKER: Sorry, if you want to stand and take a point of order to debate the ruling, then go for your life.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order.

SPEAKER: In the meantime, point of order, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: The point is, of the 16 bills that have come through this House, a large proportion are affecting communities who are made up of tangata whenua, who are denied the right to come in and be part of an open, transparent select committee, an open, transparent consultation. This is affecting Māori more than anyone else in Aotearoa, which is why we have put this request for an urgent debate.

SPEAKER: I appreciate the fact that you have taken the opportunity to make the point, but it is not relevant to decisions of the House. So urgency is a matter for the House to determine, and if the motion is put today, the House will vote on that and the outcome of that will determine whether we have urgency or not.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, the introduction and passing through all stages of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. You can start again in a moment. We’ve got another point of order from Ricardo Menéndez March.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m in the middle of—

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s a new point of order.

SPEAKER: I’ve called him because he’s called a point of order, OK?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Sorry, this is a new point of order—if I may. I was waiting for this to conclude so—

SPEAKER: That’s good—get on with it. It’s all right.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —that I could raise it in relation to question time. So this is in relation to Speaker’s ruling 23/6, and I’ve raised Speaker’s ruling 24/2 in relation to occurrences that happen during question time, particularly from interjections from the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly around that a point of order should use absolutely objective language and not accusatory language, and the language involved when raising points of order is very different from the language involved in debate, as well as constantly raising trifling points of orders being itself disorderly. I just want to reflect that there has been, throughout several question times, constant interjections from the Deputy Prime Minister which they themselves don’t amount to legitimate points of order. And what I want to get a sense of understanding and reflection about is the standards that we’re setting for the rest of us in terms of us also therefore being allowed to make interjections which they in themselves don’t actually—

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a very good point. I’ll take that under advisement. I will come back to the House on that. It’s not something that—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A separate point of order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s a separate point of order, but it has insight with respect to what was just said, because that objection is being raised long after the time he should have raised it, and, for that reason, you should have ruled it out. We’ve got people who don’t understand Speakers’ rulings here, or Standing Orders, and they’re getting up and showing their ignorance every day—

Hon Member: Thank you—sit down.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and he gets offended by it. But that should have been ruled by the fact that when he saw objection—[Interruption] And by the way, points of order are heard in silence.

SPEAKER: That’s right; they are, but there has to be a point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, my point of order has been succinctly made. If he had any point of order, it had to be raised at the time he saw offence, not some time later. That’s the old Standing Order.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded—

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. I move, that this House hold an urgent debate on the appropriate use of urgency. The manner in which this Government has used urgency to progress its agenda, including the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, is an abuse of power.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be great if it were down on the Order Paper or if you had sought leave for such a motion; you simply cannot move it.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I seek leave of the House to hold an urgent debate on the appropriate use of urgency. The manner in which this Government has used urgency to progress its agenda, including this disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, is an abuse of power.

SPEAKER: The leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. The Government’s use of urgency has deprived this House and the public the ability to scrutinise significant legislative measures—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sit down!

SPEAKER: Sit down. You can’t use a point—sit down.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, I’ll sit down because you said sit down; not because he said sit down.

SPEAKER: Yes, sit down because the Speaker stood.

Rawiri Waititi: Yes, but not because he told me to sit down.

SPEAKER: No, of course not—you wouldn’t listen to him; you’d be focusing on me. So the thing is, you can’t use a point of order to make a statement; it has to relate to a point, and the House has made it very clear to me that I must now no longer indulge, on the basis of his seniority in this House, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and I won’t—but you cannot do that today.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. I move, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill—

SPEAKER: No. You can’t do that.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Well, I seek leave from the House that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is out of order while it is currently subject to an inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal as of Standing Order 116.

SPEAKER: Well, I hate to, you know, keep on getting pedantic about the rules here, but the bill that you’re talking about is not on the Table of the House. Therefore, the leave cannot be put.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading—

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. I’m just wanting clarification from the Speaker that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is not going to be discussed in the House through urgency. Is that what you’re telling me?

SPEAKER: That’s not what I said.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, sit down please Mr Seymour. What I said is quite simply, (1) you cannot move without leave of the House; (2) you can’t seek leave of the House to, effectively, discharge a bill that at this point is not tabled. It may well be tabled later today, but it is not tabled currently.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I suspect I speak for quite a few members who are having their patience—

SPEAKER: Well, it would be good if you had spoken to yourself and made it a real point—[Interruption] Enough! Thank you.

Rawiri Waititi: You speak for yourself!

SPEAKER: Hey!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Mr Speaker, with respect, I think I have a right to raise a point of order without you interrupting. I think it’s probably not just me but it’s certainly me who is a little bit tired of repetitive trifling points of order from someone who hasn’t taken the time to understand the rules, and I’d like you to take a tougher line on him because we’re all getting a little tired of it.

SPEAKER: It’s an interesting view, but the Speaker will always make his own decision about what advice he might give anybody in the House any time they might need it.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. I’d like to record—and take that particular Minister to task—that it is inappropriate to give a personal reflection which puts one of the parties in disrepute because we are using the Speakers’ rulings in a way that he doesn’t think is appropriate.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry; it’s an interesting point, but it’s a debating matter. This is the end of this. I’ll now call on the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill; and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill; and the passing through all stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.

There’s been a bit of debate about urgency in the House, and can I just say to the House the reason why the Government is seeking this urgency motion is to progress the necessary stages of our 100-day plan. The coalition parties collectively campaigned on repealing the Māori Health Authority not because we have an objection to improving Māori health outcomes—in fact, quite the converse—but we campaigned on it because we don’t think a giant new bureaucracy is the right way to go about doing that.

We also campaigned on repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax. The National Party—and I think I’m right in saying that the ACT Party said the same thing—at two successive election campaigns sought a mandate from the New Zealand people to repeal the Auckland regional fuel tax, going all the way back to early 2018 when it was introduced. And news flash for the Opposition: at the election in October last year, that mandate was delivered by the New Zealand people, and we have pulled together our 100-day plan and we are now proceeding to implement it.

Members opposite cry crocodile tears about urgency, because I’ve sat where they sit for six years and I realise it’s grim times, and I know exactly what they are going through.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Mr Speaker, point of order. I refer you to Speakers’ rulings 14/3, 14/4, and 14/5 around the need for reasons for moving urgency, and I won’t invite you, Mr Speaker, to reflect on whether or not Mr Bishop’s moving of this motion is in the spirit of those Speakers’ rulings, given that such a motion is not debatable. He is introducing debatable material into this, he is failing to actually fulfil his job to give specific reasons for the bills; rather, he’s attacking the former Government, the Opposition, for actions that he believes have been undertaken. That is not within the spirit of moving an urgency motion.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: I have been listening to the contribution or the reasons being given by the Hon Chris Bishop, who now may want to participate in the—point of order is it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll speak to the point of order and say I think that’s fair enough. I’ll bring it back a bit.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, thank you very much for your generosity in that regard. I was going to direct you that way. Carry on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The very simple reason for urgency is that the coalition parties sought, at the election, a mandate to implement these policies. Two of them—in fact, all three bills in this urgency motion—

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I mean, it is interesting hearing his justification for the over-use of urgency, but, given that it is not a debatable motion, if he is going to make those points, we do feel that we ought to have the ability to respond to those points, because they’re not valid.

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is that Standing Orders don’t provide for that. I recall at the time that the Standing Orders Committee made the determination that there should be reasons given with no debate. I opposed that at the time. I wasn’t listened to. I’m now obliged to follow what Standing Orders require of us. I would ask Mr Bishop to conclude his commentary as quickly as possible.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The next point I was going to make is that all three of these bills are repeal bills—in other words, they wipe from the statute book bills that the Parliament passed. Many of them have been through select committees previously. The Government considers urgency is more than justified in this case, and we therefore move the motion.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I seek leave of the House for a debate laid down immediately on the Government’s use of urgency.

SPEAKER: Well, we’re actually in the middle of considering a motion, so you might want to think about putting that at a future point. Procedurally, we now need to go to the vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill; and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill; and the passing through all stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. I seek leave of the House for a debatable motion on the Government’s use of urgency.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I request a personal vote on that motion.

SPEAKER: You can, but I’m not granting it, because the numbers are overwhelming. There’s no question about how the outcome can be interpreted. That’s the basis for a member requesting a personal vote.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Hon JAMES SHAW: They were very even.

SPEAKER: I read them. I read the results. It also would require that there was some belief that votes cast weren’t legitimately cast.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I find it difficult to predetermine how you can rule on a use of a personal vote given that, until it happens, you don’t actually know whether it’s overwhelming or not.

SPEAKER: Well, you do, because the Clerk hands you a bit of paper that says 68 to 54. That’s the basis of it. That is a large, substantial majority of the House making a decision. If there was a question about whether or not someone had appropriately or inappropriately cast their vote or whether, outside of a party’s leave allocation, there was a misquoting of a vote, those would be reasons, but simply calling for one is not enough.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. I seek leave from the House to move that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is out of order while it is currently subject to an inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal as to the Standing Order 116.

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

Hon Members: Yes.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Point of order. I move that the orders of the day for the first reading of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be postponed until after the urgent claim before the Waitangi Tribunal regarding this bill can be heard.

SPEAKER: There’s a small problem here. So there is a sequencing that goes on in any of these moves by the House, and you can’t have a successive number of leave applications that vary from a decision that the House has made in the current session. The House has made its decision that it’s in order, and, therefore, any other moves to defeat its progress under the urgency bill are, unfortunately, not permitted under Standing Orders.

Hon David Seymour: Unfortunately?

SPEAKER: Well, unfortunate for the member.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very clear that there are many members of this House that feel very strongly about the bills that were contained within the Government’s urgency motion. It is possible that members from all parties were moved by those contributions. In order to clarify whether that is the case, I seek leave of the House to hold a personal vote on that motion.

SPEAKER: That’s not sufficient reason. Your belief doesn’t trump the fact that people have cast their vote, effectively, by holding their proxy with the whips.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I am seeking leave, however.

SPEAKER: Oh, are you seeking leave? All right. Leave is sought for a personal vote on—do you want to say what it is again so we get it all correct in the Hansard? I seek leave—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to hold a personal vote on the Government’s urgency motion just voted on as a party vote.

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

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. Mr Speaker, can you clarify for this House that Standing Order 116, “Matter subject to judicial decision: (1) Matters awaiting or under [judicial] or suppressed by an order of [a] New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion, debate, or question, including a supplementary question, subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on [a] matter or to consider [delegated] legislation.” Standing Order 3(b) of that “takes into account the constitutional relationship of mutual respect that exists between the legislative and judicial branches of government, and the risk of prejudicing a matter awaiting or under [the court system or under judiciary] in any New Zealand court, including one awaiting sentencing.” The tribunal meets on Thursday, and this goes against that particular standing order. Can you just give us some clarification around that, please, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, the simple clarification is that the tribunal is not a judicial body, and, for that reason, the Standing Order does not apply in this case.

Introduction of Bills

Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: I understand that it is the Government’s intention to introduce two bills.

CLERK:

Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill, introduction

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading presently.

Legal Services Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 February.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, defunding—urgently defunding—the section 27 reports. In fact I just got a text from the last bastion of front-bench common sense in the Labour Party—Stuart Nash—and he says, “[The previous Government] was not responsive [enough], [not] fast enough to nail the crime issue. [In my view] the gangs need to be taken down. We need to give police…every tool.” That was a text from Stuart Nash; no sorry, that was an interview he had with TV ONE last night.

These section 27 reports have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and have done nothing for victims of crime; in fact they’ve led to further sentencing discounts. So, in the immortal words of Karen Carpenter, when it comes to law and order, we’ve only just begun. I commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour opposes this bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill, which affects section 27 reports. We oppose it for a number of reasons, and I want to bring those to the House to help viewers at home understand the reason why Labour opposes this bill.

This is a Government that is mean-spirited. It does not care about its lowest socio-economic citizens, and so people at home, who are not in the Chamber, will understand that this particular section, section 27 of the Sentencing Act, was to assist judges when they are considering sentencing. The cultural value reports are put forward because the offender may not necessarily be able to be in a position to have a background report. Especially, we understand that Māori and Pasifika offenders may not necessarily have the resources, whereas this funding is being repealed by this Government—the mean-spirited Government—to fund their tax cuts. They are picking on individuals and whānau and aiga and families who need necessary funding.

The option to put it forward is still there. However, offenders that are in a situation where they do not have the financial means will not be able to have this section 27 report. It is not an excuse; it is to provide a report that provides further explanation for the sentencing judge to consider those circumstances. More importantly, the sentencing judge will have further intel or insight or extra information, providing good research, that could probably give a more purposeful report that could provide extra weight and have further information to be considered.

We have heard that Māori and Pasifika offenders are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Section 27 reports, as I’ve said, will bring about social values with the why, with the what, and with the who, and they will also provide some extra psychological information that could or may assist with that offender’s rehabilitation programme.

So section 27 reports help provide a better alignment, specifically for Māori and Pasifika and low socio-economic offenders who have found themselves in a situation where they need the section 27 cultural value reports. It is the chance for the average person who may not necessarily have the funds and don’t have the ability to pay that for themselves.

I come from a community in South Auckland where there is an overrepresentation of some of our most vulnerable citizens who have found themselves in front of a sentencing judge and who actually want to change their offending behaviour. This Government is mean-spirited. It wants to find funding so that it can fund its tax cuts and not care about those who need a hand up.

Labour opposes this bill. It does not want to have a mean-spirited Government who does not care about some of the offenders, so Labour opposes this bill. Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): When we consider the fact that taxpayer-funded section 27 reports—the amount spent on them—has increased by at least 190-fold, when we think about $40,000 in 2017 to $7.7 million in the last financial year, I’m pretty sure that most Kiwis would agree that this money is better spent on victim services. I support its progression.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): This is a vile little bill that the Government once again is sneaking in through urgency. Here we are at the second reading, and what does the public have to say? Well, nothing, because they haven’t been given an opportunity. Why? Because this Government doesn’t want to hear what the public has to say. The Government doesn’t want to hear the concerns of the community. It’s obsessed with its 100-day plan, and it’s doing violence to the parliamentary process and riding roughshod over democracy.

You know what this Government’s really afraid of? Evidence. There is no lawyer, no academic, no criminologist, no psychiatrist, no judge—there is no expert at all who thinks that defunding these reports is a good idea. Even the Minister’s own officials think it’s a bad idea. We know what the Law Society has to say about cutting funding for these reports for the poorest New Zealanders: “With funding for these reports removed,”—it said—“the only way a person facing sentencing will be able to access them is by paying privately. Those who can afford this would then have a greater level of representation in Court than those receiving Legal Aid. [This] is a significant breach of fundamental rights”—that’s what the Law Society’s got to say.

And what does the Bar Association have to say? “there are significant risks that it will make it harder for judges to impose appropriate sentences, undermine rehabilitation and adversely impact reoffending rates.”—that’s the Bar Association of New Zealand.

And Joe Williams of the Supreme Court, what does he have to say about these reports? “Understanding background and context is not only a key to addressing asymmetry in incarceration but the key to achieving justice,”—the key to achieving justice has just been thrown away by this Government.

I asked the Minister of Justice by parliamentary question: what are you basing your actions on? What’s the evidence you’ve got? His reply, in short: none, nothing, nada. He is basing it on his reckons; what his 100-day plan is; and what he hears, I imagine, down at the Epsom Bowling Club. The Minister of Justice is basing his policies on dogma and dog whistling. The truly horrific thing is that by appealing to the basest basic instincts, by generating fear and loathing, by driving policy by hate over evidence, fear over facts, he’s creating real and lasting harm.

Of course, the Minister has received some good advice, and that can be found in the very Cabinet paper that he presented. It noted that the savings of the costs of these reports will be wildly offset by the costs of court delays and the costs of psychiatrist reports, and that’s not even mentioning the increased incarceration rates. And we know that this will have a disproportionate impact on Māori, especially rangatahi and tamariki. And if you don’t care about that, you shouldn’t be in this House. We know that children who have parents in jail are much more likely to end up in jail themselves. This is a step towards future incarceration. How the Attorney-General concluded that this was not in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, by being both discriminatory and not providing adequate legal representation, I do not know. The derisory two pages she wrote don’t address any of the real issues.

In the regulatory impact statement, it provided five options. And what did it say about this one? It said it was the worst—the least likely to achieve the objectives. It was more expensive and less effective than many of the other options, including simply accrediting the report providers. So what we have is a Government that has no interest in actually achieving real policy objectives, no interest in engaging with evidence, and no interest in undertaking genuine policy work to get the best outcomes for New Zealanders. It’s interested in dog whistling to its mates and pandering to the basest instincts of New Zealanders.

Let’s be clear—and the Minister knows this—this will lead to more people in jail for longer; people who, if they had the money to pay for such a report, a judge would know all the facts and wouldn’t have imprisoned them in the same way. That’s bad for everyone. So here we have it: a Government not interested in evidence and is prepared to actually waste taxpayers’ money and ignores advice. It’s prepared to take the worst option available because of their election slogans.

The lie spread about these reports is that they lead to light sentences. As if, in some way, they mislead a judge. This Minister shouldn’t have his office. Only last week, he was in this House suggesting that home detention was some kind of not real consequence for crime. This Minister is embarking on a programme of undermining the ability of judges to make good decisions. Depriving the court of useful information by defunding these reports is just one of the spiteful things he’s doing.

He’s also going to reduce the discretion of judges in sentencing. And, of course, now the judges won’t be able to look at these reports and understand what the victim’s views are in terms of reparations, in terms of a restorative process, in terms of the offender cooperating with an investigation. But don’t worry, Minister—he’s got nothing to worry about. His kids and my kids will be fine; they can afford these reports. All of the facts can be put in front of the judge for children of people who have salaries like we do, but it’s the kids of those people on low salaries, or the workers on the minimum wage who can’t rustle up enough to get an effective report done to put before the judge. That is discriminatory; it’s wrong.

Let’s talk about reducing the number of victims of crime. Is that the policy objective of this legislation? If so, it will do the opposite. I want to give judges the tools and information they need to impose the right sentence on the offender—a sentence that reduces the likelihood of crime in the future, based on evidence and on expert advice, not a reckon and an election slogan. What does this Government really want? It wants to blind one eye and block one ear. It actually wants to shackle the judiciary. Does it want to enable the judges to stick with their oath to do right by all manner of people? I don’t think so. They want judges to be able to listen to people who can afford to be listened to, and they don’t care about those that can’t.

So the National Party policy is, basically, to fill up our jails—to put people away. They don’t care that home detention is useful; that supervision and alcohol and drug rehabilitation actually works; that mental health treatment can be effective; and that care in whānau, by whānau can be effective. Those are the things that come out of these reports, but the people who need these reports most now can’t have them.

We want to solve the problems that create offending, and this includes a rehabilitative approach as well as punishment where appropriate. They don’t care that the voice of the victim in these reports is going to be shut out. Section 27 looks at information about processes that have been tried to resolve or are available to resolve issues relating to the events involving the victim or victims of the offence. That information is no longer going to be in front of the courts in most of these cases.

So the National Party dogma, it’s not going to be without consequences. As our already pressured prisons fill—prisons that are already not resourced to give basic services to prisoners—they won’t be able to meet their legal requirements. These offenders will be putting their first foot on the conveyer belt of disenfranchisement. If they weren’t already gang-connected, they will be soon; if their connections to whānau were tenuous, well, they will be broken; and if their sense of community was fragile, it will be gone. As a nasty, little aside, this Minister has been calling this a cottage industry. Again, using the politics of division to gaslight the people who diligently try to inform the judge of important context of offending: the family, social, and cultural background in which it occurred.

I wanted to know the basis of this allegation so, again, I asked the Minister who was paid by the legal services agency to prepare these reports? Who and how much? Who are these cottage industry people? What did he say? “I don’t know. I don’t have any information on who’s been getting these reports.” Once again, he made it up.

This bill is just one of the wedges that the Government is driving in our society. One of the ways they are making our society less just; one of the ways in which they will create more victims and more offenders. This policy and the others aren’t based on evidence or thoughtfulness—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The member’s time has come to an end.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The use of section 27 reports is to inform the judicial system—the judges—in the process of sentencing, the background and family information of the accused. So the process for going through the allegations and the charges and the defence of them has already passed. At this stage, section 27 reports have to do with sentencing—there is no removal of the right of anyone for evidence to be presented in their favour throughout the whole process, what is being abolished is the funding for section 27 reports, because it was created to allow family and people who knew the accused to provide evidence in support of their background. Section 27 reports are not being abolished by this amendment. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I move, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

This is a narrow bill focused on the changes needed to disestablish the Māori Health Authority. Disestablishment was agreed to by all three governing parties in their coalition agreements and mandated by the results of the 2023 general election, where it was canvassed at length on the campaign trail. Substantively, this bill meets our 100-day commitment and delivers on our intent.

I want to acknowledge those who embarked on the Māori Health Authority dream and say to you that this bill is in no way a reflection of you or your good work. It is a reflection of an approach that failed to put health needs for all at its forefront, and a reflection of an implementation plan that faced significant challenges from the beginning. I acknowledge that some people have a different view, and I respect that. However, I want to reassure them that this Government will remain committed to improving Māori health outcomes.

While the particular version of the dream that the Māori Health Authority laid out is coming to an end today, I want to paint a different dream, one that will be outcomes-driven, providing greater devolved decision-making that will deliver care as close to the home and the hapū as possible. There is organisational expertise in the Māori Health Authority, and I want to retain that. I say to Māori Health Authority staff to please join me, guide me, and help us together to row a different waka towards better health outcomes. This bill enables that.

Structurally, the intent of this bill is that the Māori Health Authority staff and functions will transfer mostly to Health New Zealand, with a few to the Ministry of Health. Retaining the expertise needed to drive better health outcomes for Māori is important. We will do this transfer with dignity and respect for fellow health professionals. However, this is not simply a rehoming of the Māori Health Authority within Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. There will be less funded positions transferred across from unfilled positions especially. These are being covered to date by expensive consultants. Across health, we are reprioritising funds from the bureaucracy and into the front line.

I want to speak to iwi-Māori partnership boards and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. iwi-Māori partnership boards and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will remain in place. Their voices may evolve as both will have a continuing role in the future of Māori health, and they will be very important as we press into communities to deliver care, to monitor care, as close to the home and the hapū as possible. Localities will be paused under this bill while their place in the reforms is reconsidered.

We have inherited a health system facing a significant number of challenges following major reform. The system continues to perform poorly across many metrics. Access to healthcare varies unacceptably. There are increasingly long wait times for treatment and substantial workforce shortages. Much of this is as a result of poor leadership and decision-making by the previous Government. Decision making has mostly been centralised in Wellington, with family and whānau not having as much input into services delivered as is desirable. This needs to change.

I want to paint a vision for Māori and all New Zealanders. My vision is that all New Zealanders will have timely access to quality healthcare. That is the mission statement. To achieve this, I will be setting clear health targets. These will bring attention, resources, and the accountability that’s needed to deliver quality care in a timely manner. The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will help drive our health targets and will be informed by the work already done in Pae Tū and the Whakamaua action plan. iwi-Māori partnership boards will be encouraged to have more of a say in their local communities in a manner not permissioned in Pae Ora. This bill, then, is necessary not just to support an election mandate but to undo an ideology that was struggling to produce tangible results.

Many will say that the Māori Health Authority was still in its infancy. I would refute that statement. After 18 months in transition, under the guidance of a transition unit, before enablement in July 2022, and then given a further 18 months after that, this infant needed to be up on its feet and walking; despite the best efforts of staff, it was not. It is not clear to me that the Māori Health Authority was ever actually supported properly by the previous Government, who, in my view, were distracted by wider structural reforms to other parts of the health system. I believe the transition unit and previous Government has much to answer for in this failed implementation.

Often in politics, there is near universal agreement on the destination, what needs to get better; it is often how we get there that varies. This bill signals the beginning of a different journey. We acknowledge inequities. We acknowledge long waiting lists. At a macro level, this bill commences a journey that is different in three key ways from the previous Government’s approach: (1) we believe in decentralisation and not a centralised, “Wellington knows best” approach to decision making and resourcing; (2) targets will be brought back and be at the forefront of our health policy, unlike the previous Government, which said targets would not be at the forefront of their health policies, it will be at the forefront of our health policies; (3) health workforce shortages are the biggest hurdle facing our health system, despite what the previous Government stated and put on record.

To conclude, what we are putting on the table today is a start to enabling the delivery of care as close to the home and the hapū as possible. I look forward to expanding further in other stages of this bill, but at this point I commend it to the House.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Labour Party to oppose the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill.

Can I first acknowledge the many hard-working New Zealanders—Māori and Pākehā—who work in the health system at large, but in particular at Te Aka Whai Ora. Many make the assumption that it’s just Māori workers who work at Māori health providers, and indeed Te Aka Whai Ora. That’s simply not the case. There are many people right across this country who are passionate about Māori health outcomes.

What we’ve just heard from the Minister in describing this bill can only be described as the absolute opposite of that. The Minister, in his opening remarks, has said that this delivers on the intent of the three-headed taniwha otherwise known as the coalition Government. It sure does, if that intent is indeed a regressive Māori policy agenda—and that’s what’s happening here today. I was fortunate to be the Minister responsible for the building of Te Aka Whai Ora, with strong support from our then Minister of Health, the Hon Andrew Little, and subsequent Ministers of Health, who continued to reshape a health system that needed to be reshaped.

I want to be very clear—and there are members on that side of the House who are new to the House and I want to say to them—that inequities in Māori health have been in Māori communities for decades. Now, I want to remind the members on that side of the House that they were cruelly exposed during COVID-19. In fact, one of my jobs as a Minister—I was one of the COVID Ministers—was to travel to each and every one of the districts of the members in this House to literally wring the district health board by the neck and say, “You must provide better outcomes for Māori, because right now you’re failing—right now you are failing.” That is why the work to reshape the health sector was particularly undertaken, because COVID sorely—sorely—exposed the holes in the health sector to show that there are further inequities that are suffered by Māori, in particular in times of crisis.

Māori right up and down this country stood up to deliver during COVID-19 and, in fact, Te Whānau o Waipareira in West Auckland delivered over 70,000 vaccinations in Tāmaki-makau-rau alone. And guess what! Only 14 percent of those were to Māori. The rest of them were to everybody. This is the lesson I want that side of the House to remember: I want that side of the House to remember Te Aka Whai Ora was here not just for Māori but for the betterment of this entire nation.

What we are going to delve into as this bill progresses is clear evidence from many members on this side of the House who witnessed firsthand the decentralisation approach that was taken when we built Te Aka Whai Ora. I challenge the Minister and members on that side of the House who talk about a Wellington bureaucracy: tell me where their office is. Did any of them come to the opening of Te Aka Whai Ora? I can tell you I did. It was opened in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, where the largest Māori population is in this country. It wasn’t run out of Wellington; in fact, it was put back into the hands of our people. We established the iwi-Māori partnership boards in order to make sure that we can fund and commission those outcomes directly in community.

Now, the Minister has spoken about keeping part of that function. We will be challenging the Minister as we interrogate this bill—about what that looks like. What does that actually mean for the iwi-Māori partnership boards? How do those iwi-Māori partnership boards continue to be supported by Health New Zealand as they look to make sure health outcomes for Māori improve right across this country? I am passionate about Māori health. My uncle Rob Cooper and my father, Erima Henare, were instrumental in the early Māori health days, looking towards how we fund the inequities properly in order to turn around Māori health outcomes for this country.

In my final 45 seconds, as we interrogate this bill, I want to say to all the whānau out there and to all of the kaimahi who have worked hard for Māori outcomes: tai timu, tai pari. The tide has turned for now, but I say to them: we will tie our waka up on to the shore because, inevitably, the tide will turn again and our waka will be set out to sea to go towards the aspirations that our people have dreamt of for years. I encourage that side of the House to read Sir Mason Durie, Order of New Zealand, one of the greatest living New Zealanders currently, in his approach to Māori health, and then come back and argue the merits of Te Aka Whai Ora. We oppose this bill vehemently.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I stand in this House, wearing the kākahu taratara of te Rōpū Kākāriki as we mourn the loss of our dear friend and colleague Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. I pay tribute to him today, and to my matua Mikaere Povey, tamaiti of Dame Naida Glavish, who also fell on that same day. They were far too young and taken too soon.

Nō reira moe mai rā. Hoki mai anō ki a tātou ngā waihotanga iho a rātou mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[So rest in peace. I return now to us who have been left behind by them, greetings, greetings and thanks to us all.]

I stand on behalf of te Rōpū Kākāriki to speak on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. Today is day one of the recolonisation of hauora Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. Why? Because this Government is scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. As Janice Kuka, the lead claimant in the current Waitangi Tribunal urgency in the disestablishment for Te Aka Whai Ora, shared, this is the closest model of tino rangatiratanga in hauora Māori in history.

Today, we stand outraged that this Government would seek to scrap an organisation which was established through the important work of the 2019 Wai 2575 Health Service and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry and the full Health and Disability System Review that took place in 2019 and 2020, which included the DHBs, health providers, community, and stakeholders. This review reinforced the Waitangi Tribunal findings and set the scene for the major changes required. The review confirmed that Aotearoa has unacceptable Māori health inequities. We have institutional racism. The general health system has not improved Māori health outcomes, and approaches to design, purchasing, and contracting of health services have worsened these inequalities. We now have a Government who wants to send us back to the future, moving a focused independent hauora Māori voice back into the mainstream machine known as Te Whatu Ora.

E te Minita Hauora, kei hea te tino rangatiratanga o tēnā?

[To the Minister of Health, where is the sovereignty in that?]

We’ve heard the Minister share in the media that the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora will be done gently, with great care and great respect, and that the Government wants to propose an alternative that is more effective and that will deliver outcomes that Māori need. Where are the gentle hands of this Government? What engagement has this Government undertaken with te Iwi Māori and hauora Māori on the proposal to scrap Te Aka Whai Ora? Did Māori tell you that we need this? The Government is proposing that this legislation will come through the House under urgency—and we’re here right now—but where is the justice and due process for our people to have input? Where are the gentle hands in allowing the urgent claim before the Waitangi Tribunal, scheduled for this Thursday and Friday, to be heard—now undermined by this Government?

Nā wai i teka, this Government supports te tino rangatiratanga o te iwi Māori ki roto i ngā take hauora? E kī, e kī.

[Who lied that this Government supports the sovereignty of the Māori people in health issues? Well, really.]

There is no respect of this Government who actively silences the thousands of voices that contributed the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, further oppressing te Iwi Māori when it comes to our hauora solutions. We have heard from the Minister of Health that Te Aka Whai Ora is a bureaucracy managed out of Wellington. I argue that Te Aka Whai Ora is a really small workforce—not even 300 kaimahi. And it’s not centrally driven as a bureaucracy but rather a group of committed health professionals connected to kāinga, based largely in the regions and in hospitals, who are focused on improving Māori health outcomes. The Pae Ora legislation provides the road map that was heralded as a game-changer in fixing a public health system that for far too long had failed Māori and many others in our community—we had been left out.

There is a strong feeling in our kāinga and within iwi that we’ve been ripped off by this Government. Disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora now—we’ve never got a chance to see the waka grow and reach its full potential. Te Iwi Māori are being ripped off. This Government undermines the Waitangi Tribunal. Knowing full well that the urgency is this week, I ask again: where is the justice?

The Prime Minister said at Waitangi, “I want Te Aō Māori to thrive. When Māori [thrive], we all know [that] New Zealand [will do well as well].” Well, te Iwi Māori, did we consent to scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora? No, we didn’t. In fact, this is a gross breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to indicate we will be supporting this bill, the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. ACT opposed the establishment of the Māori Health Authority. We also campaigned on that in last year’s election and we also put that into our coalition agreement, which became part of the Government’s 100-day plan. We think that having a Government department predicated entirely on race is wrong, and it really is a simplistic way of looking at how we should deal with healthcare in this country.

Dividing New Zealanders into two ethnic groups to receive public services does not help us deliver better public services, and, actually, it’s a poor analysis of the causes of poor health outcomes. It creates division and, really, isn’t the way we want to go forward. Also, the report that was done on the authority’s lack of progress, I actually said that concerns are being raised about staff transfers not being focused on critical skills and expertise needed to actually deliver the health outcomes that were promised. The report also found that the authority was tracking behind the Government’s commitments, and under-delivering, resulting in, actually, Māori being underserved, not better served.

We want to continue to ensure that our health system delivers for all New Zealanders, based on need, and we are very committed, as the Minister outlined in his speech, to actually closing the gap for all New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori. This bill also doesn’t remove the ability for Māori to be consulted, and we actually want to see more Māori health providers actually providing care at the coalface. We want to get rid of this bureaucracy and actually get down to delivery. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to begin my contribution acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Dr Shane Reti, and pointing out a number of comments that he’s made in his introductory remarks which resonate well with me—that we do remain, from this side of the House, absolutely committed to improving Māori health outcomes; noting also that the staff and functions of Te Aka Whai Ora will be transferred to Health New Zealand; and reprioritising the funds from the bureaucracy to the front line, because it’s at the front line, we know, that health gain will be improved. If you have a massive bureaucracy that is all about ideology, no health gain comes as a result.

Our public health system is accountable for its delivery; a public health system that is keenly focused on delivering positive health outcomes for all New Zealanders, and that’s New Zealand First: we believe that equity of access for all based on need, based on clinical need, must be a core function in public health. Māori health equity is a core function of the public health sector. Māori health equity should be matrixed across the entire public health system, not ring-fenced, not put into a little box on the side, with bureaucratic capture. The delivery of Māori and, for that matter, Pacific health gain is a fundamental responsibility of our public health system.

Te Aka Whai Ora is the commissioning arm of the public health system for Māori; however, Te Aka Whai Ora’s ability to actually deliver was very limited. It was not the vehicle for change that many people had hoped for. I will also note very briefly that the iwi-Māori partnership boards under this amendment bill will get the actual power they should have had in the first place. Currently, under the Pae Ora legislation, they do not have any commissioning powers but the future for them is to really come inside the health system and be that network provider down to the grassroots, where Māori health gain will be improved. I commend the bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Te Pāti Māori stands up and speaks in absolute opposition to what has been proposed here, not only in this bill but the way that it is coming to us. I cannot state enough that the wellbeing of your tangata w’enua, the indigenous people of Aotearoa, deserves to have more time and deserves, as Te Tiriti, to be heard in the tribunal. In fact, the efforts of those that are out on the ground making this will happen day to day needed to be validated and felt by the Minister before us.

I want to congratulate this Government! I want to congratulate you too, our Minister! From day one, you have carried on the kōrero that this is a two-tier system based on race—based on race. Your party has continued on the kōrero of this being a solution based on racial segregation. And New Zealand First, in fact, said it was about separatism. In fact, we had ACT also calling it an “act of apartheid”. Well, excuse us—excuse us for having to have a separate need to be able to have our wellbeing addressed, because we are dying earlier than everyone else.

And let’s just go there—let’s just go there and talk about the facts—because the reality is that we have learnt from this Government that Māori are expendable. And the politicking that is going on before the very nation of Aotearoa—and the world—is that you have determined that you know better what Māori want. And there’s been a culmination of years and years of this solution. But let’s just talk about it. Let’s just reflect. Māori die seven years earlier than everyone else. That’s not a myth; that’s a fact. That’s not an enjoyable position to be in. It’s not something that we desire to have as separatists. Māori men die eight years earlier compared to other males. Our men die on average at 73 years old. That’s probably six years after the SuperGold card. And then we, of course, have Māori: 53 percent of us die under 65 years old. Now, let’s just remember non-Māori men are doing an average of 83 years. So we have comparatively a poor performance of life based on the fact that we have had to endure 180 years of a health system that has completely failed us.

I refuse to let you carry on the dialogue that our people are failing. The health system has completely failed my kaumātua, my own generation, and my mokopuna. We haven’t failed. We never left our w’enua. We have done nothing wrong. We’ve had to endure the state of a system that was forced on us. So what we have now is a narrative. You have successfully conjured up a narrative that we were enjoying preferential treatment as tangata w’enua, and, as a consequence, this frenzy of misinformation and racism—the fact that Māori radicals want to take over—you have completely created a narrative that has got the rest of Aotearoa and those who are not Māori, those who are not enduring this horrific health system that we’re in, thinking that we deserve and we want something different based on race.

I guess the other side of it, too, is that you can continue to tell us that you’re listening to Māori, whānau, hapū, iwi communities; yet the Iwi Chairs Forum has hit out and said there’s been no communication of the alternative. So not only have we had to endure a whole revolting campaign of you being so desperate to get into power that you created a narrative that Māori wanted different treatments in Aotearoa but you have continued to also sit there and offer no alternative, no option. Just get rid of bureaucracy and don’t worry about the fact of what’s going on in Te Whatu Ora and the fact they had 18 months. Don’t worry about the fact that Oranga Tamariki is killing our people and you’ve got a system that’s had reviews after reviews saying, “Get rid of it.” No, no, no. Let’s pick a moment in time and focus on what you want to focus the rest of Aotearoa, and that is you have gone on and you have conjured up a narrative that Māori deserve to die earlier; we deserve to be unwell; we deserve to have a system that’s designed by you all who have got no experience. We saw the most horrific racism during COVID. None of you have talked about that.

But, thankfully, we’ve got a second reading and a third reading, where I’ll continue to take our people on the enjoyment of what it is like to have a Government that puts urgency before the wellbeing of tangata w’enua. I am ashamed to be in this House debating this bill. It is not a moment to be proud of, Minister, but we will carry that on in the second and the third reading. Kia ora rā.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill at its first reading. We have said that we campaigned clearly that we were going to disestablish the Māori Health Authority. We were voted in by the people of New Zealand with a clear electoral mandate, and we are delivering on that mandate as part of our first 100 days in coalition agreements with coalition partners.

We know that the solutions for Māori communities come from Māori communities, not from Wellington bureaucracies. This Government is committed to lifting outcomes for Māori and non-Māori alike, and it’s not about the shape of the system; it’s about making sure that it actually delivers for all New Zealanders. That is what this Government is committed to doing—lifting the standards of healthcare for all New Zealanders—and this bill is a step in that direction. I support it.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Speaker—Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): You’re allowed to look up when you make the call, Ms Verrall!

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: What a challenge for our country, the unacceptable inequities that Māori face in health—the fact that Māori, as has been outlined by my colleague, die seven years earlier, in the 21st century, when we have been working on this issue for about a century, since the birth of our health system. There is no good reason for it. We must not accept it.

As a health practitioner, I have seen many health practitioners be confronted by that. In fact, it’s not uncommon, working in a hospital, to go and see your patients’ data audited and to have your colleagues look over at you and point to the fact that the outcomes you are achieving are not good enough for Māori. That has been something I have seen my colleagues go through, and many of them have recognised that they, despite being totally committed to the health of each individual in front of them, have none the less worked in a way that has been unable to see those benefits translate into health gains for Māori.

For my colleagues, for whom the idea that they are caring for each person to the best of their ability is the centre of their professional identity, this cuts them to the core. I have watched many of my colleagues go through that realisation and that process of understanding that things had to be done differently slowly, sometimes painfully, sometimes with a lot of confrontation between activists within our profession or our health services and the professionals concerned.

But our country has come a long way, and when we consulted on the review of the health system in the first term of the Labour Government, there was strong support for the development of a Māori Health Authority in order to make sure that the multiple ways in which the system was failing Māori could be systematically addressed.

What is so disappointing is that something which is the culmination of so much study and work and consultation in Aotearoa is now being removed by a Government who refuses to listen, under urgency, with no opportunity for select committee and no opportunity for the Waitangi Tribunal to be able to comment on this thing of critical importance to Māori. It is shameful, and, Dr Reti, my view is that your conduct in this is cowardly.

It is a moral challenge for us to address health outcomes for Māori. We have heard repeatedly that Dr Reti has a dream for Māori, but I don’t see any evidence of a plan. I don’t see any evidence of anything that will actually change things. I see evidence of populism, actually, of sacrificing the needs of the minority in order to gain a majority and to take up power. I think it’s a disgrace.

I want to turn to the issue of how we could make substantial health gains for Māori and for non-Māori, and that is in community and primary care. That was the purpose of the localities which I see in this bill. Their roll-out is now deferred. That is the importance of the relationship between iwi-Māori partnership boards and localities. Unless we get that right, we will not be able to generate the positive outcomes we want for the health of everyone. We will continue to have an uncoordinated, messy system of primary care where the bits don’t join up and people can’t access what they need. Such an important change. I cannot believe the Government is sleepwalking into this without a select committee process.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I stand to speak in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. We’re committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. We recognise that communities know best what works for them. We’ll continue to work with all population groups to improve outcomes. We don’t want a healthcare system that will deliver more bureaucracy than bandages, more paperwork than peripherally inserted central catheter lines, more heartbreak than heart health. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Kua tae mai te rā. Ka nui taku riri ki tēnei Kāwanatanga, engari he nui kē atu taku pōuri.ki te tū i tēnei rā ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ko te kaupapa ko te whakakahore i Te Aka Whai Ora 

He pōuri nā te mea ko tētahi o aku whanaunga e ārahi ana i tēnei pire i roto i tēnei Whare, e haukoti ana i te nohoanga o te Taraipiunara. Ko tana hapū tētahi o ngā kaikerēme, ko Te Kapotai tētahi o ngā kaikerēme o te whakakorenga o Te Aka Whaiora.

Ko taku whanaunga te tangata arero rua. I roto i tēnei Whare, i whakautu ia i te pātai a Peeni Henare mehemea ka noho ia, ka kōrero ia, ka whakarongo ia ki ōna iwi Māori, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā iwi, ki te Taraipiunara. Ko tana whakautu i tērā wiki, “āe. Āe, ka noho au, ka whakarongo au, ka āta whakaaro au i ngā kōrero.” Engari i tēnei rā kua tau mai tēnei pire ki roto i tēnei Whare, hei te mutunga o tēnei rā, āpōpō pea, kua whakakorengia tēnei. E kī, e kī!

Āe, e tika ana te kōrero, nā wai i teka? Nā te Minita i teka i tērā wiki. Ka āta kōrero ia, whakarongo ia; kahore. Kahore.

E taku whanaunga, e mōhio ana ahau e poho kererū ana ō whanaunga.

[The day has arrived. I am very angry at this Government, but my sadness is much greater to stand here today to speak about this bill. The subject is the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority.

I am saddened because it is one of my relations that is leading this bill through this House, and cutting off the sitting of the tribunal. His hapū is one of the claimants; Te Kapotai is one of the claimants of the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority. 

My relation is a two-faced man. In this House, he answered the question of Peeni Henare whether he would sit with, discuss with, and listen to his Māori people, to the hapū, to the iwi, to the tribunal. His answer last week was, “Yes. Yes, I will sit, I will listen, I will carefully consider the discussion.” But today this bill has arrived in this House, at the end of the day, maybe tomorrow, this will be disestablished. How dare you!

Yes, that statement is true; whose lie was it? It was the Minister that lied last week. He will carefully discuss, he will listen; no way. No way.

To my relation, I know your relations are very proud.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Prime, I realise that I’m subject to the translation, but just be aware that you are running close to the line with some of these personal comments. But carry on.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Ehara koe i taku whanaunga, e te Māngai. E kōrero ana ahau ki te Minita, ko ia taku whanaunga. Nō reira e hāngai ana ahau ki ngā kōrero, e mōhio ana ahau ki tō kōrero.

[You are not my relation, Speaker. I am speaking to the Minister. He is my relation. So I am in alignment with the statements. I know what you are speaking about.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I repeat my comment, Ms Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: E te Minita, e mōhio ana ahau, tō iwi e poho kererū i tō mahi hei tākuta, nā te mea kei roto i ō ringaringa, e te Minita, kei roto i ō ringaringa te pae ora o wō tātou whānau; tamariki, mokopuna. Engari kei konei i tēnei rā me te mau mai i tēnei pire i te whakakāhore i Te Aka Whai Ora. Ō rātou wawata mō te pae ora, mō wā tātou tamariki, mokopuna.

E hoki ana ōku mahara ki te wā o taku matua, a Kevin Prime, i tīmata i te Ngāti Hine Health Trust, i te taha i a Uncle Erima Henare, i a Rob Cooper mā. Tō rātou hiahia kia whai i te oranga mō wā tātou tamariki, mokopuna, whānau Māori, e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa o Te Aka Whai Ora kia whakatutuki i ngā wawata o rātou mā. Ngā mea e ora tonu ana i tēnei rā, pērā i a Aunty Moe Milne, ko ia tētahi i tū ana ki mua i te Taraipiunara me te whakahē i ō mahi, me tana tino pōuri ko koe, he whanaunga, e mau mai ana i tēnei ki roto i tēnei Whare.

Ko taku kōrero ki a koe, e taku whanaunga, e tino whakamā ana ahau i ō mahi. Āta whakaarohia, kei roto i ō ringaringa te oranga mō wā tātou whanaunga, tamariki, mokopuna.

[To the Minister, I know that your iwi is very proud of your efforts as a doctor, because in your hands, Minister, in your hands is the healthy future of our families; children, grandchildren. But here you are today bringing this bill to disestablish the Māori Health Authority; their aspirations for a healthy future, for our children, grandchildren.

My memories return to the time of my uncle, Kevin Prime, who started the Ngāti Hine Health Trust, alongside Uncle Erima Henare, and Rob Cooper and others. Their desire was to pursue wellbeing for our children, grandchildren, and Māori families, and were in support of this initiative, Te Aka Whai Ora, to realise their aspirations. The ones who are still alive today, like Aunty Moe Milne, she is one of the ones that is standing before the tribunal and opposing your efforts, and her deep sadness that you, a relative, is bringing this into this House.

What I say to you, my relation, is that I am very embarrassed by your endeavours. Consider carefully that in your hands is the wellbeing of our relations, children, and grandchildren.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Prime, direct your comments to the Chair.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: E te Māngai, e kōrero ana ahau ki te Minita. Ko ia taku whanaunga. Ko tāku e inoi ana ki a ia, āe. Āe.

[Speaker, I am speaking to the Minister. He is my relation. What I am asking of him, yes, yes.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Prime, you direct your comments through the Chair, and you do not use the first person.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: E te Māngai, e kōrero ana ahau ki taku whanaunga, me te pātai, me te inoi, me te tono, me te tohe, aha rānei ki a ia, me tana mahi whakahē, whakamutu i tēnei, Te Aka Whai Ora, me taku kōrero ki a ia e tino pōuri ana ahau i tana mahi, e tino riri ana ahau i tana mahi.

[Speaker, I am speaking to my relation, and asking and pleading and requesting and disputing and whatever else of him and his efforts to condemn and bring an end to this, the Māori Health Authority, and my statement to him that I am deeply saddened by his efforts, and I am very angry at his endeavours.]

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, e te Pīka. Our whanaunga is never one person. We don’t speak in Māori individually; we speak collectively. Our whanaunga is a hapū and an iwi.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, I’m not going to rule on that. I’m ruling on the language that was being used that came through my translation that Ms Prime was using, and that was what I was ruling on. So—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: E te Pīka, point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Is this a new point of order, Ms Ngarewa-Packer?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It’s speaking to the previous point of order. If we are going to be—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, I’m sorry, but I’ve ruled on that already.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise to support this bill. This Government is committed to lift health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. Disestablishing the Māori Health Authority in no way means an end to this Government’s focus on Māori health for those who need it.

It presents an opportunity to identify more efficient ways to work together with Māori to deliver solutions; a saving which can go back into better health outcomes. This bill strikes the right balance between service delivery on needs, not race, while ensuring Māori continue to have their voice being heard. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I move, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have laid out a plan for Māori health in the context of an overarching strategy with priorities that include decentralisation, the importance of health workforce, and targets. We have heard how Māori health providers often service non-Māori, sometimes even more than they service Māori. I recognise and venerate this and, in fact, have already moved from just those nice words to putting it into action with the announcement in December of a $50 million immunisation programme that utilises the special actions that Māori health providers can provide, and what mainstream cannot, or will not; their ability to reach into remote and vulnerable communities as part of the expertise that they have.

In that announcement, which at $50 million was not inconsequential, we funded Māori health providers to deliver to a universal audience. We backed them. These are tangible actions, not just words. Yes, I did say transition would be in my kind hands, in reply to a previous speech. What I would suggest is ask the staff: is there any time in this process when there has not been respect and consideration?

In my first reading, I asked Māori Health Authority staff to join me—hardly demeaning but more encouraging and collaborative and hopeful. I have enjoyed engaging with Māori health providers and leaders as I’ve sought to find a way forward for what might deliver better health outcomes, including meeting with Iwi-Māori Partnership Board chairs and a Zoom meeting on or around 6 December, as I recall, and others who have contributed wisdom to the position we find ourselves in today.

To conclude, briefly, I’ve described the changes that this bill brings about: (1) Māori Health Authority staff to repatriate to Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority; (2) uplifting of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee; (3) uplifting of iwi-Māori partnership boards; (4) reconsideration of localities. The plan is clear and we believe this plan will deliver better health outcomes. Kia ora mai tātou.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We said, on this side of the House, that we will continue to interrogate the words in this bill and we will oppose this bill all the way through the stages of the House. Now, I want to touch on a number of those clauses within this bill that we will be looking towards interrogating as we come to the committee of the whole House. I also want to state here it plays into what’s already been made clear—well, actually, it’s quite unclear from this Government—and I want to draw the House’s attention to clause 6 in the bill.

The reason I want to do that is what we’ve heard from the ACT Party in this House is a Treaty principles bill, and that they want to have this discussion and then we hear from the Prime Minister that they won’t be supporting that bill beyond a particular stage of the bill. But what we read in this particular bill that we are debating here this evening is subterfuge. We are reading in here that this Government is already tinkering with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles, and it’s laid out clearly in clause 6.

This is a Government where the Prime Minister stands up in Waitangi and in front of everyone in this country and says to everybody, “No, no, we won’t be supporting the Treaty principles bill; we are here to work with Māori and we will continue to support Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Clause 6 of this particular bill that we are debating here tonight is clear subterfuge and straight-out play by this particular Government to make sure that they can continue to tinker with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

When we were in power, we made it clear that Te Tiriti o Waitangi must continue to lead the Māori health aspiration. It’s riddled all the way through the whakamaua, which the Minister has already referred to this evening. It’s already in the GPS—the Government policy statement—and we wanted to make sure that it was throughout the entire system. What we are seeing from this bill and this Government is a clear play to change Te Tiriti o Waitangi without even going to the community to talk about it; without even allowing whānau right up and down the country to have their say on this particular bill.

Andy Foster: What are you talking about?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Now, the members on that side of the House say we are talking about it right now. No, they’re not; they’re only taking one-minute calls. I encourage them to get up, let’s debate these clauses in detail, Mr Foster—in detail—and make sure that we can have that robust conversation. I can tell that side of the House that all of us on this side of the House have spoken to the communities who these changes impact the most: Māori communities—Māori communities—even Pasifika communities. A known fact amongst our people: for those aged under 25, just over 50 percent of those people who are Māori are also Pacific. It impacts our communities right up and down this country, and this side of the House knows the sentiments and the feelings and, indeed, the wisdom towards this bill far better than the other side of the House.

We heard it already, that “We received the mandate in the last election.” Well—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Not from Māori.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —not from Māori, they didn’t; not from Pacific, they didn’t. That’s clear as day to each and every one of us on this side of the House. That side of the House might choose to sit in ignorance and choose to sit there with blinkers on to the actual needs of Māori. I want to reiterate that point.

The Prime Minister has stood up publicly in this House, saying he will vote down a Treaty principles bill. Yet right here is a clear example of this Government tinkering and changing Te Tiriti o Waitangi to suit their aggressive Māori policy agenda.

Dana Kirkpatrick: We’re not changing Te Tiriti. How is it changing Te Tiriti?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Read clause 6—read clause 6. I encourage those members to get up and speak to it and explain why they are going to be changing this.

This lends itself further to the need for the Waitangi Tribunal to be able to prosecute this case and indeed offer recommendations for the consideration of any policy and anything to do with Māori health moving forward. It’s clear from this Government that they choose not to listen to those experts. Some people think that the Waitangi Tribunal is simply there to make recommendations and even—I’ve heard calls from the other side of the House that they are biased. I can speak to much of the work of the Waitangi Tribunal and say this: not only are their recommendations well considered, they also act as a body to store knowledge, to store information, and to store statistics relevant to the points that we are making here today with this bill and the cases in front of the tribunal.

What we’re not seeing from this Government is a commitment to looking towards those recommendations of the tribunal, yet we heard just now from the Minister that he has met with whānau and iwi right across the country. Well, I put to the House that that actually hasn’t been the case; that when we established Te Aka Whai Ora—very soon we’ll be rolling out the list of all the people we met with from Māori health providers, communities, experts, not just Māori health experts but health experts from right across the world, in fact—who all called for Te Aka Whai Ora to be built. Yet when we look towards the diary programme of the Minister and even his colleagues with respect to this matter, we can’t find the kinds of connection that they claim to be making here in the House.

We’re going to go further into the bill as we look towards some of the words that are changed and have been changed or will be proposed to be changed. We were quite clear when we established Te Aka Whai Ora that it had to be a “must”; that it had to be driven to make sure that they deliver for the people that they serve. What we’ve read in this particular bill are some changes to “may”. Now, for most people, that might not sound like much, but “must” and “may”—there are huge differences there.

The Minister, in his speech for the second reading, also spoke about the iwi-Māori partnership boards and supporting decentralisation. In this repeal bill, what it’s proposing is that the iwi-Māori partnership boards can only be constructed or approved by the Director-General of Health. Under the current bill as it stands right now before this repeal, actually there was a process there to go through Te Aka Whai Ora—the Māori Health Authority—to continue to consult and to make sure that in order for it to be recognised, it had to go through that process.

What this bill is proposing to do is cut out the voice of Māori and the recognition of themselves to be able to say, “I am an iwi and I want to be an Iwi-Māori Partnership Board to continue to serve my people.”—and this is the right process to be able to do that. What this bill does, however, is actually just say, “No, no, we’re going to put it in the hands of only the Director-General of Health.” Now, while I respect the Director-General of Health—the current one and indeed the one that we worked with in order to establish Te Aka Whai Ora, Sir Ashley Bloomfield, who was hugely supportive of the work that we did for the health reform and of course for Te Aka Whai Ora—what we’re seeing here is a continual silencing of the Māori voice as we look towards things like the Iwi-Māori Partnership Board that the Minister and that side of the House pretend to commit themselves to and pretend to support. It’s just not true, and it’s playing out not only in their words, because it’s contradictory to what’s being proposed here in the bill. We will also go on to interrogate the Minister, in his speech, talking about the simple repatriation of Māori staff or staff into the health system again—or into Health New Zealand or Te Manatū Hauora.

What the Minister just described there is the status quo. It’s simply the status quo. It’s going exactly back to where it was. What happened when it was like that? The health statistics for Māori continued to be poor. The outcomes for Māori continue to be poor. The Minister in the House here has just told everyone it will go back to the status quo. I can tell the Minister who claims to have met with the whānau to say that he will care for them and look after them, I can say that actually many of them left the status quo because it wasn’t working. They were going to something new and to try something new that will continue to provide for the aspirations of Māori health.

Now, sadly, from the other side of the House, all we’ve heard is the status quo. The status quo on steroids can only tell me one thing: that it’s going to go backwards even faster—the status quo on steroids tells me it is going to go backwards even faster.

The other side of the House talk about targets. We will continue to hold this Government to account. The Minister himself spoke about a $50 million fund to lift the rates of immunisation across the country. When I asked him about that matter not a couple of weeks ago, he spoke about a data system. That’s all he spoke about, a data system. He didn’t tell us how and how much we are going to lift the immunisation rates of our tamariki—in the House, on record, when asked about it, he talked about funding a data system. Tell me how that lifts, in a practical way, the immunisation rates of Māori. We continue to oppose this bill and we will continue to interrogate clause by clause.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’d like to take the opportunity as an uri of Te Tai Tokerau to invite the Minister of Health and his colleagues to stand on Mōkau Marae in Whangaruru and address the people of Ngāti Wai, to come to Ōtīria Marae in Moerewa and address the people of Ngāti Hine and talk to us about this reform—talk to us around why Te Aka Whai Ora isn’t good for our people. As we mobilised hundreds of people to attend locality meetings, hundreds came to Moerewa to talk about their local health priorities; whether it’s Matawaia, Waikare, te Rāwhiti, vanloads of whānau arrived to talk about their health goals and aspirations, because that’s what localities provided. It’s an opportunity for our local voice, whānau, hapū, marae, community, local government, and the sector to come together and about what is best for their communities.

Let’s be clear that successive Governments have breached Te Tiriti obligations through the generations by failing to protect the health and wellbeing of te Iwi Māori. In 2019, the Waitangi Tribunal report for Wai 2575 confirmed the view and states that our primary healthcare legislation and policy breaches Te Tiriti and fails to care for Māori health and wellbeing. The system has failed to look after Māori, and we know this because Māori die at twice the rate of non-Māori from cardiovascular disease. Māori tamariki have a mortality rate of 1.5 times more than non-Māori children. Māori are more likely to be diagnosed and die from cancer. Nau mai ki Te Tai Tokerau.

[Welcome to Northland.]

Māori die, on average, seven years earlier than non-Māori in this country.

The Waitangi Tribunal report into hauora found that the legislative framework of the New Zealand primary healthcare system should recognise and provide for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The report recommended the following principles for primary healthcare: te tino rangatiratanga, the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga, which provides for Māori self-determination and mana motuhake in the design and delivery and monitoring of the health and disability services; equity, the principle of equity, which requires the Crown to commit to achieving equitable health outcomes for Māori; active protection, the principle of active protection which requires the Crown to act to the fullest extent practical to achieve equitable health outcomes for Māori; options—I’m big on options; I love a bit of options. And there’s a principle of options from the Waitangi Tribunal which requires the Crown to provide for and properly resource Māori health and disability services.

But, furthermore, the Crown is obliged to ensure that health and disability services are provided in a culturally appropriate way that recognises and supports the expression of hauora Māori models of care, aka mātauranga. Partnership: the principle of partnership, which requires the Crown and Māori to work in partnership in governance, design, delivery, and monitoring of health and disability services. Māori must be the co-designers with the Crown in the delivery of primary health systems for Māori. That’s what Te Aka Whai Ora was doing; it was designing the health system alongside Te Whatu Ora as partners.

Now, let’s look at Te Aka Whai Ora. They were there to ensure that the planning and delivery of services responded to the aspirations of whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori in general. They were there to design and deliver and arrange for services that were in accordance with the Act, Te Pae Ora, our pathway, our road map, and to achieve the best practical outcomes for whānau, hapū, and iwi in general. And then to promote Māori health and prevent and reduce and delay the onset of ill health for Māori, including collaborative approaches with other agencies, organisations, individuals to address the determinants of Māori health. I hark back to localities. Bringing local government into the conversation. Hauora is everyone. We’re all in this together—localities provided for that.

So I question: where is the good faith of this Government in working with us as te Iwi Māori to address the well-documented evidence of Māori health inequalities? Now, in the urgent hearing, which is before the Waitangi Tribunal, the Crown opening submissions shared on 23 February 2024: “For completeness, the Crown does not intend to raise the issue of whether engagement with Māori carried out by the current Minister of Health while in Opposition met a standard of consultation required under Te Tiriti and its principles. Accordingly, it does not intend to adduce evidence from the Ministry of Health.” So I guess the question is: did the Minister engage with te Iwi Māori while on the campaign trail in 2023 on the proposed scrapping of Te Aka Whai Ora? Because we’ve heard it’s been promoted for quite some time. Did he engage with te Iwi Māori on his proposal? Now, as the Minister of Health, did he carry out any engagement with te Iwi Māori on the proposal since becoming the Minister, and, if he has, who’s it been with and when was it and what response has he received?

It’s been reported that Te Aka Whai Ora will lift and shift into Te Whatu Ora; so indicating that somehow it’s just simply pick up the team—nearly 300 kaimahi—and put them into the mothership of Te Whatu Ora. Now, I have to query the transition plan for our Te Aka Whai Ora team, because you’re moving an ao Māori perspective into the mainstream ecosystem of Te Whatu Ora, and they may not have the capacity and competency to understand the Ao Māori world view that our team has. I question what work within Te Whatu Ora has been undertaken to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and address the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal report 2575.

In Te Whatu Ora Health Status Report 2023, Te Whatu Ora will meet the requirements and expectations of the Pae Ora Act by enabling Māori to exercise authority over health, in accordance with Māori philosophies, values, and practices. Can the Minister confirm how Te Whatu Ora is going to enable Māori to exercise our authority over Māori health in accordance with our Māori philosophies and values and practices? He pātai miriona tāra tērā.

[That’s a million-dollar question.]

I ask this because it’s a fundamental question as to how this Government believes it knows best in terms of how to deliver health services for Māori. Te Whatu Ora is required to have capacity and capability to understand kaupapa Māori services, cultural safety, and responsiveness of services. Now, I query the board of Te Whatu Ora. There are currently two Māori members of Te Whatu Ora. And with the ending of Te Aka Whai Ora, the chair comes off that board, meaning that there’s only one Māori board member. So with only one Māori board member, does the Minister believe that the governance of Te Whatu Ora have enough Māori capacity and capability? What is the plan to increase the clear capacity and capability gaps on the board of Te Whatu Ora?

Now, if we look at the scrapping of Te Aka Whai Ora and shushing out community voice and te Iwi Māori voice, I reflect back on the submissions received on the Pae Ora legislation from November 2021 to August 2023—some 4,685 submissions. It’s an amazing thing to see the voice of our community come through the process. Now, we’re sitting in urgency, we’ve blocked out community voice, our people have no say on what’s happening right now. The creation of the 15 iwi-Māori partnership boards is a step in the right direction, and we know this—providing perspectives for whānau, hapū, and iwi in the design and delivery of healthcare. Now, that’s the mechanism for mana whenua to have a say. E te Minita, I ask and seek that we power up the iwi-Māori partnership boards, that we enable commissioning of services. Let’s go—let’s go.

But I do worry about the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, because, in the new legislation, it’s not clear what their purpose is. Are they just an advisory board for the Minister of Health on hauora Māori as requested? How are the members to be appointed to this committee? Do iwi-Māori partnership boards have a role in nominating and appointments, or is it just purely a ministerial appointment process? The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee is a strong group. They’re health leaders. They’re professionals. Surely they could input and support the whole system: Te Whatu Ora, Ministry of Health, and the wider health ecosystem. Can we not power them up also?

I wish to note my observations around the Director-General of Health, because it appears that powers have been delegated back to that role in the new legislation to confirm iwi-Māori partnership boards. That’s interesting because, in my mind, surely the iwi-Māori partnership boards should be approved—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There have been many societies in history who have seen their citizens based on something as flat as race, and often they regret it as they lose sight of the beauty of each individual. Whether the other side wants to hear it or not, this Government isn’t creating division; it is trying to restore trust in the society which the last Government trashed. There will continue to be support for Māori, by Māori health providers. This is about removing duplicate, expensive bureaucracy, whether in Wellington or Auckland.

For the benefit of Peeni Henare, I invite that member to finish his sentence on why he doesn’t have faith in the director-general. Iwi-Māori partnerships will continue to work with Health New Zealand to develop priorities to improve hauora Māori. Staff and structures will move to the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand, and ACT supports this bill. Thank you very much.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on the second reading of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to begin my contribution by noting the passion in this House today. That is because we all care very deeply about the health of New Zealanders, whether it’s our family, whether it’s people in our community, it is people right across the country. That’s why the contributions today are so passionate—so acknowledging our passion and also, too, acknowledging that there is a different way of getting to the same health outcomes. We all want to see increased health gain for all New Zealanders, and it is on that that New Zealand First stands by the health Minister, the Hon Dr Shane Reti, alongside our coalition Government, to be committed to improving Māori health outcomes.

We’re doing this in a different way: as the Minister noted, decentralisation is a key way we’re focusing on this; absolute health targets where we ensure that the outcomes will be positive not just for Māori but Pasifika and all other communities as well, and also addressing the huge workforce pressures right across the health system. It is our public health system that will deliver for Māori, it will deliver for Pasifika, and it will deliver for our vulnerable communities. But we must ensure that our public health system ensures that they are powered up in the right way.

We believe that Te Aka Whai Ora—and if we go back to the report that was written, the high-level assessment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the progress against Cabinet expectations, just a small note here: overall there had been insufficient internal capacity and capability to deliver. That’s the problem: it was not delivering health gain for Māori.

I just want to point to the Hon Peeni Henare’s comments relating to perhaps pretending to commit to the iwi-Māori partnership boards. Well, if I could draw his attention to Part 1, replacement section 15, inserted by clause 11, “Health New Zealand must support and engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards”. Under the previous legislation, the iwi-Māori partnership boards were nothing more than a token gesture. They didn’t have any commissioning powers to deliver health services for Māori. So, this way, under this Government, under this Minister, we will ensure that the health services will go down to the flax-roots. I commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I stand to speak to this bill, the reo—oh no, that was the other week. Beneficiaries—no, that was last week. Smoke-free—yet to come. The meth—sorry; this bill that is to do with the dissolution of our Māori Health Authority. I guess my point is that with 16 pieces of legislation coming through urgency, it’s really hard to keep track of which one you’re actually doing, because in an 18-month run—in an 18-month run; let’s not forget and lose sight of this—the Government keeps carrying on as if it has evidence. This is the fastest ever dissolution we’ve ever seen of anything in our lives. We’ve barely had our feet hit the ground, and, actually, we’re insulted by watching politicians stand up and speak for one to two minutes about kaupapa that are dear; not passionate. They’re about life and death for our communities.

Eighty-three percent of Māori didn’t vote for this Government, which is why there is such a comfort in what is being rolled out. So what we have here, in this whole whakaaro, we’ve had to not only endure listening to politicians that haven’t got the time to put any effort into this whakaaro but we also have to hear ourselves called “Marri” the whole time through this. I’ve got to tell you, there’s nothing more aggravating than actually not having ourselves respected, not only for who we are but how we feel about what is before us. You have allowed limited avenues for our people to be able to stand up and give their—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I assure you, I have not.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —well, the Government—to be able to give our people the right to stand up, and I guess what we want to do is also remind ourselves. So while Māori were out there, defending this nation and looking after everyone, we had a leader of this Government who was out making sure that he shared the Māori vaccination code.

We are being deliberately corralled into a pocket of desperation and destitution, and I want to remind and reflect on the words of Sir Mason Durie, who is a Māori health expert—unlike anyone else that is in this House at the moment. Sir Mason Durie shared that the Māori Health Authority—Te Aka Whai Ora—was an “important step for Māori with implications far beyond the healthcare sector”.

This is an expert with 40 years of experience, with not a political bone in his body, who is really only worried about the wellbeing of our people. Instead, here, what we’ve got is an era of Government that won’t be transformational because it is seriously comfortable in an old system, using dollars as justification for change. Pumping chests, patting yourselves on the back, because you’ve given dollars—given millions of dollars—to something that actually is business as usual. That is what the Government’s job is to do: it’s to get the money out to the communities that need it the most.

So let’s reflect on this. So, in 1982, we had 55 doctors—55 Māori doctors. Now, we have 55 Māori doctors graduating a year, and, I guess, the hope that I have as I speak to our people is that if we were to put all our Māori health workers and authorities together, we would have a powerful vehicle for change. It is not going to come from this Government.

Iwi-Māori partnerships: now, they were put in, and I was always really critical of the fact that they had to have twice as many hui with half as much resourcing. What we want to ask and want to see from this Government—which we haven’t seen—is what was the Māori commission’s outcomes for a blueprint for Aka Whai Ora? How is it being upheld? How are they going to ensure that things are going to transfer back to Te Whatu Ora? What is your alternative model? What are you and how are you resourcing? How are the locality plans working, given that you have no data to say how they’re performing, no outcomes, and we haven’t seen any data outcomes since the DHBs were wound up?

So what my point is is that you cannot guarantee that we will not have more health inequities for Māori as we see this flip-flopping from a Government that wants to distance itself from the 100 days from the Government before it, and it really is worrying when we hear kupu about the commissioning agency and the approach, because Te Pāti Māori knows full well what’s required to get that up and running. Have you got the fortitude, the resourcing, and the commitment to let your non-Māori voters—again, remembering that 83 percent of Māori didn’t support this Government, I doubt very much that you have.

But I will take real caution and remind our people that we are, amongst ourselves, able to take on a Government that supposes that it knows more about us without us. This is not the first time we’ve had to contend with this type of approach to our wellbeing. I urge that we all work together, stand strong, and stand united as we continue to take this Government on with its anti-Māori agenda. Kia ora rā.

STEVE ABEL (Green): To be frank, our heart is still aching for the loss of our brother Efeso, and it’s hard to speak to this bill to do with Māori health—many of the issues that are faced by Māori are also faced by Pasifika. We have a sense that his big heart gave out at age 49, and that is a, sadly, too common fact amongst our Māori and Pasifika people in this country.

So, fresh in this loss that we experience as a party and as a House and as a nation, it is galling that in two days’ time, on the day that we will bury Efeso Collins, there is a Waitangi Tribunal being heard on this very question, and that this House and this Government is not willing to wait a mere two days. It is yet another insult upon insult upon injury upon injury to our Treaty partners, tangata whenua Māori.

Māori are twice the rate of non-Māori in terms of cardiovascular disease—twice the rate. The 2009 report and the Wai 2572 Health Services Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry revealed that our primary healthcare legislation and policy breaches Te Tiriti and fails to care for Māori health and wellbeing. So we take action to correct that failure. We take action with Te Aka Whai Ora. The Waitangi Tribunal, in the hauora report, found that the legislative framework of the New Zealand primary healthcare system should recognise and provide for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. That is self-determination for Māori.

“People with greater experience of negative health outcomes than most want more power in their decision making.” That’s from Taimi Allan and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission board. Tino rangatiratanga, which provides for Māori self-determination and mana motuhake in the design, delivery, and monitoring of health and disability services—that is what was put in place by Te Aka Whai Ora. Two years—and only one year really functionally operational. To give you some context, Madam Speaker, colonisation is bad for your health.

A Pākehā fellow showed up 254 years ago, an English fellow by the name of Joseph Banks. In 1770, he observed that, among Māori, he saw many very healthy old men, and, in general, the whole of them—forgive the term—are “as vigorous a race as can be imagined … indeed these people are blessed with [sound health] in a very high degree … I do not remember a single instance of a person distempered in any degree that came under my inspection.”—“Among them I have seen very [many] healthy old men … in general the whole of them are as vigorous a race as can be imagined.”—254 years ago. What is the state of Māori health now?

What is the state of Māori health now? Māori die at twice the rate of non-Māori from cardiovascular disease. Māori tamariki have a mortality rate 1½ times the rate of non-Māori children. Māori are more likely to be diagnosed and die from cancer, and, as many people have said, die on average seven years earlier than non-Māori. This specious and gross double-speak which suggests that putting special focus on those in need of that focus is somehow a race-based privilege, is revolting—it is revolting double-speak. This is an effort to address the injustice and the harm caused by, frankly, 253 years of another health system. And one year of letting Māori take care of their own health—you’re going to kill it. One year. Not you, Madam Speaker; this Government. It is appalling, it is shameful, it is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it is anti-Māori, frankly—as this Government expresses it wants to be.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, we understand that the health system is under significant challenge. The reality is, under the last six years, the health outcomes for New Zealanders have gone backwards. New Zealanders haven’t been able to get the care they need. Our wait-lists and times have soared. I have constituents telling me that it’s been so difficult to get meetings with specialists and with surgical staff. Immunisation rates have plunged, and this Government is committed to lifting the health outcomes for New Zealanders. And as part of doing that, we will disestablish the Māori Health Authority and merge the functions of the Māori Health Authority and transfer the rolls into the public health system. We believe, through doing that, that we will have the expertise there that we need to deliver improved health outcomes for all New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori alike. We support this bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tuatahi he tika ki te mihi ki tō tātou rangatira, a Efeso. Nō reira e te rangatira, e kore mātou e wareware i tō kaha ki te kōkiri i ngā kaupapa i ngā wā katoa. Nō reira e te rangatira, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[Firstly, it is appropriate to acknowledge our noble friend Efeso. So, noble leader, we will never forget your strength in progressing initiatives at all times. And so, noble leader, rest in peace.]

I sympathise—empathise—with are our friends in the Greens. I was listening to Steve Abel there, and I think we’re all still a bit stunned with the death of Efeso. He was very close to a number of us, and if things had gone right, he would have been with the Labour Party, but he ended up with the Greens, and I spoke at the tangi yesterday for our team, and it was lovely to give the whānau some aroha and some support. It’s such a loss, and I’m thinking of him at this time, because this is a kaupapa he supported 100 percent—100 percent. He was that type of person; a great advocate for people right across the spectrum—not just Greenies or Labour people; Pākehā, Māori, working-class people. But he was absolutely aware of how important this sort of kaupapa was, particularly within the system.

I look across at Dr Reti over there, who is someone who we have some respect for, because we’re aware of his mahi in the North, as his whanaunga over here are also, and I’m stunned by what’s happened here. I’m stunned because a man like Dr Shane Reti should respect—and I know he has said a number of times he respects the work of a lot of our professionals, but when you have people of the ilk—I was going through Dr Rawiri Jansen’s submission to the tribunal. These are people who have given their lives to our people not just in the medical side; they advocate actively for the political rights of our people. I was looking at Dr Rawiri Jansen’s submission to the tribunal, and it’s so clear, and you heard the Hon Peeni Henare talking about the Treaty. I was looking at one of the paragraphs that Rawiri was talking about, and he summarises it well. He says, in short, “The Te Tiriti - based approach, where engagement is not an afterthought and partnership decision-making is in evidence, which elevate and reflect the voice of Māori, will be lost. The Crown’s proposal to proceed without having made any effort to develop an alternative or to engage with Māori to develop an alternative is a clear breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” That is from Dr Rawiri Jansen. We know him well. We appointed him to a number of boards, and he gives his heart and soul to this kaupapa. I ask Dr Reti to consider that.

Also, I heard the co-leader of the Māori Party Debbie Ngarewa-Packer talking about Mason Durie. You’re talking about one of the most brilliant minds of the last generation, without a doubt. And he’s not political, despite who his son-in-law is.

Hon Member: He is; I just said he wasn’t. He really is, but, you know.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, he is political, but he’s not a person who misuses that political standing at all.

Shanan Halbert: He tells it straight.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He tells it straight. He’s a good man—a good man—brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. And there’s a solidity and stability about him, and he’s given great direction to many of us—to many of us. I know when Peeni Henare was the Minister, he sought his counsel. These are not radical extremist Māoris, like Debbie—oh, no, I won’t go down that track. Ha, ha! But this is the thing: this argument has been turned into some sort of race debate. That’s the sad thing here. We hear some of these idiots from the ACT Party, you know, who run these lines of “separatism” and “apartheid” and “it’s all your fault, you Māoris in the Māori caucus and you Greenies and you Māori Party.” That’s got nothing to do with it. These are pragmatic people who are leaders in our society, like Dr Mason Durie, Dr Rawiri Jansen, Dr Papaarangi Reid. And this is mana wahine absolute—absolute. Papaarangi challenges everyone; not just the National Party. She’ll challenge Māori males; she’ll challenge the Labour Party. And I say to this doctor over here, you are ignoring exceptional people who know about this kaupapa much more than the people you have consulted, who seem to only be his mates in the National Party, the rednecks in the—I shouldn’t go that far—the right-wingers in the ACT Party, and the lost lot of New Zealand First. These are the people that Dr Reti has consulted. They wouldn’t have a clue. I’ve got to ask—

Hon Member: Sit down.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —I’ve got to ask—no, you sit down and you stay down, because you’ve got no right to speak on this kaupapa. We are being patronised by idiots, you know. Who are the experts that these people are talking about? I’ve just named three. What about Dr Anthony Jordan? He’s another brilliant and exceptional young man.

Shanan Halbert: Yep, he’s a lucky man, too.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I don’t know if he’s a lucky man. I don’t know about that, Shan. But he’s an exceptional young doctor who worked with us in the roll-out in the vaccination process. What about Dr Lily Fraser at Turuki Health? Dr Lily, who’s also one real gun amongst the doctors. We really love her work, particularly in South Auckland in Māngere. She works at Turuki Health, an organisation that was set up by my uncle Syd Jackson and by my first cousin Ramari Jackson. That’s been part and parcel of our South Auckland community for the last 30 or 35 years. I ask Dr Reti: who are your people who you have consulted with? Give me two, three, one Māori professional who supports this. Does he really believe in this? Because our people have waited decades for this. Tureiti Moxon, my dear friend Tureiti Moxon, who is the chairman—the chairperson, I should say—of our National Urban Māori Authority—a bit of a thorn in our side sometimes.

Hon Peeni Henare: Good lady.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: A good lady. A bit of a thorn in our side sometimes, my dear friend Tureiti Moxon, who actually took my position as the chair of the National Urban Māori Authority. But she has constantly—constantly—talked about how Māori needed an opportunity within the system. So these are just some of the experts that I was rolling out. I was going to also talk about Lance O’Sullivan, who’s another expert—

Shanan Halbert: He wanted to be a National Party MP.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That was the problem with Lance, but he’s still a good man. They’re all saying the same thing, but who are the experts that the other side can quote? That’s my challenge. And when we get into the question time, I want to hear—apart from Winston Peters and Jenny Marcroft and Shane Jones, who did Dr Reti talk to? Name some professionals. It’s like David Seymour—who the heck is he consulting with his Treaty principles bill? Oh, that’s right: Elizabeth Rata. Oh my goodness! Such an expert on Māori race relations! There’s an arrogance that has come from this Government that really upsets us, because our experts have said, “We want this set up within the system.” And so I’m proud that our party was able to set this up, led by my friend and brother over here Peeni Henare, who set this up within the mainstream system. We never dreamt that we could have a Māori Health Authority within the system. We’ve done that. We’re proud of it. Our people love it. The other side want to destroy it. We’re looking forward to going through question time and finding out who the experts were that they spoke to. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill, for the second reading. This Government is committed to finding more effective ways to work with all communities for better outcomes and to deliver solutions, as well as finding savings through disestablishment which may actually go to better health outcomes. You can build whatever structures you like, but till you focus on outcomes, you’re going to have increasing health inequities, and patients will suffer. Merging the functions of the Māori Health Authority and transferring its roles in the public health system means health systems keep its experts and expertise it needs to improve the outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. So, therefore, I recommend this bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe. Tuatahi māku he tautoko i ngā mihi a Hōnore Jackson i tēnei rā ki te whānau o Efeso, otirā ki a koutou hoki, tana pāti e noho tonu ana i raro i te kapua pōuri.

He mihi hoki ki tōku ake whānau e noho ana i raro i te kapua pōuri, arā ngā whānau Horran, ngā whānau Reedy. Kei te tangi te ngākau ki a koutou.

Heoi anō ki ngā mahi huhua o te wā, haere, haere atu rā koutou.

Huri noa ki a tātou o tēnei Whare, tihei mauri ora. Tihei mauri ora.

[Thank you. Firstly for me is support for the acknowledgments of the Hon Willie Jackson today to the whānau of Efeso, indeed to you also, his party that remain under the cloud of sadness.

An acknowledgment to my own family also that sit under the cloud of sadness—i.e., the Horran families, the Reedy families. My heart cries for you.

However, the many recently departed, go forth, rest in peace.

And to us all around this House, the breath of life.]

Tihei mauri ora—behold, the breath of life. That is what Te Aka Whai Ora represented to us—an opportunity that we may, ourselves, breathe the breath of life into our people, Aotearoa whānui, utilising our traditional knowledge and our modern expertise in the area of medicine as well. That hope is being dashed today as we stand here to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora.

I’m reminded of an experience I had about 20 years ago while studying. A century on from the Tohunga Suppression Act, it came up in our studies. A woman a bit more senior than myself, and a dear friend, said to me, “Now I know what’s wrong with me.” I said, “What do you mean?” She’s someone we would characterise as a kaimahi rongoā, or, indeed, a tohunga. But for many years, because she was deprived of our traditional models and the knowledge of our tikanga and our practices, she thought something was wrong with her. She had nobody to teach her. It impacted her mental health. She turned to alcohol and drugs, and finally she knew why. So I think this serves as a precautionary tale to us. All these years later, we take that risk again.

I had every intention of coming into this calm and speaking about some of my family experiences, but I can’t help but sit here and feel insulted—insulted by that side of the House, who are telling us that they understand what’s best for us, they want what’s best for us. Excellent; let us tell you what that is and help us put that into action.

I’m furthermore insulted, such is the arrogance that when the Hon Willow-Jean Prime was making her case for hauora Māori—the wellbeing of Māori, in our language—barely half of that side put in their earpieces to hear what she was saying.

Heoi anō, I want to acknowledge the presence today of some kaimahi hauora Māori in our area. Tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai. I want to acknowledge the amazing mahi you do, not only for whānau Māori; I know for a fact that the services these people represent cater to all people in their region—Māori mai, Pākehā mai, Pasifika mai, ahakoa nō hea [including Māori, Pākehā, Pasifika, wherever they are from]. No matter who they are or where they are from, these services help them and their whānau, utilising the unique and impactful kaupapa Māori practices that we have. Tēnā koutou. Be assured that I and this party will continue to advocate for you to be able to do the unique mahi you do for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Heoi anō, another reason this Te Aka Whai Ora is so important to me is as a daughter who wonders what would have been had my mother’s belief in rongoā Māori been honoured. She was told, “One or the other.” There was no balance sought. You know what? We wanted her to be able to treat her body as tapu, but when she declined surgery, she was told, “You’ll be back in a box.”, and treated inadequately because she believed in rongoā Māori. I’m pleased to report my mother did live for another 10 years, but we can only wonder what would have been if her beliefs were honoured and she was provided mainstream care to go alongside that.

Heoi anō, just this afternoon, the Prime Minister said—and I quote—“We believe in better outcomes for Māori.” Sadly, it appears that’s only if Māori behave in the capacity of committee members and advisories, not as authorities on a subject that is literally us. So I’m sad to say that this bill represents the dashing of hope, because it was something that was Māori-inspired, Māori-led, and all-inclusive. Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Māngai.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I rise in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. It is my great pleasure to do so, because one of the reasons that I came to this House was because of my incredible anger at the destruction of our wonderful health system, wrought upon us by the previous Labour Government.

The Māori Health Authority seemed like such a great idea and I held out such hope, as did so many of my health colleagues but, unfortunately, the causes of Māori health poor outcomes have got nothing to do with the health system; it’s to do with colonisation, it’s to do with the impacts of poor, it’s all about the fact that economic decisions and social policy have more impact than anything to do with the health system. So trying to restore and improve health outcomes for Māori through health policy is going to be useless.

I remember my friend Dr Marcia Walker, who is the granddaughter of Ranginui Walker—she was on the committee with me for the council of general practitioners—

Shanan Halbert: What would she say to what you’re doing today?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —she said that she hoped that the board would stand up and say—

Shanan Halbert: How shameful that you would use her name.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —“All of this money should be used to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Mr Halbert, please don’t bring the Speaker into this.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —house Māori, and we will actually put the money towards things that will make a difference to Māori health, and the Māori Health Authority will do nothing at all.” The thing that we hoped for that would make a difference was the iwi-Māori partnership boards; however, the previous Government actually watered down the recommendations for that and they were going to be completely toothless—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is that why you’re taking away their voice?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —and now we’re keeping the iwi-Māori partnership boards and actually making them effective. You’ve talked about primary health care—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: I beg your pardon. She knows nothing much about primary healthcare. I really hoped that primary healthcare was going to be improved but, unfortunately, the previous Government used their mandate on primary healthcare to upset the entire system in a time of a pandemic, and destroyed the morale of our absolutely blasted workforce and did this.

So this is one thing that we can do to try and restore some form of health outcome improvement, and I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. I also want to join with my colleagues around the House in acknowledging our colleague Efeso Collins and to mihi to him and his whānau today.

This bill is incredibly disappointing, and the speeches we have heard this afternoon have reflected that—both on this side of the House, with a very moving contribution by my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime in her reo rangatira to share her personal reflections about the impact that repealing this will have on her communities and her family, and also on the contribution of Cushla Tangaere-Manuel when she spoke about the impact of the long history of health inequality for Māori in New Zealand on her mother and the way that inequitable access to not only advice but medicines impacted not only her health but the health and wellbeing of her entire family.

That has been met with incredibly disappointing speeches on the other side from practitioners, some of whom were previously practitioners in general practice and supposedly experts in health, who know that the status quo never worked for Māori and appreciate the deep inequities which have delivered health outcomes for Māori that would not be fixed by going back to that system. More Māori die from avoidable deaths than non-Māori. Māori die seven years earlier than any other group. Māori are twice as likely to die of a cardiovascular or heart disease. These are things which returning to the status quo will not improve, and the Pae Ora healthy futures reform allowed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address those things.

Instead of building on those reforms, instead of continuing the work that was happening not only at the community level but within families themselves, which Cushla Tangaere-Manuel and Willow-Jean Prime have spoken about, we are walking back to a system which is more centralised, which leaves iwi Māori out of the system where we had worked so hard to bring them into it. It leaves out the voices of those people who have systematically been left out for generations but who for the first time had a seat at the table—and not only those iwi-Māori partnership boards but in the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and in the Māori Health Authority itself. This is a huge regression for Māori, and it represents a huge lost opportunity for a new generation of New Zealanders.

Now, we know that the old system underperformed. It underperformed for a number of practical reasons, and I’ll get on to those, but I would point out that speakers on this side of the House have already underscored the fact that the Minister knows that, appreciates the underperformance in the system, but that this is part of a wider political narrative. And we keep hearing it from the other side when they stand up and say, “We have an electoral mandate to do this.” The electoral mandate is there because it was won in a furore of his wrong-headed idea that Māori were getting special rights and special treatment, and, in fact, that debate was whipped up by members on the other side of this House. That electoral mandate was won not from Māori, who suffer the worst and most inequitable health outcomes in our entire country; it was won by people who were afraid of the kind of narrative that politicians on that side were feeding them.

Labour had the courage to stand up and say there are practical fixes we can do for this that will make the health outcomes for Māori more equitable. There are practical ways that district health boards (DHBs) haven’t been able to deliver on their promises, and so a nationalised health system that has a mandate to get in there, roll up its sleeves, and deal with Māori health outcomes will actually be able to do that. But it did take courage. It did take telling the story, and, for the most part, I think New Zealanders appreciated that there was a longstanding inequity here that the system could not solve if there wasn’t substantive change.

I think it’s really disappointing now that we are standing in this House and not only are we repealing the Māori Health Authority but there are also a number of changes in this bill, which I will be asking the Minister questions about in the committee stage, which take away the voice of iwi, of Māori, and of appointed experts in Māori health within the system and replace them with people who are appointed directly by the Minister and who can be dismissed by the Minister at any time. This is not localisation in any way. This is taking away the power of iwi and local entities to work with Māori communities, and it is, essentially, a power grab for the Minister to take all of those devolved powers back into the central ministry. This is bureaucracy for Māori health outcomes. This is not only returning to the old system that did not work for Māori; it’s bureaucratising the system that was actually successful for Māori, that generated a number of successful initiatives like the iwi-led MMR vaccines drive, which was so effective and we want to see more of. There is no consistency around the way that we localise these things in the way that works.

I said I’d talk about the practical implications of these changes. One of the good examples of this was the Counties Manukau DHB. That DHB, which dealt with the health concerns of South Aucklanders and provided health services for South Auckland for many, many years, carried a burden of diabetes and heart disease unlike any other DHB in the country. The number of cases of diabetes, and particularly type 2 diabetes, that were presenting in the public health system in that DHB was unlike any other DHB. What that meant was that other services had to be provided at a lower level so that the DHB could continue to provide for those services. Dealing with that locally, if you lived within Counties Manukau, meant that at the DHB you might have, say, a longer waiting-list for a certain procedure or, say, you might be eligible for a certain service at 65, where, in Auckland Central, you would be eligible for that service at 60. The reason for that disparity was because it had a high prevalence of Māori in the area, and the needs of Māori were so great that this locality was dealing with a deeply underserved population for many, many reasons which have been made clear in this House. And so that localised system simply didn’t work for the entire population, because there was this deep need for Māori health services.

So when the Pae Ora reforms proposed to solve that problem, it wasn’t just that localities would be done away with; it was that these problems that had been besetting DHBs like Counties Manukau would actually be dealt with head-on: that things that the Māori population needed to enjoy longer and healthier lives would be done in an equitable way, not only in Counties Manukau but all over the country; that these systems that had been dealt by that DHB to create efficiencies in the system would be shared with everyone. That is a good thing. It is not a woke kind of reform because we believe in it or because the Treaty obligations require the Crown to; it is simply something practical which meant that everyone in the population could get a better health service.

There’s also a practical example around historic underfunding of hospitals and communities with large Māori populations. Essentially, for the same kind of logic that these towns and areas and localities with high Māori populations have always had high health needs, they haven’t been able to develop the infrastructure in the same way as other communities that do not have those high-needs populations. So, because of this historic underfunding, the way that the capital programme works and the way that the Crown invested in its hospitals, meant that hospitals were successively underfunded more and more over time. And so the Pae Ora reforms actually, again, dealt with that problem by disestablishing the DHBs, and it meant that underfunded populations would not continue to lose out on the kind of infrastructure they need in the health system.

Those are two practical examples of how the Pae Ora reforms addressed that. It’s really sad to see that now we won’t have a Māori Health Authority that is charged with continuing on those important gains which we all want to see in our health system for the benefit of everyone, not just Māori within the health system.

A quick observation, before we get to the committee stage, on the consistency with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations. I want to speak here about the departmental disclosure statement which found that there was not necessarily any obligations that were being breached, when, in fact, Crown Law’s own advice, in its memo to the Waitangi Tribunal dated 31 January, found that “The Crown confirms that, procedurally, no formal consultation was planned or occurred by the Crown before Cabinet confirmed the decision to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora. On a conventional assessment of impact and importance, the Crown deciding to make this decision without consultation can be expected to result in a finding by the Tribunal that Treaty principles have been breached and that prejudice has resulted.”

It’s important for the House to fully appreciate that the Crown’s own advice is that the introduction of this bill would, on the face of it, constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): There’s no denying that, really, we could improve Māori health outcomes in New Zealand, and this Government is working hard on it. I heard the Opposition side of the House mention inequity, a failed health system, racism, discrimination, etc., but I haven’t heard any members from the opposite side mention the word “self-responsibility”. As a diabetes and cardio specialist, I can tell you that with self-responsibility and discipline, some of the health issues we’re facing in New Zealand can be prevented. This Government will continue to work together with our Māori community to deliver a solution. But creating an unequal system based on specific race is not a solution to our health system. People in New Zealand want a health system based on needs, not race. This bill is about equity, not inequity. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Parts 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. We come now to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 37, “Amendments to Parts 1 to 3” of the principal Act. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to open with a contribution, of course, analysing Part 1. I mentioned in the first reading and in the second reading that we will be going through clause by clause to make sure that we can interrogate properly the Government’s intentions and actions as set out in this particular bill, and we will challenge them as we will continue to oppose this. But those views have been well articulated across the House and it brings me to my first question—and I mentioned it in my first and second reading speeches—which relates directly to clause 6. It says here that clause 6 amends section 6, which describes how the Act provides for “the Crown’s intention to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi),” to reflect changes made by the legislation.

Well, the first question I have for the Minister is that in considering this particular clause, one can’t help but question as we look across all of the clauses in Part 1 what this one sets out in clause 6—how it’s trying to divorce itself from the rhetoric throughout the entire bill. For example, one of the principles here is, of course, the principle of partnership, yet we see later on, in clause 19, that section 35 is being amended, and with respect to the preparation of the Government Policy Statement (GPS), it removes a Māori voice. In fact, if you look across at section 35, “Preparation of the GPS”, it silences the Māori voice there.

My question to the Minister in the first instance is: does he see clause 6 sitting separately or intertwined throughout all the clauses we’ll be debating in Part 1? That’s the first question.

The second question is that as we look across the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the principles of partnership and acting in good faith don’t seem to be apparent as we look towards the changes that this bill is making. I’ve already highlighted clause 19 and the section 35 amendment. We can also go on to give another example here of clause 15, where section 30 is amended, and it goes down to the bottom there, to clause 15(5), which is: “Repeal section 30(1)(g).”, and that’s about iwi Māori getting to have a say on appointments.

Now, when we think of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, it’s quite clear to me that (1) their voice isn’t being heard, so therefore one can argue here that that partnership isn’t being met there; and (2) it’s once again a clear breach of good faith as Māori are expected to only serve part of their consultation and part of their duty within this particular legislation and across the entire Pae Ora legislation, and yet are being silenced in other areas that are key to the successful execution of the Pae Ora legislation itself. So, just to reiterate, the first one is around whether or not the Minister sees that clause 6 stands alone or whether or not he sees it intertwined throughout the entire bill, and I’ve already given the examples of where those changes, I believe, are in contradiction to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and I’ll state them again: clause 19, “Section 35 amended (Preparation of GPS)”. I wonder if the Minister can then explain to the committee and answer this question: then, where in the GPS is the Māori voice heard?

For some of the newer members across the committee, they might not understand how the structure of good health policy in health legislation works. The GPS is one of those important documents that continues to drive the policy of health in this country, yet what we’re seeing here is a complete breach of clause 6, which says about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and here, once again, is another example of how this particular bill continues to silence the Māori voice on such important matters and important documents that will continue to drive health policy in this country.

I now turn to another part which continues to do this—contradict the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When I look at new section 15 in clause 11, where it says here that “Health New Zealand must support and engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards” and then it goes down to say “Health New Zealand must—(a) take reasonable steps to support iwi-Māori partnership boards”, one of those reasonable steps, one would expect, is actually consultation up front. What this sets out to do is give somewhat of a back-door exit, if you will, to give the Government a bit of a clause to escape out the back door when we look towards whether or not the engagement by Health New Zealand with Māori is appropriate and is timely. I’d like the Minister, if he can, with respect to that particular clause—if he can explain to us in his mind and, indeed, the mind of the Government what do “reasonable steps” look like to support iwi-Māori partnership boards to achieve their purpose in section 29.

It does go on further to say that part of that is by including “administrative, analytical, or financial support where needed;”. It would be remiss of me not to indicate to the committee at this point in time that the iwi-Māori partnership boards in their establishment—some are ahead of others, some are far better equipped, some have better infrastructure to be able to look towards having a proper, functioning iwi-Māori partnership board within their region, and I can describe one of those. It’s where a number of us in the House come from, in Te Tai Tokerau. Te Kahu o Taonui already has pretty good infrastructure across the Māori health provider network and it has already proven really great outcomes during COVID-19, which I elaborated on through the first and second readings of the bill. That is why I want to make sure that if the Minister can answer this question, he understands where those iwi-Māori partnership boards are with respect to their ability to provide their function, because what he’s proposing here is to include by providing “administrative, analytical, or financial support where needed;”. Well, I’ve already indicated some are ahead and some aren’t quite as far ahead as others. So is the Minister committing, then, to making sure he can support its administrative function and its analytical function, and so on, as it says in new section 15?

The other one is: sufficient and timely information. The other side of the House—and this is the question I put to the Minister—were rather dismissive of the COVID-19 pandemic that hit the world, and one of the key arguments for the case of Te Aka Whai Ora was made by Mr John Tamihere in the timely release of analytical data in order to serve our communities. That community was the Māori community. In fact, he took that case all the way to the High Court. In new section 15, I’m asking the Minister: what then does “sufficient and timely information” look like? Is it the kind of data that will allow iwi-Māori partnership boards and Māori health providers and iwi to make decisions in order to serve those communities in a timely fashion and in a very targeted fashion?

We heard the Minister talk about how it’s important to target, set targets, and home in on where the need is. Well, it’s clear to us—and all of the data that’s presented by health professionals—that the need sits with Māori. So, to reiterate, for that particular question: what does “sufficient and timely information” look like? What does it look like? Is it structured in a way that allows Māori to have input on what it is that they’re looking for in order to get the outcome that the Government might look towards, or is it simply another case of paternalistic central bureaucracy telling iwi what to do?

In the last minute and a half of this particular contribution, I want to come back and circle back to clause 6. Clause 6, in reference to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi: in order for that particular clause to work, we made it clear, as the Government of the time, to make sure that all of the steps throughout the entire pae ora legislation would continue to reference back to the principles and allow it to be successful. I want to remind the Minister that as we scroll through the proposed changes in his bill here, we can’t help but see the stripping away of a Māori voice, of a Māori presence, and of the ability for Māori to contribute meaningfully, not only to the outcome but to the planning, to the discussions, and to everything that it takes in order to get a successful outcome.

Just finally from me, you will hear from the members on this side of the Chamber, those with significant community experience and with significant health experience, a continual prosecution of the clauses within this particular bill proposed by the Minister in order to get some clear definition. It’s important that we get that clear definition for our Māori communities, who have been silenced on the progress of this bill. Madam Chair, thank you very much.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution in this committee stage. I have a number of questions for the Minister of Health about the way that the function of the iwi-Māori partnership boards and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will work without the assistance of the Māori Health Authority. My specific questions are also to do with a number of amendments which I have tabled which are seeking to clarify the role of those bodies, given that the Māori Health Authority will not be playing the role that it was set up to perform for the benefit of Māori health outcomes and for the stewardship of those outcomes within the system.

My first question to the Minister is this: given that the iwi-Māori partnership boards, under the Minister’s proposals, will not be able to appoint people to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, I’m interested in how the Minister sees the iwi-Māori partnership boards having conversations within the health system at a top level about the priorities within their locality.

This relates to my second question, which is that iwi-Māori partnership boards, under the Minister’s proposal, would no longer have an ability to feed into the development of those locality plans. That is being expressly written out of the legislation, but it was something which was a subject of the select committee’s inquiry into the bill, in the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, which was set up as a special committee, about how iwi-Māori partnership boards and how iwi themselves would need to feed into that locality planning, and it would be a really good way of localising the planning that needed to happen in the health system, given that we would now have a broadly nationalised system. So that question to the Minister is about how iwi-Māori partnership boards can continue to have that local focus and feed into what needs to be a deeply localised planning model at that level.

My third question to the Minister is about who he intends to appoint to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, because under the Minister’s new proposals, he would be the only appointer of eight new members of that committee. Just for the benefit of the committee, that committee would not have been something which was appointed only by the Minister before. This, in fact, represents a major centralisation of power here. It represents Ministers taking on a role that was previously devolved to representatives of local communities, who worked hand in glove with organisations like their local councils, their local providers, and their local people on the ground actually seeing and distributing these health services. So the question to the Minister is: is it his intention to appoint people who will fulfil that role of local leadership, local stewardship, from iwi Māori groups, and if he could give the committee an indication of the eight people whom he intends to appoint—because their appointments are due on 30 June—that would assist the committee greatly in understanding how that local voice will be preserved.

It would also be very useful for the Minister to clarify for the committee what criteria he’s using to make those appointments, what advice he has taken to make those appointments, and the considerations that he has taken into account to achieve a balanced representation when he is considering those appointments. There are a number of factors that any Minister will go through in considering what sort of advisory group he or she will be appointing, and so it is really beneficial for the committee to understand that, because those are not outlined in the primary legislation. Unlike many of the ministerial appointments where there is a clear guidance for the type of skills, there is none of that because it is not an established process, and it is not outlined in the primary legislation. So we need to appreciate that before we can go forward on that.

My next question to the Minister is: will the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee have a secretariat? Under the new proposals by the Minister, this group would fulfil a role which is unlike its current role, and so it’s important that that is a group that is resourced to be able to make the kinds of recommendations which this set of proposals to repeal the bill would require of it—so whether there is a secretariat, what kind of resourcing will be available to it, whether it will have its own staff, whether it will be set up to succeed, or whether it will be set up to fail. That is the question I’m asking here, because currently it is not doing the kind of job that is envisioned by these reforms, and so it’s really important for the committee to appreciate whether there is a protection for it to continue to do that work.

The next question I have for the Minister is: will it be able to proactively advise the Minister, because as it is worded in the current reforms, it is for the Minister to establish it, but then there is no requirement on the Minister to consult it on any matters. This is different from what existed in the legislation before, where the Minister was required to engage with certain bodies within the health system on outcomes for Māori. Essentially, this was about creating ownership—rangatiratanga—over outcomes for Māori, by Māori. It was about establishing leadership within the health system of experts who were appointed by people who supported them and saw them as leaders within the system to make proactive points to the Minister. Those powers have been taken away, so we need an assurance from the Minister that he will allow this board to proactively advise him on his decisions and decisions being made in the health system which will have an impact on Māori health and Māori health outcomes. They are things like resourcing decisions, things like legislative decisions—which my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel talked about—that, historically, have been made without Māori involvement and should be, going forward, because I have no doubt that everyone in this House believes, to some degree, in people being involved in the decisions which affect them.

My next question to the Minister is specifically about the locality plans. If iwi-Māori partnership boards—as is proposed in these reforms—do not have the ability to contribute to locality plans, how will locality plans represent the interests of Māori within them? How will the entities that are tasked with providing the Ministry of Health with a locality plan be sure that they have taken population concerns for everyone into account, knowing that there is this particular equity concern for Māori, and how will those locality plans be responsive to the needs of Māori and to addressing the Māori health outcomes going forward?

The final question that I have for the Minister is this. Under the new model, there is no legislative backstop for the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to be able to give proactive advice that the Minister doesn’t like. There is no legislative backstop for that group of people to say something publicly that is challenging for the status quo. That was a large part of the strength of the pae ora reforms: it was to create a way for Māori health to be prioritised systematically to enable continuous improvement in the way that we address inequity for Māori. So my question to the Minister, finally, is: what happens if they say something he doesn’t like? How will we ensure that all advice, not just good advice, is what makes it to the Minister when he is the sole appointer and has the sole power to dictate their resourcing and their ability to provide that advice going forward, because it’s in everyone’s interest, not only Māori, to have a health system that works for everyone and to make sure that resources are spent in the most efficient way that’s actually going to work for people.

So those are my questions about the way that this works, and I will, if I may, come back to the amendments, which I think would more effectively achieve some of the changes to the way that Māori participate in the system, in coming speeches. I have 40 amendments in my name, Madam Chair; I would love to have 40 calls in this debate.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members for their discourse. To come first to the member who has raised questions around clause 6, clause 6 is a descriptive clause that reflects the changes to Health New Zealand functions to ensure that some of the Māori Health Authority functions can transfer over to Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority.

With regards to the broader question around obligations that are contained in clause 6, I’d say several things, particularly where the member was asking really good questions around the Māori voice. Several things: first of all, the legislation clearly uplifts the voice of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee (HMAC), so a very clear Māori voice there. Secondly, health service monitoring and decision making by iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPBs) is mana motuhake almost by definition. Thirdly, delivery of services close to the home and hapū is consistent with obligations we have to all New Zealanders.

The member also asked about the IMPB capacity, and he’s absolutely right. IMPBs are at different levels of capacity, and we’ve looked at what that will entail to bring them up to a level where they are able to analyse, to collate, to take in local information, to do local analysis of it, to then institute local actions as to how to change it, and then pass it up further for aggregation at regional and other levels, where we can get a wider view across the whole sector. So those are some of the expectations, and with those expectations will need to come support to power that up.

The member over here had some very good questions about the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee appointments. I’d just point out that the process that the legislation talks to is the process now and has been for the past two years. There’s nothing different to it; I’m just not instituting what was going to be taken into account in July later this year. Those appointments—yes, they’re ministerial appointments, like, as I say, it’s been for the past two years, but of course I will seek advice and consultation from out in the sector and, of course, from IMPBs, as but one group whose voice I need to take into account. So their voice is not lost; it’s just not formalised in the legislation as it was going to be as at July 2024.

You’ve asked a question around an invitation for HMAC to proactively offer advice: yes, please. To offer advice that I need or offer advice that I may not want to hear is the privilege and the purpose of HMAC—to be in that position, to be trusted advisers to the Minister and to us so that we can do a better job. So, yes, to answer that question, I do envisage the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to proactively offer advice.

There were several questions around localities. I’ve already indicated in the legislation that through Schedule 1, I think it is, locality plans will be paused and localities will be paused while I reconsider their position going forward. I think that answers a number of questions around localities, the relationship with iwi-Māori partnership boards—they are paused in this legislation.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This may be the last call before the dinner break, and I just want to say that in the Minister’s answers, he was very light in addressing the questions and, in fact, didn’t answer a lot of the points that had been raised by my colleagues.

I just want to speak, at this point, to clause 6, which is all about the amendments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principles. In the stroke of a pen and their proposed amendments, what they are actually doing—what they are, effectively, doing—is removing all of the things that had been put into the legislation. This is what clause 6 says: “In order to provide for the Crown’s intention to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi …, this Act”—will do all of those things listed.

Now, what the Minister is proposing to do is to repeal paragraphs (b), (e), (h), (i), and (j), and replace all of those things with new section 6(c). His answer to how to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the entirety of it—is that it will require “the Minister to establish a permanent committee, the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, to advise the Minister;”—that’s it.

So in order to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as they relate to pae ora, what was outlined in that section of the Act was the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, all of its roles, and all of its functions, and, in the stroke of a pen, the Minister is proposing to repeal paragraphs (b), (e), (h), (i), and (j), and replace them with new section 6(c).

Now, there are unanswered questions asking for detail about that particular Māori advisory committee. I think that the Minister needs to answer those ones, because if all of the Government’s obligations and commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is contained in the new section 6(c), then I have some serious concerns.

In the departmental disclosure report, there is a section there that says the “Consistency of the government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations”. The Government has done an analysis on “the Treaty implications of disestablishing the Māori Health Authority.” and, in their own opinion, “considers it will continue to meet its Treaty obligations.” by simply just having a Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, Minister—appointed by yourself. You can choose whether you take their advice or not. What about all the other roles that Te Aka Whai Ora had in the delivery of pae ora? All of the mechanisms, the ones that you are taking away—for example, in paragraph (e), it will require “the Hauora Māori Strategy to be jointly prepared by the Māori Health Authority and the Ministry;”. That’s gone. Just gone straight out of the Act, so no Māori health strategy.

Then we’ve got paragraph (h). Paragraph (h) “requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to engage with Māori partnership boards;”. Nope, gone—don’t need that. In terms of paragraph (i), it “requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to jointly develop and implement a New Zealand Health Plan and to work together in the performance of specified functions of Health New Zealand;”—gone. Paragraph (j): “includes, as criteria for appointment to the board of the Māori Health Authority, that the board collectively has knowledge of, and experience and expertise in relation to, te Tiriti o Waitangi …, tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori,”—which, I point out, you also want to take reference to “mātauranga Māori” out”—kaupapa Māori services, and cultural safety and responsiveness of services;”. Repeal that—repeal all of those things.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes, we’re repealing the bill.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah, that’s right. So how can the Minister say that this Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, appointed now by him with no consultation or input from Māori and none of the processes that we followed in the first place—Tā Mason Durie and others, iwi who had a role in participating in this and appointing these people who have the support, the mana, the mandate, the tautoko from te ao Māori. Nope, you’re going to appoint them, and it’s going to be their job to uphold your obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles in pae ora. So please explain how your Hauora Māori Advisory Committee is going to achieve all of those things.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Members, the House is adjourned for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. Before we adjourned for the dinner break, we were on Part 1, and this is the debate on clause 4 to 37, amendments to Part 1 to 3 of the principal Act.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute further in this very important debate as we go through clause by clause. There were a number of questions that were posed to the Minister before the dinner break which, in the opinion of members on this side of the Chamber, were a light touch in the answer from the Minister. So we’ll look forward to interrogating these clauses further to allow the Minister more time to be able to come up with something far more comprehensive in his response to a number of the questions that members on this side of the Chamber had.

So I wish to start my contribution after the dinner break by talking directly to clause 8, which seeks to amend section 12. The original purpose of that particular section was about making sure that when you’ve got a Māori health authority board, what it did was it guaranteed a place for a member from that board on to Health New Zealand, and that was really important. That was about making sure the voice of Māori was heard at the top echelon of health leadership in this country. You’ll see in the clause there that it’s looking to repeal that section. I’m wanting some assurances here from the Minister about whether he is looking to have Māori representation on Health New Zealand, and how does he look towards appointing that?

We’ve already heard and canvassed a number of matters with respect to the HMAC—or the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. This one, though, is specifically speaking to Health New Zealand, and there are a large number of Māori health professionals who are more than capable to be able to sit on both the HMAC—which has already been touched upon—but also Health New Zealand. What this particular clause does, though, is repeal the ability to have a Māori representative on there. Now, I understand that the Minister and the Government have already made it clear that they are going to disestablish the Māori Health Authority—I get that—and we will prosecute that as we continue in the committee of the whole House. But with respect to Health New Zealand, the important part was to ensure that there was a Māori voice there.

I spoke briefly before the dinner break about the structure of the way health policy is made in this country. There are a number of terms in here which might seem new to some of the new members in the House, but they are important for us to make sure that the voice of Māori is heard across the entire scope of health planning, and that’s the Government policy statement, the health charter, the New Zealand health plan. What we are afraid of in repealing section 12(4) is that this Government will continue to minimise the voice of Māori.

We’ve heard from members right across the committee about how important equitable health outcomes are and that resources and the commitment of energy and resource will go to where those health priorities are. It’s clear that the data and everything suggests they are all in the Māori community, so then how do we ensure that there is a Māori voice at the top of the tree? Of course there’s the Minister there, and I acknowledge him and his expertise, but with Health New Zealand—and that’s what I wanted to ask the Minister: how can he ensure there’s a Māori voice on the Health New Zealand board? Is he intending to make sure that there is a Māori voice and Māori representation on the board? How will he plan on doing that if he’s going to be repealing the ability for the Māori Health Authority board to have somebody on the Health New Zealand board?

It was well served since its creation by Tipa Mahuta. But also, we were really proud of a number of the others who were on the Health New Zealand board who were part-Māori, and I wonder if the Minister can explain how we will continue to have that Māori voice at the top of the tree.

The next question I have is with respect to clause 13, where it’s going to insert new section 16A with respect to engaging with and reporting to Māori. It says here, in new section 16A(b), “report back to Māori from time to time on how engagement under this section has informed the performance of its functions.” If the Minister can be clear with us on what “from time to time” actually means; is it what we’re hearing from members on the other side of the Chamber that it’s only every three years because “We’ve got a mandate.”—because that’s what we’re hearing from that side—or is this suggesting that there are going to be far more periodical opportunities for Māori to be able to engage with the reporting back? I ask those questions of the Minister, if he will indulge us.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to speak in the debate on this piece of legislation, and I want to pick up where my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare has left off, around the way in which the various parts of what will now be the way in which the health system interacts with Māori take shape.

In doing so, I have to—because it’s my first opportunity to speak on the bill—indicate that philosophically, I find this bill repugnant. I do that because what this bill does is shift us from a place where a by Māori, for Māori focus at central government level is guaranteed to take that away and rely now on a series of patchwork, band-aid - type approaches which say from this Government to Māori, “We know best how this will work.” That’s not actually the philosophy of Te Aka Whai Ora, which was that Māori know best what works and that the Government would facilitate and encourage that. I just have to put on the record that that’s why I am so strongly opposed to this legislation.

But what the Government is now proposing in replacement for that is what I want to now ask some questions of the Minister of Health about. That is, essentially what starts in the amendment to section 6 in clause 6 in Part 1, and the first question I have for the Minister relates to the establishment of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and their concept of this being a committee to advise the Minister. I want to understand from the Minister how he thinks that advice will be generated to him, because one of the concerns we have on this side of the House is that almost universally, we’re hearing from iwi and hapū around the country that they supported Te Aka Whai Ora because of that very by Māori, for Māori approach that I mentioned before. So my first question to the Minister is: what is the nature of the advice that he expects to get from this committee, and how will that advice be informed by iwi and hapū around Aotearoa?

On this point, I want to note my colleague Arena Williams’ proposed amendment to section 6(2), which is to insert, after the words “to advise the Minister”, the words “including alerting the Minister proactively to any matters that impact on the health and wellbeing of Māori”. Now, what we’re trying to do on this side of the House is to actually improve what we consider to be by a huge distance a second-, third- or fourth-best approach that the Government is taking but also actually try to give some shape to this, because otherwise I think we’re establishing an advisory committee that will have little teeth and be without, really, the kinds of connections that we would expect within te ao Māori to actually be able to give that advice to the Minister.

The reason I connect this to what my colleague has just been speaking about is that when you look at what the Government is doing in Part 1, you’ve got the committee that’s going to be advising the Minister, and then you’ve got the board of Health New Zealand—so, you know, this is the structure of our system. We’ve got the Minister, we’ve got Health New Zealand, and we will come—and this will probably be in a future call, when we come to talk about the iwi-Māori partnership boards, who represent another layer of the structure.

I know the Minister is a fan of the whiteboard in his office, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea if we could just drag the whiteboard down here and put it up behind him so that we could actually follow the logic here, because I have real concerns about how the voice of iwi and hapū will be heard in the structures that the Minister is now proposing. So he has this advisory committee, and, as I say, I’d like to hear from him around exactly how that advice will be generated, how it will work, and what he would consider about giving some more specificity, as Arena Williams has proposed in her amendment. But then we have to get into what Health New Zealand is going to do, because now a huge amount of work has been placed on Health New Zealand, and, as Mr Henare has just said, how are we going to see Māori representation there? We were well served when we had Te Aka Whai Ora working closely with Health New Zealand—Te Whatu Ora. Now, I don’t know, when I look at clause 8 of this bill, “Section 12 amended”, whether the board of Health New Zealand will genuinely be able to play its role in there.

Madam Chair, we’ll see whether you’ll give me another call, and I’ll move on to the next of my questions—Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you, Madam Chair—it was good timing. I won’t take the whole of this call, because this is the third of my questions.

If we then go down to new section 15 in clause 11, which is Health New Zealand providing information to iwi-Māori partnership boards, I’m really concerned by that phrasing, because that is not the relationship that iwi-Māori partnership boards were meant to have. Their relationship is both within their communities and it was a very direct relationship with Te Aka Whai Ora. Now, we’ve got this very weak clause.

Let’s think about some of the words that have been used in it: “support and engage”, “take reasonable steps”—who’s deciding what “reasonable steps” are, Minister? Can you tell us what a reasonable step is? Is it a reasonable step if that iwi-Māori partnership board turns around and says to Health New Zealand, “This isn’t working.”—and guess what! That’s what they’re going to say, because that’s been the case for decades, and the whole reason that we created Te Aka Whai Ora was so that there was a more direct line.

So, again, I say that we’ve got the Minister and his advisory committee, we’ve got Health New Zealand, and we’ve got the iwi-Māori partnership boards. At every level, I would say to the Minister he is weakening those relationships. So I’d ask him to tell us what it means to take reasonable steps to support those, and whether or not the engagement “with iwi-Māori partnership boards when determining priorities for kaupapa Māori investment”, which is the new section 15(b) in here—does that mean that those iwi-Māori partnership boards will have some control and some say, or is this just window dressing, because I have to be honest with the Minister that that’s what it looks like.

So, for me, there are three sets of questions in there. The first is around where that Māori health advisory committee will get its advice from and how it will advise the Minister, then picking up Mr Henare’s question about the Health New Zealand board and how that will have proper representation for Māori, and how iwi-Māori partnership boards will actually be able to fulfil the role that they’re given in the Act when I think what we see here is a significant weakening of the language. I’d like the Minister’s response on all three of those matters.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): We live in unprecedented times in Aotearoa New Zealand tonight. Why do I say that it’s unprecedented? Because this Government has deliberately introduced this legislation, knowing full well that it would restrict the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal to hear the urgent claims into the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora this Thursday and Friday. At no other time have we seen this.

I would like to ask the Minister, what advice did he receive? Knowing that the date was set for the urgent hearings, what advice did he receive from his officials on the urgent hearing and the impact that introducing this legislation today would have on the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal? We were advised at 6 o’clock tonight from the Waitangi Tribunal that its jurisdiction to hold the urgent inquiry on Thursday and Friday, as scheduled, is now vacated. So the question to the Minister is: what information and advice did he receive, knowing this was no surprises? We knew that urgency was happening. Our people, te Iwi Māori, need to know how did he make his decision to introduce the legislation tonight.

Further, we’re wanting to examine the capacity and capability of Te Aka Whai Ora to understand kaupapa Māori services, cultural safety, and responsiveness of services to improve Māori health outcomes. It’s a kupu tāpiri—it’s a little bit along the lines of what Peeni Henare has said—but I do want to share and I do raise the concerns that I did raise earlier in my previous speech that having two Māori voices on the current Te Aka Whai Ora board is only a few out of the seven. Then, with the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, our whaea Tipa Mahuta will lose that position, and we are left with one.

Therefore, some of the tasks of Te Whatu Ora require that there needs to be engagement with te Iwi Māori and there needs to be capacity to work with our iwi-Māori partnership board, and so there’s two levels of engagement that I’m asking for the Minister to provide a response on. Does he believe that the Te Whatu Ora board in its current capacity has the ability to engage both with iwi-Māori partnership boards and te Iwi Māori whānui, and what are his plans to fill those gaps? Is he going to expand the board table? Will he recruit more talent, knowing that we have talent across the Māori health sector—as we’ve heard from previous speakers—that could come on board to help power up this new, mainstream waka of ours that will be the rongoā for te Iwi Māori health issues?

In closing, I want to share Kahurangi Tureiti Moxon’s feedback on breakfast TV this morning, where she said that the existence of the Māori Health Authority gave us some semblance of control and that we could do what was right for us, but, instead, here we are, being plonked back in a system where we started, and right back into a system that doesn’t really work for Māori. She added that she doesn’t believe that it will work for te Iwi Māori.

So that’s the challenge for our Minister and for the Government: how will this model—or, actually, we don’t have the plan; all we know is kāore kāore. What is the plan, and can you give us assurance that we will see the plan as te Iwi Māori and have the ability to help input into what is the new waka hauora for us? Kia ora.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. I’d like to start with a set of questions from a member before the dinner break, raising the question that, as far as could be seen, the only focus around the amendments to section 6 in clause 6 was with the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee (HMAC). This isn’t correct. I’ve already identified in previous replies three functions that demonstrate obligations under section 6: (1) HMAC will be one representation of the Māori voice; (2) health service monitoring and decision making by iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPBs)—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry, what was that?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: —and (3) delivery of services as close to the home and the hapū as possible.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Excuse me, we’ve just got a question. Could you just—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry, could you just repeat that? I didn’t hear your “one”.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Oh, yeah—sure.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have already identified in previous responses three ways that obligations under section 6 will be met: (1) HMAC will be one representation of the Māori voice; (2) health service monitoring and decision making by IMPBs; and (3) the intent of delivering services as close to the home and the hapū as possible. So to suggest that the response to section 6 is just HMAC is clearly flawed.

If the member is also worried—and it’s come up in questions from two previous speakers also—around the proposed appointment process to HMAC, again, that has been the appointment process, and it is the appointment process today. It has been for the last two years. It was created by this Government, and there’s nothing different to that. It was due to change on 1 July 2024, but it is the current process, so I don’t think that really stands up.

A member more recently raised the question under clause 8 about the Māori Health Authority and appointments—and, indeed, the last member did also—to Health New Zealand. Several things here: first of all, I believe this is an “and and” between skills-based and representation. I would point you to one of the Māori members on the Health New Zealand board already: Dr Curtis Walker, who clearly is skills-based and brings representation. So it is my intention to have that as an “and and” on the Health New Zealand board.

On new section 16A in clause 13, the question was raised as to when is reporting back “from time to time” and what does that mean. At the present time, metrics are currently reported quarterly, and this is a feature of the ability of Health Quality and Safety Commission and others to provide robust data. So I would anticipate at this point that quarterly reporting will continue, and we’ll say more about that when we bring our targets forward.

The Hon Grant Robertson also raised the amendments to section 6, and was the third member to review the material we’ve already discussed. The only extra point I would add in—and it’s not “extra” because I mentioned it before the break anyway—is that, yes, I do envisage the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to be proactive, as I mentioned in a previous call.

I’ve already discussed Health New Zealand’s Māori representation. New section 15 in clause 11, Health New Zealand providing information to iwi-Māori partnership boards—again, before the break, it was raised. Well, there’s a different capacity for iwi-Māori partnership boards—and that’s absolutely correct—and until we can power them all up, there will be some who need corporate services. Well, clearly, there’s going to need to be information passed back to IMPBs, and that would seem to be self-evident. Furthermore, when they are powered up to be able to do more analysis and reporting, for them to be able to see where they sit in the context of a national measure is likely to be really helpful. So, again, Health New Zealand will be passing information back to the IMPBs.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. Look, I don’t usually speak on health bills, but there are aspects of this bill which I would really appreciate it if the Minister could elucidate. There are, essentially, only two aspects to my question. It strikes me that pae ora—the original objective—was really to give some self-determination around health delivery for Māori consistent with Treaty obligations, and, in particular, the idea or the concept of rangatiratanga in respect of health delivery. We’ve been talking, and I’ve heard my colleagues talk about representation and voice and consultation. I guess my question is this: if the Minister agrees that Te Tiriti is a partnership where we should be giving as much self-determination to Māori as is possible, then what is the rationale for the retreat from that here?

We give self-determination in the delivery of Government services in many areas, and kaupapa Māori schools are a really good example of that, where they are designed in a te ao Māori way and delivered in a te ao Māori way. They have fantastic outcomes—we know that. Why is that in this critical area of health delivery, we are retreating from the delivery of health services to Māori in a way which Māori have self-determination over how that is delivered?

If the answer is “We’re not retreating from that.”, how is it that we are respecting the right of self-determination—of rangatiratanga—in this domain when all of the amendments that I’m reading talk about seats on boards, seats around the table, and not a table of their of their own? Given that this is a massive retreat from self-determination of delivery of health services, and that you’re saying to Māori that “No, I don’t trust you to deliver”—effectively—“health services. I think this is a bloated bureaucracy.” and that having by Māori, for Māori in health is nothing more than having a bloated bureaucracy, what have you done to talk to Māori about that retreat? Whom amongst iwi and hapū have you spoken to? What is the view of Māori of your decision?

If the answer to that is “That’s the election.”, then I would put to you that that’s not satisfactory and that we must engage with Māori whenever we change the law in a way which directly affects Māori. There can be no more substantial change than taking the autonomous delivery of health services away from Māori. So I’d appreciate it, Minister, if you could answer those two questions.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau hei waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei pire o Te Aka Whai Ora.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed greetings to all of us of this House. I stand to give voice to the statements of Te Pāti Māori for this bill on Te Aka Whai Ora.]

I’m going to be talking on “(a), (b), (c), (d), A, E, I, O, U, (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)”, because, basically, this whole bill, in itself, knowing that we are taking a Māori Health Authority amendment bill rushing through urgency, is a complete breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its full context, and even looking at this bill, with only a couple of hours to look at it, I see that “mātauranga Māori” has been axed and replaced with “cultural safety”. Now, that is a huge concern, knowing that this coalition Government has no rules or regulations or complete conscious awareness of what cultural safety actually is, with their 100-day coalition plan. Knowing that they are going to replace mātauranga Māori—well, what is the plan? What is the strategy? What does that mean, by taking out mātauranga Māori—is that the “Tohunga Suppression Act 2.0”?

Also, bringing in Peeni Henare’s amendment to new section 15 in clause 11, of a targeted approach—now, why I’m looking at that is because Māori have a completely different way in the way that we engage, we interact, and we service our health and our different perspective on life in a te ao Māori context world view, and that’s even looking at bringing up Wai 262 and the way that we bring in Māori data sovereignty. So that is a huge concern in this amendment bill.

I want to ask the Minister of Health what are the different strategies that he is proposing to deliver on Māori health outcomes, knowing that us, in Waikato—we have been proposing strategies for decades. Even if we look at Princess Te Puia Hērangi in 1930, which is when she wanted the aspiration and goals to establish a Maōri hospital at Māhinerangi in Tūrangawaewae House. We are now in 2024, and we—her mokopuna—are still fighting for those exact aspirations and dreams.

Te Aka Whai Ora was a step to that realisation, and I’m also standing here. I could not not stand up, purely because I am a mokopuna of the original claimants in the Maōri health claim, Wai 2575, and also Wai 3307. Actually, the Wai 3307 claim was tabled in 2005, when I was only two years old, and, actually, my grandparents were the ones who tabled this health claim. I want to ask the Minister why has he not had consultation with these original claimants like Tureiti Moxon, Taitimu Maipi, and the many different mātanga and experts in this field, knowing that they’ve given decades upon decades of work to the establishment of a Māori Health Authority but also, as a larger context, looking at the mahi and blood, sweat, and tears that they have done in terms of the Wai health claims, bringing that forward to a Waitangi Tribunal.

Also, knowing that we do have the strategies, it’s ironic that members across keep shouting that Māori need to retain their self-responsibility. Well, that’s exactly what we want to do. That is actually tino rangatiratanga. It is self-responsibility. We want to have self-responsibility over our health, over our data sovereignty, and over our outcomes, but we can’t because the Crown is in charge of that.

Yeah, I’m looking at the time—oh, e āhei ana au—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, keep going—keep going.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: OK, thank you—cool. Also, looking at the way that we want to have self-responsibility over our tino rangatiratanga for our health and outcome deliverables—for example, my grandmother, actually, and Ramari and also other rūruhi within our community such as manu Tutata Matatahi, who were the first ever Māori community health workers on their own marae. We have the strategies in place. Those were our grandparents, and now we can’t come to a third generation, where we are—Madam Chair, can I take this second call?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, you may.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Cool—ngā mihi nui ki a koe. Also, if we look at the mahi that whaea Tipa Mahuta has done and if we look at the, I guess, layer of colonisation that has affected us specifically in Waikato-Tainui with the Raupatu settlement claim, I quote from Sir Governor Grey. In 1863, he actually said that Māori—he had never seen such healthy kids anywhere else in the world other than in Waikato, and such fertile land. In 1863, Sir Governor Grey said that.

Our job as Kīngitanga, our job as an iwi, our job as a post-settlement iwi, our job as Wai claimants, and our job as third-generation mokopuna is to make that we peel back those layers of decolonisation. So I want to ask the Minister what he is going to do to make sure that we are shredding those layers, because us, as Māori, looking at in a Māori context, world-lens view, we don’t just look at the physical outcome of health but—like what Tā Mason Durie has done in his amazing mahi—we are actually looking at a Whare Tapa Whā, a complete holistic awareness of a Whare Tapa Whā approach.

So, yep, that’s what I have to say, and if this Government keeps saying we’re woke, they must be asleep. E oho ana tātou, e moe ana koutou.

[We are awake, you are asleep.]

Ngā mihi ki a koutou.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for his brief answers that didn’t give any detail to the questions that I asked. I’m going to ask some few questions, for fear of repetition or him saying that he’s already answered these things.

I spoke to the amendments to section 6, in clause 6, which are the key amendments to disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora. I spoke to how section 6 actually outlines how the Crown will meet its obligations under the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by establishing Te Aka Whai Ora and its roles and functions, and I asked the Minister if now the—what are you calling it? HMAC, the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee—that’s what I couldn’t understand from your answer. HMAC is now going to be the answer to the way in which the Crown is going to fulfil its obligations to meet the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

What I wanted to ask the Minister, though, is: when you look at the current legislation, there are words in there that are very strong directives and obligations on the Government and on the various organisations and agencies in here. They use words like “require”: “requires the Minister to have regard to any advice of the Māori Health Authority when determining a … strategy; … requires the Hauora Māori Strategy to be jointly prepared … provides for iwi-Māori partnership boards to enable Māori to have a meaningful role in the planning and design of local services; and … requires the Government Policy Statement to contain priorities for hauora Māori; and … requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards; … requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to jointly develop and implement a … Health Plan and to work together in the performance of specified functions”, and so on.

That is very strong language legislated for, and a “require” is that you must do it; not that you can choose to do it. We’ve had decisions like the King Salmon case, for example. When legislation has words like that in it, the Government is required to follow that. What the Minister is proposing is new section 15, for example, which will require the health authority to—what? To “take reasonable steps to support iwi-Māori partnership boards to achieve their purpose” and “engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards when determining priorities for kaupapa Māori investment.”

Māori need certainty. They went from having mana-enhancing provisions—a partnership approach to their healthcare, to their strategy, to the priorities, and to what’s going in the Government policy statement—to now having in the legislation words like the Minister will take “reasonable steps”. What are “reasonable steps”? Can you define it? Can you tell us and can you tell those that are listening tonight—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): “Can ‘the Minister’ define”, please.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Can the Minister please tell those in the committee and those that are listening tonight what they can expect in terms of “reasonable steps to support iwi-Māori partnership boards to achieve their purpose”? Can you please tell us what “engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards when determining priorities for kaupapa Māori investment.” actually looks like? Where are the details on how this is going to be given effect to?

You said, Minister—sorry, Madam Speaker. The Minister said that having iwi-Māori partnership boards is mana motuhake. Can you please define “mana motuhake” for me, and how your board, set up under a piece of Crown legislation, is actually mana motuhake? Please give me the tikanga definition of “mana motuhake” and how your iwi-Māori partnership boards are going to be giving mana motuhake to our hapū and our iwi.

I also have questions around the functions of the iwi-Māori partnership boards and the amendments proposed to remove the functions of agreeing to locality plans, and nominating members to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. Now, the Minister has stood up in the committee tonight and said that the process is exactly the same for the appointment of HMAC. No, it’s not. It’s very clear, when you read your tabled amendments, that the Minister is actually changing that process and that there was a role for the iwi-Māori partnership boards in that and there was a role from—and it flows on, so into the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and into Te Aka Whai Ora. So the Minister is not correct when he is saying that the process has not changed at all and that it’s the same that was in there before.

My question to the Minister is: what weight will he give those priorities that are developed through clause 15, because what is the point of engaging with Māori—you know, you’re saying you’re going to do it through the iwi-Māori partnership boards and you’re saying you’re going to do it through Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. But what weight are you actually going to give to those priorities, because what I would argue is that what was in the legislation that you are changing and disestablishing were far more requirements to work in partnership to develop the health strategies, the plans, the objectives, the Government policy statement, and so on. So I want to know what weight the Minister will give to the priorities that come out of this process, or will it just be a box-ticking exercise and lip service?

Also, there’s no dispute resolution process in here. But I do want to take the opportunity to turn to clauses 23, 25, 29, and 30, because what concerns me is that these are the consequential amendments. So, for example, clause 23 amends section 50, which relates to the development of a New Zealand Health Plan, and what it says is: “The effect of the amendment is that the plan will be developed solely by Health New Zealand.”—right. Clause 25 amends section 52, which relates to the preparation of the annual performance report: “The effect of the amendment is that Health New Zealand will be solely responsible for preparing the annual performance report.” Clause 29 amends section 57, which relates to the making of the New Zealand Health Charter: “The effect of the amendment is that Health New Zealand will be solely responsible for facilitating the making of the charter.” Clause 30 amends section 58 by removing the reference to the Māori Health Authority: “The effect of the amendment is that Health New Zealand will be solely responsible for reporting on the charter.”

How can Māori have confidence when such significant changes are being made to the way in which our health system is going to operate that their voice is going to be reduced to a Hauora Māori Advisory Committee whom, it says here, the Minister can request information from. It doesn’t even embed their functions. It doesn’t give it any level of priority in his decision making. What confidence can Māori have?

In these changes that the Minister is making, he hasn’t given any real detail on them. He has not defined “reasonable steps”, he has not defined what “actual engagement” looks like, and he has not defined what the systems for engaging are going to be. He has not defined the functions of the iwi-Māori partnership boards. He’s pushed out for five years the localities planning, which is kind of an important part of how you’re going to have a bottom-up approach to the delivery of health services and how our communities are able, through that process, to identify what their needs and aspirations are—which you say you want to deliver on, but, actually, you have no mechanisms to do that.

So those are my questions to the Minister. Can he please provide us with some detailed answers, because everybody is desperately wanting to hear how he’s going to deliver on his vision with his proposed changes here.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll respond to some of the questions. From the member over here regarding timing, this has been well flagged through our 100-day commitments. I’d also comment that the tribunal—once the legislation has been enabled—is still able to critique it, and that is the understanding that I have had, and we wanted to provide some surety to the staff at the Māori Health Authority so that they knew what the plan was. So we did want to move with some degree of timeliness.

It was also commented—and I’ve already mentioned it before—about the skills base and representation to the Health New Zealand board. The member that was over here raised the question of whether there was actually a reduction in autonomy; I don’t think that’s the case, because what we’ve said is that Māori will be involved in monitoring, delivery, and decision making at local levels. So I don’t accept there will be any reduction in autonomy, and he also asked about whom discussions had been had with. I’d already said that we’d met on or around 6 December with iwi-Māori partnership board chairs, but if they want to have further discussions, start with Tuwharetoa, and ask how the consultation has been with them.

The member down over here asked the questions about Māori health outcomes and how are we actually going to do that. Several things: first of all, health workforce are going to be pre-eminent. It’s really a common pathway to challenges we have in the health system at the moment. So health workforce will be important, targets will be important, and we have to give people the tools to do the jobs, so that talks to infrastructure. So those are three key ways that we are going to improve Māori health outcomes.

We’ve had discussions with New Zealanders over many years—in fact, since the Māori Health Authority was first described. I recall, that afternoon, going into public domain, and there have been many, many discussions over what now must be about three years. There is nothing new here tonight about the discussions. The Māori frameworks of health—yep, the Te Whare Tapa Whā o Te Wheke, which I think Rose constructed. What I would say here is that we totally believe and I believe in cultural competency and the Māori health frameworks that support that. Thank you.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question, first of all, to clarify, following on from my colleague. I wasn’t clear with the Minister of Health’s answer regarding the Waitangi Tribunal and the timing. Is it accidental that this is being rammed through in urgency two days before, or is it deliberate? That’s my first question.

Secondly, given the coalition Government’s support for localism, at least in theory, the Minister seems to have such severe doubts about localism in this area that it’s going to take five years to introduce localities. So how will that provide services—I think I quote—“as close as possible to Māori hapū”?

Moving on to a comment, I’d like to know whether the Minister agrees with a member of his own caucus that seemed to direct the health deficit for Māori to their own fault. If that’s not victim blaming, I’m not sure what is. Does the Minister think that it’s Māori’s fault that they languish as a result of socio-economic deficit, that they tend to live far away from the centres of walkable cities and towns, that their socio-economic status means that they are not able to buy healthier food and that milk remains a lot more expensive than fizzy rubbish, despite the wonderful farmers that provide us with it?

Then, finally, how much worse is Māori health going to get over those five years—and I think it might be unlikely that he will still be the Minister of Health in 2029. How much worse is the health deficit going to get? Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to have an opportunity—my first chance, actually—to be able to contribute to this committee of the whole House stage.

I’ve taken close attention to the debate. I was watching before the dinner break and have been here since the start of the dinner break. And, since it is my first opportunity to contribute, I think it’s pretty important that it is noted in the Hansard how disgraceful I think this bill is. It’s very clear, I think, to anybody that looks at the stats for Māori across Aotearoa that the health system as it’s stood has not delivered—that, with health stats and life expectancy, it hasn’t worked, for whatever reason. But there was a very clear message that the country got during COVID that a delivery model that was delivered by Māori and designed by Māori was effective. So, in establishing the Māori Health Authority, there was actually something in place to deliver the things that the Minister has promised the committee are his priorities here tonight.

Now, there’s one thing that sticks in my mind—before I get to my question—and it’s that, as many members who have been here a while know, our rural communities are particularly important to me, and therefore so too is the equitable access to health. I, alongside some of my colleagues, played a pivotal role in ensuring that the requirement for a rural health strategy was included in the legislation that set up the reformed health system, and I’m incredibly proud of that, because we recognise that those that live in isolated and remote areas simply do not have the same level of access to health. The same rationale applies here, and I cannot help but think that if this were an Act that had established a rural health authority, would this Government be repealing it? You’ve gone pretty quiet now, Joseph Mooney. The fact is they wouldn’t, because rural people vote for this Government, and Māori people don’t, and the National Party is like a river: it takes the path of least resistance. When it comes to talking about any issue that requires or that establishes something that focuses solely on Māori, instead of taking leadership they took the easiest path, and that is reflected in this repeal bill.

The question that I have is specific to clause 35. It is looking at replacing section 89 with three parts outlining the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. It says here in new section 89(2) that “The committee comprises 8 members appointed by the Minister after consulting the Minister for Māori Development.” At what point does this outline that the people who are going to be on this committee are going to be able to deliver the same level of expertise and insight that the Māori Health Authority did? If the Minister truly believes—as he has outlined on a couple of occasions; not all occasions, but on a couple of occasions in his contribution during this stage—that he feels that what he is outlining is going to deliver better, what protections are in this clause? What protections in clause 35 of this bill would stop a future Government imposing eight members that know nothing about Māori? They might not even be Māori. There are no protections in this.

Now, the Minister may say that the selection criteria is exactly the same as it has been. When you’re talking about a Māori Health Authority that clearly outlines the requirements and the expertise that is required for the people that are involved in the decisions and the advice that are provided, it’s pretty clear cut. We’re not now. This Government is getting rid of this. We have a committee to advise the Minister when he requests it. Now, the Minister may be offended by this suggestion that he wouldn’t select people, but what’s protecting future Ministers? What is protecting a future political party, campaigning on the basis of identifying that there is some unease in the community about this idea that there’s something specific to Māori. In the future, it is entirely possible that a political party might find that it is in their interests to campaign against something that focuses just on Māori—even though deep down they may or may not know that it is the right thing to do—and get elected on that basis. What is to protect a future Minister from stacking this committee—to try and demonstrate a Māori-specific focus to health, which I assume is the intent of this committee—with people that will undermine it because they don’t have the expertise that’s required to deliver the purpose of this, and then stand up and say, “See, it doesn’t work.”?

Now, I repeat, I’m not suggesting at all that this Minister—who I believe is a man of integrity; I fundamentally oppose what he is doing here. But what is to stop a future Minister doing that? Three simple sentences here; they just simply talk about the number and a very brief requirement that they consult another Minister, but there’s no protection. I think the committee deserves to know an answer to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I call the Hon Peeni Henare, I just want to say that we are still getting some new questions about some new clauses and we are under urgency, and as long as I keep hearing new clause numbers and questions that are new questions, we can allow a little bit more time for this debate.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Members on the other side of the Chamber seem a little glum this late in the evening, so I’m going to start my question by quoting that well-known Māori fellow by the name of Billy T James. What he says is, “When you put Kiwis in the room, you put two of them in the corner and they’re bound to make a separate committee.”

Now, why do I say that? That’s because one of the parts in clause 17, which looks to repeal subpart 5 of Part 2, which is dispute resolution—now, that’s really important, because we’re not always going to agree, and I accept that the Government has already made their intentions clear with respect to the Māori Health Authority. But where, throughout this entire system, is there an opportunity to resolve issues where we do not agree? That’s just a fact of politics; that’s a fact of life. In that particular part that’s being repealed, there are separate provisions there that instruct the Minister of Health to also consult with the Minister for Māori Development. I’m looking for reassurances from this Minister: is that still his intention, to include the Minister for Māori Development in the decision making and the process around dispute resolution?

The part that’s being repealed here also recommends that the Minister of Health also discuss these matters with the Minister for Te Arawhiti. That’s really important, because what we’ve found, and certainly in our time as Government—and this Government’s finding out at the moment—is that dispute resolution is really important, especially when we’re talking about large bodies who have opportunities to be able to influence, in this case, health policy, who do not agree. The question is quite clear to the Minister, who’s looking to just simply scrap any dispute resolution process here: what is the Minister going to do when there is clearly a dispute—one between, let’s say, the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and Health New Zealand; let’s say an iwi-Māori partnership board and Health New Zealand; let’s say an iwi-Māori partnership board and its locality leadership? There are questions here; there are matters here that not everybody’s going to agree on. So we’re looking for assurances from the Minister that dispute resolution mechanisms will continue to remain there.

I’ve already mentioned the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Te Arawhiti. They play important roles in making sure that the Minister himself gets the support he needs to make sure that, as we work through a dispute resolution process, all voices are being heard fairly, the arbitration process is going to be heard fairly, or is the Minister suggesting to everybody, with this particular bill, that he’s going to play God on the matter, that it’s entirely up to him on how the dispute is resolved, or his decision is the final say, and he’ll play judge, jury, and executioner? I think that’s completely dangerous and against the democracy that our countrymen, our fellow Kiwis, expect from this particular institution. That’s really important.

So, if the Minister of Health is, as I’ve mentioned, going to be the final decision-maker on any dispute resolution process, how then do Māori actually find their voice in that particular process? Is it through the tribunal? Well, we’ve heard that that’s not going to be the case. Is it that they make an appointment with the Minister directly? Well, what we’ve seen is the Minister’s willingness to speak to more and more people and to engage with far more Māori about matters relating to health in general and Māori health in particular. So do they need to make an appointment? Are they able to discuss these matters directly with the Minister, or is it simply waiting for the opportunity for the Minister and the Government to front up to the iwi chairs, where the iwi-Māori partnership boards, for example, are able to prosecute their particular dispute with whatever body the Minister has in charge of Health New Zealand? These are important fundamental questions.

As I said, as Kiwis we won’t always agree, but it is important that there are strong mechanisms. Given that the Minister’s repealing this, we want to seek a surety from the Minister that there will be mechanisms to resolve these disputes, that he will continue to seek the support and counsel of his colleagues, namely the Minister for Māori Development and, of course, the Minister for Te Arawhiti, and, indeed, even further colleagues across his Cabinet. That’s going to be really important, and I look forward to hearing the Minister on those questions.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for taking further questions related to the removal of Māori voice from the health system in this bill. My colleagues have already made a number of points about the ways in which that is occurring, but I have two that I believe have not been canvassed. So we’ve already heard about the loss of iwi-Māori partnership board (IMPB) ability to approve locality plans. We’ve seen them lose the ability to appoint to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee—lose control over who is representing them in the system. That now goes to the Minister. We have been told that it is not the fact that that is the case in the current legislation; that was a transitional provision. We’ve also seen that the role for Te Aka Whai Ora in drafting the Government Policy Statement is gone, and the right for Te Aka Whai Ora to directly advise the Minister is also gone.

I want to ask two particular questions. The first relates to clause 6(3), which is the advice on the New Zealand Health Plan. Can the Minister clarify if the IMPBs will be involved in giving advice on the New Zealand Health Plan, because otherwise there is no input from the local level into what is a key instrument in the health system. In fact, I often say that the main feature of the health reforms was to enable long-term planning for the health system, and that New Zealand Health Plan is an incredibly important document for shaping the future of the health system.

The second thing I want to ask relates to clause 15, which is the requirement for Health New Zealand to support and engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards. Given that his words dictate what must occur in practice, I’d like the Minister to define what he means by “support and engage”. To me, “support” sounds a little bit paternalistic, and I’m particularly interested in understanding how “support and engage” fulfils the Government’s requirement to work with iwi in partnership under Te Tiriti.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to add to the list of questions on a section that I don’t believe has had any substantive debate and, in particular, an amendment in the name of my colleague Arena Williams, which I know has not had any debate at this time. That is clause 18 of the bill, which covers section 33 of the original Act. Now, for the most part, what Part 1 of this bill does is simply remove references to the Māori Health Authority.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s 15.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yeah, 15—18, section 18. Clause 18, in fact, if we’re being specific. Clause 18, which is amending section 33 of the original Act. For the most part, we’ve got a bill that removes references to the Māori Health Authority or the Health Authority. What clause 18—and, in particular, clause 18(2)—does, however, is replace section 33(1)(d) of the Act, the Pae Ora Act, which currently says, “Health New Zealand, the Māori Health Authority, and relevant iwi-Māori partnership boards to agree to locality plans for localities:”. But unlike most of the other clauses, this one ditches the iwi-Māori partnership boards from their role in approving the locality plans.

My question for the Minister is: how is he going to ensure that the voice of hapū and iwi at the local level is protected in the creation of locality plans? Because that is the very point of their existence. So I get it; the Government is disestablishing the Māori Health Authority, and they want to take all the references to the Māori Health Authority out of the original Act. I disagree with that strongly. But, now, we’re altering the role of iwi-Māori partnership boards here. This is going much further—and illogically much further—because the iwi-Māori partnership boards were to be that very linkage at the local level when the locality plans are being developed.

So my colleague Arena Williams has proposed changes here, in particular in clause 18(2): after the word “locality”, insert the phrase “based on the advice of the relevant iwi-Māori partnership boards.” So the Minister might like to tell us if it was a mistake. It is possible it was a mistake, but I don’t think it was. I think it was an intentional move, and I think the Minister should explain to the committee why, in the cause of ridding references to the Māori Health Authority, we are now ridding reference to the iwi-Māori partnership boards in the development of these locality plans. And by way of explanation—and I know there’s a lot of buzzwords in health that are being used in the Chamber tonight—those locality plans were, and are indeed, absolutely critical to the overall health reform process, in order to make sure that, in creating Health New Zealand, creating a Māori Health Authority, we give respect to the fact that local communities know the health needs of their communities.

Now, that was what lay behind the district health board model; it didn’t work. So we’ve come up with a different model that says “locality plans”. This clause excludes the group of people who were designed to make sure that we had iwi and hapū voice in the development of the locality plans. I find it extraordinary that a party and a Government who would tell us that they don’t like centralisation and that they want to see things done at a local level would remove the very Māori voice that has been created. The Minister, in a couple of his contributions, has said he wants the iwi-Māori partnership boards to keep doing their jobs, albeit neutered through the bill that’s in front of us tonight. So that is my question for the Minister.

Firstly, is this an intentional thing to take iwi-Māori partnership boards out of locality planning, which seems completely illogical to me? And, secondly, would he consider Arena Williams’ amendment, which would at least mean that those plans would be based on the advice of relevant iwi-Māori partnership boards?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, taking into context that 83 percent of Māori did not support this coalition, I therefore have some real concerns on assumptions that are made—again, through clauses 11 to 15—from a different perspective. Quoting the Minister earlier and his view on the Māori-iwi partnerships and the need to power them up, in clauses 11 to 15, if that is indeed the Minister’s view, the question we have is: how long does the Minister believe it will take to power up the iwi partnership boards? How will they be resourced? What sense or lens will the Minister have over the inequities for Māori as this transitioning is happening, particularly remembering our mana hauā, our tangata whenua in rural areas, our tangata Pasifika?

There’s a lot of emphasis on iwi-Māori partnerships. Indeed, we heard one iwi tonight that has supposedly endorsed this approach—kei te pai if that’s the case. But there is a lot of emphasis on iwi-Māori partnerships who have had one-on-one meetings with the Minister who are likely expecting some direct funding and hoping that this model will provide a better resource model than what currently exists. However, if the power-up capacity that the Minister himself referred to is not there, how long will it take the Minister—and, again, what we’re not hearing is what the gap filler is. What strategy is going to be applied during this transition—assuming that the Minister believes this will happen in a linear, coherent way? Knowing Māori and iwi as well as I do, each will have—and should have—their own authenticity and, indeed, their own right to self-determine the path through that. It’s not clear. If the Minister would, please, share how they intend to monitor this progress, if indeed they are? At the moment, it’s really difficult to find data on the iwi-Māori partnerships and indeed the locality plans and indeed the successful prototypes.

What is the expected outcome? How will the Minister ensure that we will have sight, as communities affected, of those particular outcomes—so, when he sees that a particular partnership hasn’t worked, that there isn’t the resourcing around that? Let’s just take some of the regions that I come from, where there hasn’t been a successful model in the district health board model. They hadn’t gotten up to speed and certainly haven’t had the support and the capacity to get to a “powered-up model”—again, I use the Minister’s words, not my words.

It’s really unclear how we can, as communities most affected, be assured that this would be monitored. It’s really unclear for the rest in Aotearoa, who are taxpayers, who indeed are looking at this being a better model; a better return on investment; a better social return on investment. How is the Minister going to track the success model, given that some of the capacity that’s been committed to this particular model in Te Aka Whai Ora lose their mahi, lose their connection to the very communities that they’ve been building—I guess rapport?

Also, what’s really not obvious in this, if we were to go to clause 28—I mean, just bear with me. It says, in clause 28, “Section 55 amended”, which relates to the development of locality plans by Health New Zealand. The amendments remove the requirement for Health New Zealand—I won’t go through the whole thing—to engage and removes the requirement for the relevant iwi-Māori partnership board to agree to the annual report assessing progress against outcomes in the plan.

So it is really, really important that we are not being sold something that has been set up to fail, but, most importantly, that our communities are going to get less of a service, less of a focus on our health inequities. That is our primary objective: that we get clarity from the Minister that there is a guarantee that our people are going to come out with less inequities and a better outcome from this health model.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll reply further to some questions that have arisen, particularly around localities and their relationship with iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPBs)—several members have raised that. What the legislation does is it pauses Schedule 1, I believe, for the localities planned to be formed. That is because we’re still considering the role and the place, as I said in my first reading, of localities. So that’s quite clear.

Second, there were some questions over there around protections, around the composition of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee going forward. Look, no one can predict that far into the future what future Governments will do. But I have flagged in my readings, and flagged with our intent, that I absolutely support cultural competence and believe it to be important, and that I’ll seek advice from IMPBs around appointments, and that I also believe that there can be skills-based and representation with the Health New Zealand board. So, as much as we have some view of what’s in front of us here now, I’m offering that support.

Dispute resolution has also been raised. And, yes, it is my intention to continue to have engagement with the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, the Hon Tama Potaka, in dispute processes.

The member who’s just completed, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, was talking to something we’ve already touched on: IMPB capacity building. I agree they will need resourcing. They have already been moderately resourced. I absolutely understand that they will need further resourcing, depending where they are on the capacity and competence sort of metrics, if you like—and to help them achieve the functions that they need, I will commit to that.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first call, and I wouldn’t normally be here to speak on health issues. I’m a white boy from the deep South.

Hon Grant Robertson: Nothing wrong with that.

SCOTT WILLIS: Ha! Indeed, yeah. But I’m here to speak for many of those who’ve been denied a voice because of this outrage of urgency to force through a destructive agenda to continue to break rather than make. We really are taking another great leap backwards after so much mahi to create something that will be meaningful. I can speak for tangata Tiriti who care about health for all, who care about addressing the inequities in health.

I’d like to hear the Minister of Health clarify New Zealand’s reasonable consultation process that it will use before introducing any employment policy that is reasonably likely to have material impact on that employee. How can it be reasonable when this is done under urgency? I remember I heard a member opposite earlier talk about her pleasure in condemning Te Aka Whai Ora to the scrap heap, and I’m shocked. I’m shocked by the victim blaming I’ve heard from that side of the Chamber, and I want to know what the impact on those employees will be, those employees who will be materially impacted by these changes, done under urgency with no engagement.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just mention to the member that discussions about employment are in the next part of the bill, so if you’ve got something that pertains to Part 1, then we’d like to hear it. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I am concerned that this blitzkrieg of repeals—the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora—is an abuse of urgency that denies voice to those most affected. I want to understand why the Minister is so afraid of the Waitangi Tribunal, and why is the Minister so afraid of the select committee process that would allow people to engage correctly? If there was any good in this, I think the Minister should be willing to allow scrutiny and examination of the proposal.

Mr Chair, to the Chair—that switcheroo happened quite quickly; didn’t notice that—I’ve worked for a kaupapa Māori organisation and I’ve seen the benefit of this holistic approach to health led by Māori, for Māori. I’ve worked with Māori and whānau in energy hardship, and what’s clear is that we need that comprehensive approach by Māori, for Māori. The one-size-fits-all, with some participation that may be willed by the Minister, is something that is just insulting to what has been created so far. It’s not going to lead to hauora Māori. It’s more than physical wellbeing; it’s mental and emotional wellbeing, social wellbeing, and spiritual wellbeing. I saw the value as a white boy from the deep South. I saw the value of a kaupapa Māori approach to health, wrapping support around those other interventions to ensure wellbeing. The ability to join the dots came from a tino rangatiratanga model of delivery, and the beauty of it was that it was Māori and tangata Tiriti, or non-Māori, all benefiting from a richer way of doing things, because innovation can become mainstream unless we reject it, unless we take a great leap backwards.

I would like to understand from the Minister why we can’t have a good debate, why we can’t allow the Waitangi Tribunal to open this up, why we can’t allow a select committee to open this up.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I won’t use this to take up any more time in the debate, but I will just note that my question asked prior to the Minister’s last call, to define “engagement and support”, as in clause 15, has not been answered

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair—thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I do want to note at the start of my call that some of the questions I’m going to ask are quite specific about the legislation, and the reason I’m going to get quite specific about the legislation is that we don’t have the select committee process, and normally these are the types of questions that would actually be asked of officials.

I just want to put on record my concern that I’m not sure if we’re going to be able to get into that level of detail, just because I’ve been listening to some of the Minister’s answers and I’m concerned that we’re not really getting into the detail of the bill. I have got some very specific questions, and they relate back to some of the speeches I’ve observed from Government members earlier today in the debate, and how I have witnessed the Māori Health Authority operate in my electorate. The specific question I have is: how is that going to change and be continued? And I have some really specific questions about some of the wording in the bill that I really would like some answers on because I’m hearing concerns from my electorate and I have some concerns.

So just to give some context, in some of the Government speeches earlier today, including speeches from the Minister, I heard comments that people felt the Māori Health Authority was a centralised process. I want to give an example from within my own electorate that will just set up and give the context for the questions I’m to ask, because I think that context is really needed. So we have a Māori health provider across Te Tau Ihu—top of the South Island. It operates across Tasman, Nelson, and Marlborough, and it’s called Te Piki Oranga. They are an excellent, established Māori health provider, and I’ve taken a number of my colleagues there. I want to mihi to Anne Hobby and her workers there for the mahi that they do in the community.

Now, what Anne and her team have told me is that prior to the establishment of the Māori Health Authority, they used to receive funding that went from the DHB, through to the primary health organisation (PHO), and then through to them. There was a ticket clipping along the way, and so, essentially, the money comes through the appropriation from health, then to the DHB, then to the PHO, then to Te Piki Oranga to provide Māori health services. What they have told me—and it’s not clear in the bill how this is going to continue, which is my question that I’m going to get to shortly with the Minister—is that with the establishment of the Māori Health Authority, they have received funding directly from the centre to their agency. It has not gone through that ticket-clipping exercise, which, having heard members opposite talk about bureaucracy, I just find it quite ironic because we’ve actually stripped away that bureaucracy and got more money to the agency and we’ve got it there faster. So I’m going to get into the questions I have around the bill and how the Minister is going to explain through this legislation how that’s going to continue.

So I understand that clause 15 of the bill amends section 30 to reflect the transfer of certain functions from the Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand. So, when I read through that section of the bill—and this is my question to the Minister—in clause 15, where it says section 30 is amended, it talks about in clause 14(4) “In section 30(1)(f), replace “the activities of the Māori Health Authority” with “the hauora Māori activities of Health New Zealand.” So my specific question is: what are the hauora Māori activities of Health New Zealand? How do they relate to the funding mechanism from the Māori Health Authority directly to providers like Te Piki Oranga? What is the operational expectation that the Minister has of how that will function in practice?

These are really relevant questions, and I again make the point that we don’t have a select committee process. If I was sitting in a select committee process, I’d be able to sit here and bounce back and forth, question back and forth, with officials. I cannot do that, and it’s actually really frustrating, because we have a significant agency that receives funding. I am not clear from this legislation and from leading this part of the legislation—and I don’t even know if this is the correct part of the legislation to read, because we don’t actually have anywhere near enough detail that we would ordinarily be provided at a select committee to be able to even know, “Am I asking about the right section of the Act?”

So I do expect more than a surface answer from the Minister about, “Oh, well, we’ll engage with this, that, and the other.” I actually want a specific answer. How will funding to Māori health providers continue under the legislation that they are putting through urgency tonight? And I am going to come back to it if this question is not answered, because it’s really, really important for my community to know how they are going to continue getting that funding without the ticket-clipping, bureaucratic exercise that we had until the introduction of the Māori Health Authority. Thank you, Mr Chair.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[What is the most important thing in this world? It is the people, it is the people, it is the people.]

I just wanted to just open this evening with this whakataukī because this is the first time I’ve spoken in the Chamber since the death of our colleague Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, and I wanted to open with that to acknowledge him but also to highlight it in the committee tonight in the context of this bill, because we know that the health of our people should be at the heart of the work of Government. Sadly, tonight, with the proposed passing of this bill, we’re neglecting the fact that what’s good for Māori is good for all of us here in Aotearoa, and we’ve lost sight of it with this bill.

I wanted to pick up specifically on clause 13 in this first part that we’re looking at. I want to do this because, despite living in a country where we’re known for our advanced healthcare system, relative to the rest of the world, it’s been well traversed earlier in the evening and in the earlier readings just how pervasive and dire the health inequities faced by Māori are. And it’s literally a matter of life and death. What makes it worse, though, is that these disparities are not only unjust but they’re also preventable.

So, in the admirable aim of any Government—and like this Government purports to be doing—who genuinely seeks to address these disparities, one powerful tool emerges, and that is independent monitoring. I really want to hear from the Minister how clause 13 actually relates to that. Now, the reason why I want to home in on the independent monitoring is it offers a pathway to actually address the disparities that we have, and it was something that Te Aka Whai Ora was tasked with in providing independent monitoring of Te Whatu Ora. It made so much sense, and it was the right thing to do in stepping toward a system that upheld Te Tiriti and stepping towards what tino rangatiratanga could actually look like for Māori in the health system here in Aotearoa. I’m sure that the Minister, with his background, will be well aware of how critical this independent monitoring role is.

Now, with this Government seeking to abolish Te Aka Whai Ora, I’d really appreciate hearing from the Minister who or what body or what system will now be put in place to take up the role of that independent monitoring, just because it’s so invaluable. We know that we need this, ideally impartial, oversight of healthcare services. We know independent monitoring ensures accountability, it helps identify areas of improvement, and it also has the ability to safeguard against discrimination within the healthcare system, which Māori, we know, are faced with every day. Now, particularly with clause 13, which inserts new section 16A “Engaging with and reporting to Māori”, it says Health New Zealand must “(b) report back to Māori from time to time”. Now, this doesn’t, to me, sound like a robust monitoring and evaluation system, so I’d really like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

In his response, I’d love to hear the appreciation and understanding that this independent monitoring role needs to be continued, and that it needs to be Māori monitoring and evaluating their own health outcomes for their people and not that it’s going to be absorbed into Te Whatu Ora where it will be a broken, discriminatory system monitoring itself. I really want to hear that acknowledgment and commitment to the essential importance of independent monitoring, and committing to supporting and amplifying the needs and voices of Māori as part of a healthcare system that truly serves the needs of all. Thank you.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll speak in reverse order to the member who’s just returned to her seat, Lan Pham, raising the question of monitoring. The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee (HMAC) will be a significant independent monitoring body, as will the Ministry of Health, who has the responsibility to actually monitor the whole health system. And, of course, Health New Zealand will have monitoring roles as well, but the independence will be with HMAC.

The question around clause 15, on section 30(1)(f), “replace ‘the activities of the Māori Health Authority’ with ‘the hauora Māori activities of Health New Zealand’.” That’s simply because the Māori Health Authority will no longer exist. Those functions needed to transfer, and they’ll transfer to the operational arm of the system, which is Health New Zealand. Clause 15—what do I envisage by “support and engagement”? Well, support would include cultural, professional, and financial support. Engagement is the collaborative communication and sharing of information. Thank you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will indicate to members that I have been watching this debate closely and we are close. It’s a while since we have had any new material, and we’ve done this. However, I will take Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my first opportunity to take a call in this debate, and I’m pleased to be able to do so and, as you’ve requested, cover some points which I don’t think have been traversed fully in Part 1, which is the substantive part of this amendment bill.

The area that I really wanted to cover is, first of all, just to make a comment that, fundamentally, the case for the Māori Health Authority is met through an evidence base. There are very few groups in society where you can say that there is a higher mortality rate, a higher infant mortality rate, higher rates of smoking, higher rates of diabetes, and higher rates of the less effectiveness of some medications. I was particularly struck when visiting the University of Auckland and actually hearing that some of the medications that are developed are less effective on some populations than on others because they’re not tested on those populations, and that does apply to Māori and Pasifika people. The actual medicine that we’re developing is not as effective. So there is so much for the Māori Health Authority to do and so much less clarity on the role of this body that the Minister seeks to establish.

In Part 1, which we are now on, one of the most important and substantive sections which I don’t think has been looked at as much as it could have been is the amendment to section 6 in clause 6, which looks at the repeal of part of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—provisions of the Act. My colleague Arena Williams, as she said in her contribution in this committee stage, has raised 40 amendments to Part 1, and the substantive number of those amendments relate to clause 6, which goes through—and in her particular amendment, she has deleted particular clauses in the amendment bill which we’re looking at, which then relate to the primary piece of legislation, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act. I hope the Minister has a copy of that Act, because that is really the substance of my colleague Arena Williams’ amendments to it.

So, if you look at her amendments, essentially, what she is suggesting to the Minister—and my question to the Minister is: does he agree that there is some value in including these clauses in the legislation as it moves forward in relation to the new committee that he’s setting up and the new regime that he’s setting up to look at Māori health? The main things that Ms Williams wants to include in this section, which I agree with, are a whole lot of Māori strategy, jointly prepared by the Māori Health Authority and the ministry—so retaining that particular functionality in those two groups. It’s also looking at retaining section 6(h) of the Pae Ora legislation, which requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards. It’s requiring Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to jointly develop and implement a New Zealand health plan and to work together in the performance of specified functions of Health New Zealand, and, most importantly, a really fundamentally important part of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, which established the Māori Health Authority, is section 6(j), which looks at the particular experience of the people who are making these decisions for Māori.

If we look comparatively at the new piece of legislation that the Minister is introducing, it does focus in the main on ministerial appointments and those who are perhaps favoured by the Government of the day. Conversely, the piece of legislation which the Minister is seeking to repeal through the passage of this legislation looks at the knowledge and experience and expertise that the people on the Māori Health Authority would have on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, kaupapa Māori services, cultural safety, and responsiveness of services. So that clause is being deleted, repealed by the section that we’re looking at in clause 6.

So my question to the Minister is this. I think, and I hope, that we can all agree that that particular range of expertise is very important. So how is that going to be reflected in the new body which is to be established? I also note that this primary piece of legislation, the Pae Ora piece of legislation, implements the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was passed democratically by this House, where everyone had a say on who was implementing the laws, and that is why it is a part of our law, which I think is an important point to remember.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for those questions. At 19.41, Grant Robertson was the third speaker on clause 6. This is now the fourth, and I’ve already indicated how we would meet our obligations under clause 6, so I don’t have anything further to say on that at this point.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on the question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

: The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare’s tabled amends to clause 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to clause 6(1) and deleting clause 27(3) are ruled out of order as being outside the principles and objects of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 19(2) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 15 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Part 4 and schedules

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 38 to 43, amendments to Part 4 and schedules of the principal Act, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. For fear of the Minister and the Government thinking that our amendments were no good, we continue to offer them as an olive branch to the Minister for future reference in order to make this bill and the legislation into the future even better.

I want to bring the attention of the Minister to Schedule 1, “New Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1”, and I want to speak directly to new clause 36, in new Part 2, which is “Transfers from Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”, and, in particular, if I may draw the Minister’s attention to clause 36(1)(e). The Minister, in a number of contributions on this bill this evening, has spoken about and actually used the word “repatriation”. When we’re talking about the workforce that already exists within Te Aka Whai Ora, the Minister’s words were “repatriation”.

Now, for some, that might give a bit of comfort that they’ll still have a job into the future. But the reality is when this Government is looking towards saving 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent, guess whose heads are on the chopping block! What the experience is—in particular in Māori health—is that when Governments look towards austerity cuts, Māori kaupapa generally are the first ones out the door or on the chopping block.

So my question is very specific to the Minister with respect to his use of the word “repatriation” of these staff. I’ve spoken to some of those staff directly and they’ve spoken to me of their anxiety. The fact that they left the original status quo health sector that the Minister is supporting and taking our health system back to—they left that because they were disillusioned that it wasn’t actually providing anything for Māori. Their skills weren’t being utilised, so they found the home at Te Aka Whai Ora and their skills were utilised to the maximum capacity.

Now they’re anxious, and the question to the Minister is that with regard to clause 36(1)(e), “subject to subclause (4), every employee of the Māori Health Authority becomes an employee of Health New Zealand on the same terms and conditions as applied immediately before they became an employee of Health New Zealand;”—wow! I can tell the Minister that a large number of those positions that were recruited in Te Aka Whai Ora were actually quite specialist positions, and do you know what? It’s only fair that for a hard day’s work you get a fair day’s wage. Our expectation from this Minister—and I would like to hear his answer to the question—is about whether or not these staff will indeed actually be, in their entirety, repatriated, and in particular when the Minister’s own finance Minister is asking for a 6.5 to 7.5 percent cut, or savings, in order to pay for tax cuts. So that’s a really important question and that will go some way to soothing, if you will, the anxieties of many of that workforce that found a home in Te Aka Whai Ora who believed in the kaupapa of Te Aka Whai Ora.

The second part to that, I say to the Minister, is that as we look across the employees of Te Aka Whai Ora—and I know this because I was the Minister responsible for doing this—we know that there were a number of arrangements that saw some of those positions actually be part funded by Te Aka Whai Ora, so that they created a substantive position there, but were also part-funded by the iwi because it was important that the iwi found their voice and their particular health aspirations in Te Aka Whai Ora. So there were some really innovative, I’ll call it, ways to make sure that those who found themselves at Te Aka Whai Ora could be used to their maximum potential. So that’s a very clear question. I’m sure, as I said, the workforce in Te Aka Whai Ora will look to the Minister to make sure that the Minister can certainly support many of those who are anxious at this point in time.

I would like to bring the Minister’s attention to the same new Part 2, clause 34, where it says in there, at clause 34(1), “Section 54, which requires localities to be determined, takes effect on 1 July 2029.”—1 July 2029. I don’t have a crystal ball, but 2029? That’s a long way away. This Minister, in this particular bill, is looking towards tying the hands of a future Government to a bill that clearly Māori do not want. So my question to the Minister here is: why so far out? Why, when the Minister has made it clear—and, in fact, the words from a number of members from the Government were saying—that tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake are found regionally, driven by iwi, driven by Māori health providers locally, why, then, does this particular Part 2, clause 34(1), which requires localities to be determined, take effect on 1 July 2029? That’s some way down the track, and I want to hear from the Minister: is this the vision that’s been asked for by this side of the House? Is this the vision that the Minister is providing us? Because if that’s the case, it’s not flying with me, and I suspect that it won’t fly with Māori health providers up and down the country.

The final question I have for this particular part in Schedule 1 is to the next subclause—so clause 34(2)—which says, “Section 55, which requires a locality plan to be developed for each locality, takes effect on 1 July 2030.” Well, I’m just seeking some clarity here. We’ve got two different dates here which seemingly talk about the same thing around localities, and we’ve already heard this evening how important localities are to the way that we look towards devolving services, commissioning for outcomes, etc. So just some clarity, if the Minister wouldn’t mind on the two separate dates there, I’m sure that will go some way to even encouraging, perhaps, more questions from, I know, myself and other members on this side of the Chamber about, “OK, if there’s clarity there and we understand what the vision is here, then how can we continue to make sure that the strategy is clear for the Māori health sector?”

Just to recap, that’s a question relating to clause 36(1)(e) and, of course, clause 34(1) and (2). I look forward to hearing from the Minister on those matters.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member who’s just returned to seat, the Hon Peeni Henare, for his questions. I used the word “repatriation” because what we know from the independent report into the Māori Health Authority—2022, I think that report came out; could have been 2023, May 2023—was that there was some concerns that Māori with skills were taken from Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority and those from Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health, leaving them somewhat eviscerated for those skills. So when I use “repatriation”, it is to return them to what was their initial home. I do take the point that maybe part of their leaving was dissatisfaction and unhappiness with—I do understand that.

Clause 36(1)(e) describes what we’re talking about here—clause 34(1) talks to section 54, and clause 34(2) talks to section 55. I’ve discussed localities at some length here tonight across Part 1, and I remain of the statements that I’ve made that localities are simply paused, pending a view as to where they sit in a new configuration. The choosing of that date was just a placeholder date. There was nothing particularly special about that.

There was one other point, sorry. I meant to mention clause 36(1)(e), the transfer to the Māori Health Authority. That’s consistent with the transfers Act and so is bound in the legislation of the transfers Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take the next speaker, members should be aware that that the new system of committee—well, it’s not really new—is questions and answers. Now, members are entitled to take five-minute calls and that will be taken into account. However, the whole idea is that we get the interaction going with the Minister. So I would invite members to actually certainly take your time to ask your question, but it just will assist in keeping the information flow going.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to seek a little bit more clarification with respect to the exchange that you’re expecting. Is it your preference that upon receiving the call, we indicate that we will seek to have that exchange for fear of sitting down and losing the call?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yeah, a wise and experienced member might stand and say, “I intend to ask several questions here of the member in the chair.”, and the Chair will then know. I do realise that there are different Chairs here and we all have our own styles, but certainly while I’m in the Chair, which I will be over the next day or so, I leave it open to the members to conduct business that way.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you. Being wise, I intend to ask a series of questions. So the first is in reference—and there’s quite extensive pages, I guess, involving new Part 2, clause 36, on the transfer of assets belonging to the Māori Health Authority and how the Minister sees that, I guess, transitioning.

There are a couple of questions that come to mind. The first thing is that this kaupapa, Te Aka Whai Ora has mauri and has a name. And it has a name that was gifted to it. It has a name that was gifted to it by te ao Māori that comes with significant depth and meaning. If it is indeed this coalition Government’s intention to put that name to rest, where and how can we expect—and I will take on the fact that the Minister has spoken about cultural competency and, indeed, cultural integrity. Where and how does the Minister believe that the mauri of the name, the aspirations of the name and those of our kuia and our w’ānau that were involved with it, belongs? That leads me to—I guess it’s not actually, Minister, where it belongs. How do you see yourself putting that to rest, and where do the iwi and the people involved belong in that transferral?

This then leads me to my next question, which comes again around the lengthy—and I guess I can do from clause 36(1)(a) to clause 40, and it carries on to page 15, from memory. Our biggest value out of all of this is our people and the fact that they were bold and courageous enough to give their time and their energy, their expertise to this kaupapa, and in fact, it’s really important that we gather the experiences, the lessons, and the data that they have. There is a lengthy reference to those of our people who most of us consider as tohunga, whether it be from the manager on the board, to the youngest, newest staff member that’s come and contributed to the belief that this model was going to make a huge impact to our communities. Where and how is the Minister proposing to hold that value?

I’m proposing to ensure that that value continues to stay in a health kaupapa that has primarily been focused on the speciality of Māori in addressing inequities in Māori. Knowing that we have such a shortage of qualified, experienced, and skilled people, how can we be assured that the Minister has not only considered the biggest value that we have, which are our whānau, our kaimahi, our kaitautoko, our kaihautū, on this waka that has, as I think the chair quite rightly put, been put ashore until the tide changes—it would be really critical for us connected to the communities and those connected to the iwi. Certainly, one of the questions that has been given by iwi-Māori partnership board members is: what happens to our biggest asset or value, which is our people?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for those questions. With regards to recognising the special place of name as a taonga, this was put to me by the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, and I suggested to them that if they wanted to make recommendations, I would take their advice. So I do understand that. I do understand where it came from. And in their capable hands, I envisage it will be placed safely back.

Secondly, I’ve already mentioned, in the first reading, the importance of organisational knowledge and retaining that and the vital importance of staff who have transferred and the hope that they’ll transfer with us into these two new homes, these two new vehicles, and help us with the mission that we have. To that effect, I have tasked the leadership, who will be transitioning also, with paying particular attention that we retain the best learnings, the best knowledge that may have come from this period of time with the Māori Health Authority so that we can take this into the new organisations.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to start my contribution by reading from the evidence of our auntie Moe Milne. Paragraph 12: “I was part of the branding and naming of Te Aka Whai Ora. We were very deliberate about what we were talking about. Te Aka Whai Ora were the vines from the whenua ki te rangi—our connections, our intertwining, the intertwining vines in the pursuit of oranga and wellbeing. Te Aka Whai Ora is the wellness of our people.” I’m just going to leave that there for the Minister to think about when he thinks about what he is going to do with the taonga that was gifted to this Government for Te Aka Whai Ora.

I want to talk about the determination of localities and locality plans. The Minister said that he has already spoken to this in previous debates, but this clearly comes within the part that we are debating now and the schedule that we are debating now. It is new Part 2, which is inserted into Schedule 1. It is clause 34 and, in particular, sections 54 and 55 and dates that are going to be amended.

What I want to refer to here—and I’m just going to pull it up. I’m skipping between what is currently in the Act and what is being proposed in the legislation that we have before us. I think that when it comes to localities and locality plans, this is actually something all New Zealanders should be concerned about, not just Māori. This is being dressed up as and presented as, what I would call, virtue signalling: “We’re going to get rid of Te Aka Whai Ora. We’re going to do it within 100 days. Look at us; look how great we are delivering on our election promises.” I can talk to you about no consultation, not following any due processes, doing it under parliamentary urgency, but what all New Zealanders need to know is that localities and locality plans were not just for Māori, they were not just for Te Aka Whai Ora; they are actually part of how the whole pae ora legislation functions.

So the Minister is delaying these by years. The proposal is an arbitrary time frame that he just thought up as a placeholder, and he has given us no reason, no proper justification, as to why he has picked this time frame in the proposed legislation. Why this is important not just for Māori but for all New Zealanders is because when you look at locality plans, section 55 of the principal Act states that “(1) Health New Zealand must develop a locality plan for each locality. (2) A locality plan must—(a) set out the priority outcomes and services for the locality; and (b) state the plan’s duration, which must, as a minimum, be 3 consecutive financial years; and (c) give effect to the relevant requirements of the New Zealand Health Plan; and (d) include a statement of progress against the priority outcomes set out in the previous locality plan, unless it is the first locality plan for that locality. (3) In developing a locality plan for a locality, Health New Zealand must—(a) consult consumers and communities within the locality;”—so I think about Northland and I think about Te Tai Tokerau. This is not just about consulting Te Aka Whai Ora and iwi-Māori partnership boards; this is the entire community.

The whole point of the pae ora legislation was to end a postcode lottery for health services. I was in my communities talking to my communities about the postcode lottery we have had in Tai Tokerau for health services. Come and visit. Come and see the health inequities. In fact, the Minister, a former GP in that area, knows these well. So your delay to 2029 and 2030 means the entire community that lives within these localities are now going to have to wait to have input into the health plan, to have input into what’s going to go into the Government policy statement (GPS), to have input and what is going to receive financial support.

I don’t think the Minister just dreamt up 2029 and 2030. That puts it beyond their current term. That actually puts this now beyond their term of Government. Basically, they are kicking the can down the road—“We don’t want to give locals a voice in the development of their health strategy and plans that we are then going to have to deliver on through a Budget process.” Please explain to me if I am misunderstanding what the point of your pushing out of the time frames is.

Section 55(3) says, “In developing a locality plan for a locality, Health New Zealand must—(a) consult consumers and communities … (b) consult local authorities affected by the … plan;”—sorry, Far North District Council; sorry, Whangarei District Council; sorry, Kaipara District Council. You’ll have to wait until 2029-30 when I might come and have a kōrero to you about the concerns for your health needs and aspirations in your area. You have to consult the social sector agencies and other entities that contribute to the relevant population outcomes within a locality. Sorry, all of you providers. We’re not coming to talk to you until 2029-30.” “I’m going to set health targets,” is what the health Minister said, “but I’m not going to follow any of the processes in the legislation which gives a local voice.”

Now, this has been done under urgency. There is no select committee process. Do all New Zealanders understand that in the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, you’re actually sneaking in other fundamental changes that are impacting the way in which this legislation operates to deliver health services to our community—do they? Well, it’s pretty late, there’s no select committee process, this will be done by tomorrow, and the very mechanisms in this legislation to make it work, to deliver pae ora for all will be gone.

Oh, sorry, it also says here that you will engage with the Māori Health Authority—that’s going to be gone—and iwi-Māori partnership boards for the area covered by the plan, and you’ll consult any other individual or group that Health New Zealand considers appropriate.

It says that a locality plan is made when it is agreed by Health New Zealand, the Māori Health Authority, and relevant Māori organisation, iwi-Māori partnership boards—right? This isn’t just about disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora; this is about fundamentally changing the mechanisms within this legislation that will deliver healthy futures for all. So can the Minister, again, please tell the entire committee—or not “again” and “please tell”, because you haven’t yet. Can the Minister please explain to the committee why it is necessary to change the date for localities and locality plans to 2029 and 2030, and how will all of those in section 55 who were going to have a role in developing their locality plan, which was going to inform the strategy and the GPS, now have their say in the processes going forward?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. It’s incumbent upon me to share with the committee my intimate knowledge of the establishment of iwi-Māori partnership boards and localities in Tai Tokerau, having spent two years working on the predecessor Kotui Hauora, a DHB-iwi relationship board, and then in Te Taumata Hauora o Te Tai Tokerau and the locality space. My question is unique and different to what has been put forward by my colleagues, but it does relate to the time line of the legislation and, in particular, for localities for 1 July 2029.

Now, not all localities in Tai Tokerau have been established. There have been expressions of interest to commence the work, and Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora have received those letters of intention. However, for the past six to, now, 12 months, Te Whatu Ora, as the fund holder, have held on to the dollar. There has been no ability for iwi, hapū, marae, community, and councils to commence the work together to establish a locality. So, you know, the instance or the argument that somehow Te Whatu Ora is going to be the golden egg for Māori health—when hapū, iwi, and marae come together with providers and councils and say, “We’re ready to go”, we don’t get a dollar to start the conversation.

Now, saying that, I’m asking the Minister of Health my direct question around the time line of 1 July 2029: will there be resourcing available for our people to do that important work so we can have lift off at this date, so that our locality plans can be well developed by that date, because we know community engagement takes a while. I’m not saying Ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi are always a cohesive group; I’m not saying that we have strong relationship with council day to day, but it takes time. So I think that this is an opportunity for us to resource the engine room—which is community, it is hapū, it is marae—through the locality space, up into 2029, so that we can cut the ribbon and say, “Here we go, we have localities across the nation, with locality plans in place, and we’re good to go across the health system.” This is an opportunity for this Government to resource us to get on with the job. So that’s my question: will you resource us to do the locality work that we’ve been waiting for for quite some time?

The second question is relating to our employees of Te Aka Whai Ora, and specifically to clause 43 in the new Part 2 to be inserted into Schedule 1 of the principal Act. Now, I’m mindful that there are just under 300 kaimahi within Te Aka Whai Ora and many of them are across regional spaces, the hospitals—Hokianga, Whangārei, Kerikeri, and there’s a few in the Wellington and Auckland areas too. My question is in terms of the policies and their status, of the lift and shift into Te Whatu Ora. Minister, our whānau in Te Aka Whai Ora are specialists, as we’ve heard from Peeni Henare. They are based in locations in kāinga for a reason. Te Aka Whai Ora are like a hub and a spoke. Te Aka Whai Ora provided the tap root, the tree was established, and then they were the kaimahi in the rohe. Will their conditions be the same transferring to Te Whatu Ora, or will they become a part of the 80,000 strong workforce of Te Whatu Ora and be expected to move to Whangārei or expected to move to Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, or Wellington to become a part of the big 80,000-strong workforce?

So I’m concerned for the cousins in the regions who deliver outcomes for our people and are the listening ear. So Te Aka Whai Ora commissioned them to be listening ears in the kāinga. So when we lift and shift them to Te Whatu Ora, will we continue to support them to stay in those locations, or will they be centralised? Kia ora.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. To speak to the member before the one who has just resumed her seat—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime—the questions she raised were exactly those raised by the former Minister Peeni Henare about 16 minutes previously on clause 34(1) and section 54, and clause (2) and section 55, and I don’t envisage repeating that. I also met with whaea Moe Milne about three weeks ago, and we discussed the importance of the name. I indicated to her that the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee had said that they would provide recommendations and that I’d be highly likely to take up their recommendations. I met with her also, so I do understand the importance of the name.

To the member who has just taken her seat—Hūhana Lyndon—again, that was a discussion on localities, which I have discussed in detail, and regarding the transfer of staff terms and conditions, it will, as I say, remain as the Health Sector (Transfers) Act requires. I don’t envisage those who are out in the regions being consumed and consolidated centrally, and our initial thinking is that people will stay. Certainly, those in the regions will stay as they are is our initial thinking.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I just wanted to pick up on what the Minister of Health was just saying, because transfer of undertakings, of course, is one of the most important areas, particularly for kaimahi, for workers. We have a whole history, as union representatives will attest, of constant problems—I’m looking at, again, clause 36(1)(d) of new Part 2, inserted in Schedule 1, in terms of transfer of undertakings. I want to come to this as a very important area. I worked in this area for years, and we’ve had constant problems in terms of transfer of undertakings. As you’ll see, clause 36(1)(d) says, “all rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements, undertakings, and engagements of the Māori Health Authority become the rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements, undertakings, and engagements of Health New Zealand”. Now, with so much negative publicity around this, what type of guarantees can our Minister give us with regards to continual recognition of conditions, of employment, of wages?

This is not a secure area at all, and I think if you follow the clauses after the transfer of undertakings, you will see how complex an area this is, because if you go to paragraph (f), you will read, “anything done, or omitted to be done, or that is to be done, by or in relation to the Māori Health Authority is to be treated as having been done”—whatever the hell that means. I wouldn’t mind an explanation on that “or having been omitted to be done, or to be done, by or in relation to Health New Zealand”. When you read that type of language, you know, it makes workers feel very, very insecure. They’re not sure of where they’re going. They’re not sure of any guarantees in terms of continual employment. I have heard the Minister say, but I thought he was a little bit casual, with respect, in terms of “Well, everything will be just carried on.” We have heard that many, many times—many, many times. Wages have been adjusted; people have lost their jobs.

We are in a very insecure environment here, so I wouldn’t mind some clarity from the Minister with regards to this and how the culture of the Māori Health Authority is going to be continued in terms of Health New Zealand. He talked about Moe Milne, and I’m glad he’s consulting with a wonderful kuia like her—one of the most revered kuia of the North, no doubt about that—and I’m sure our kuia there would have told him about some of the insecurities of some of her kids, her nephews, her nieces.

Transfer of undertaking, Mr Chair—and you would know, yourself—has been one of the most controversial areas in the history of work relations and unions. I was a union official for 17, 18 years. Many times—many times—we had to go back in and renegotiate. So what has the Minister got in place to deal with this type of kaupapa? How is he going to safeguard workers? Have these workers been consulted? Are these workers members of unions? We have a variety of different kaimahi there who have allegiances, some of them who might be in the unions; some of them who are not in the unions, and so how have they been made to feel secure going forward? I think these are big questions in terms of transfer of undertakings. Also, what security are they going to be given in terms of retention of culture?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. That’s a really good question from the member and I thank him for that. I’ve been informed that the vast majority of people who moved from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand to the Māori Health Authority moved under the Health Sector (Transfers) Act 1993. So exactly the same provisions that didn’t raise concern when they first moved there will actually be the mechanism that puts them back.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Well, thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to thank the Minister for that response, because also, as I speak to clause 43(2) in Schedule 1, this is taking a specific micro-look at some of these matters, when we consider the kind of transfer and references made by my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson about our workers, and that clause 43(2) says, “Health New Zealand must undertake a reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy that is reasonably likely to have a material effect on that employee.” Well, what we know about Te Aka Whai Ora is that, actually, the unique way that they were able to look after their kaimahi—their workers—in order to serve that community, it is a specifically and uniquely Māori view here.

We’re looking for something far more detailed from the Minister with respect to his answer, when it clearly says here in clause 43(2) “Health New Zealand must undertake a reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy that is reasonably likely to have a material effect on that employee.” Well, I can tell the Minister with experience—oh, actually, the Minister will know this—across Māori health providers, of course Māori health providers do things in a specifically Māori way, in particular to look after their kaimahi. Those are their employment policies that they look to employ in order to make sure that their unique Māori view—in particular with respect to Te Aka Whai Ora—is actually seen as a strength and not a weakness in the way that we employ kaimahi.

So the question here is very specific about the consultation that Health New Zealand will undertake so that there is no material effect on that employee. I think that’s really important, so I’m going to leave that question for the Minister, and hopefully get that micro kind of answer that we’re looking towards as we think about employment.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is in relation to clause 40 in new Part 2 of Schedule 1, which is “Transfer of employees of Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”, and it says here that “(1) This clause applies to an employee of the Māori Health Authority if, before the commencement date, the employee is notified in writing by the chief executive of the Māori Health Authority that—(a) this clause applies to the employee; and (b) on the commencement date, the employee will become an employee of Health New Zealand.” I cannot imagine the stress and worry that Te Aka Whai Ora employees are suffering at the moment. We’ve heard about lift and shift for Te Aka Whai Ora staff. Is the Minister going to guarantee employment security for staff and their existing conditions?

When I read what’s in this document, I don’t see something that gives me great confidence. So I’d like to hear from the Minister as to his clarification on Health New Zealand’s reasonable consultation process that we’ve just heard there because of the material impacts that’s going to have, because back in December, the Government passed legislation to bring back 90-day trials for all employers and the Government has already pushed many more people and communities into precarity. This is a real concern for our nation.

So in new subclause (4), it says, “To avoid doubt, subclause (3)—(a) does not entitle an employee who was not covered by the earlier agreement to be covered by the new collective agreement; and (b) does not prevent the parties to the new collective agreement from varying or terminating the agreement in accordance with the terms of the agreement and other applicable law.” I think we all deserve clarity on the employee’s exposure to risk in the new arrangements. I would really like to hear from the Minister.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to take a call and talk to different parts of the schedule that we have in front of us tonight. So I do want to say that is going to happen.

But the Minister said that he had met with our whaea Moe Milne, and that he’s going to heed the advice of her committee on what to do with the name Te Aka Whai Ora. But I want to know: is he going to heed the advice that she has for him through her evidence in the Waitangi Tribunal? She said, “This Government has been totally disloyal by disproving and denying Māori any sense of ownership and influence over Māori health”. She said, “The hurt. The first sense that I had when I heard the announcement was real hurt. I wanted to sit down and cry when I heard that. How dare this Government negate us? How dare they withdraw and unwind aspirations in the hope that we revert? We are not going to revert.”, and she said, at clause 7, paragraph 7, “Our disappointment is that some of this is being directed by people who have whakapapa to Te Tai Tokerau, to our home. It is a violation and a betrayal”.

The clause that I want to ask about in particular is the interpretation—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yes, you will be back more specifically on the—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I’m on it—I’m on it. I was just responding to the Minister saying that he had met with Moe Milne around the name Te Aka Whai Ora—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): From here on, let’s just stick to the bill.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Happy to, Mr Chair. I have got that now on the Hansard. What I want to talk to is clause 32, which is interpretation and commencement date—it means the date on which the amendment Act comes into force. I want to talk to it specifically in this schedule, not in its own clause, in the schedule, because that’s what the interpretation of this is. What I find absolutely unbelievable is that the commencement for this—well (1) I don’t like what’s happening, but (2) the commencement for it is not until 30 June.

So why, why, Minister, are we hearing—why are we dealing with this piece of legislation under urgency today, and now going into tomorrow morning.

Miles Anderson: That’s not a new question.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: It is a new question. Listen up! Who is not listening?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’re actually not on to the commencement.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, we’re in the interpretation, and the interpretation in the Schedule—I’ve read it out, and it’s clause 32. So, here, for the ones at the back that don’t know, is new Part 2, inserted into Schedule 1. Part 2, “Provisions relating to Provisions relating to Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Act 2024.”

Hon Member: What’s your question to the Minister?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: You know, he thinks I’m not in the right clause. Clause 32, “Interpretation”, “In this Part,—’amendment Act’ ”—what does that mean—and “commencement date”. That means the date on which the amendment Act comes into force. Now, what is that date? That date is 30 June 2024. So why?

Why are we having this legislation introduced this evening, passed—likely—tomorrow morning, when it’s not even going to come into effect until 30 June? I know why. It’s because there’s a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, where all of the Minister’s relations are coming to present their evidence in opposition to the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. Why is there no select committee process? There is time, but, no, we’re going to pass it all under urgency by tomorrow morning, but it’s not actually going to come into effect until 30 June. So that would have allowed us ample time to have a select committee process, because apparently you only allow, like, one day for submissions.

The Minister has decided to rush this through under urgency, with no consultation. Your own departmental disclosure statement says “no consultation”. You had an opportunity to have a select committee process—no, thank you! You know there is a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry about to take place on Thursday, but no: “I can introduce this legislation today, and we can curtail the mana in the authority of the tribunal to be able to inquire into that evidence.”

I can see I’ve got 10 seconds on the clock and I’m not finished on this point. So the tribunal would have been, if was allowed to have its hearings scheduled for the—[Time expired]

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair, and apologies to my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime for taking over the call, because I think she was keen to—and I know she’s got a lot of new material to continue bringing to the debate. But I was just reflecting, Mr Chair, on your advice to the committee of the whole House earlier around engaging in a little bit of quick-fire with the Minister of Health, so I’m quite keen to do that, and so I’m hoping that the Minister might take me up on that opportunity.

Because we’ve been talking around employment relations, I’m specifically interested to know if the Minister has met with any of the unions that represent the workers that are affected. Specifically, has he met with the Public Service Association, has he met with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, or has he met with any other health unions—or have any of his officials—to specifically talk through the transfer and the employment rights for those who will be transferring from one agency to another? I’m hoping that the Minister may engage in some of that quick-fire with me now.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe. The Minister hasn’t answered my question regarding resourcing for localities up into the date of July 2029. I ask this again as a member of hapū and iwi in Whangārei who wait to be resourced by Te Whatu Ora to do this very important work. So I’d like to receive an answer: if there will be resourcing to allow us to do this work up into this date.

Further, he inoi tēnei ki te Minita e pā ana ki te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora. I haere ahau ki te whakatuwhera, te whakarewatanga o te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora ki Waitangi. He hui nui, he hui whakahirahira mō te iwi, mō te motu whānui. Ki reira ka rongo i ngā kaikōrero e whakamārama ana i ngā kupu ōhākī o rātou mā, me te whakamārama i te ingoa “Te Aka Whai Ora”.

Kua tono mai taku whaea, Debbie, “He aha te tikanga kia whakamoea te ingoa ‘Te Aka Whai Ora’?” Nō reira he tono tēnei mai i tēnei uri o Te Taitokerau: me hoki anō te kaupapa ki Waitangi kia whakamoea te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora, ka tika. Kia ora.

[Further, this is a request to the Minister with respect to the name of Te Aka Whai Ora. I attended the opening, the launch of the name of Te Aka Whai Ora in Waitangi. It was a significant meeting, an important meeting for the people, and for the wider nation. There I heard the speakers explain the parting words of those who have passed on, and also explain the name “Te Aka Whai Ora”.

My Aunty Debbie asked of me, “What is the reason for putting the name ‘Te Aka Whai Ora’ to sleep?” So this is a request from this descendant of Northland: the initiative should return to Waitangi so that the name of Te Aka Whai Ora may be put to rest; it is the most appropriate thing to do. Kia ora.]

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Hūhana Lyndon, who has just taken her chair. As I said, I’ll take advice from the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee on the best way to return that taonga, and I do understand that.

I also want to talk to the two members Peeni Henare and Scott Willis, who raised the question around clause 43(2), inserted by new Part 2 into Schedule 1, around a reasonable consultation. I’ve been advised that that terminology copies provisions of existing schedules and the consultation mirrors the Employment Relations Act.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. Kia orana. Look, it’s a pleasure to contribute to this debate that’s moving through the committee through urgency at the moment. I want to take a call because I received a message from one of my constituents in Palmerston North that was concerned that the House was using its time where they were not able to have an opportunity to perhaps submit on this process. [Interruption] So I do want to acknowledge the fact—and members opposite might not like the fact that people in electorates are unhappy with this process, and that’s exactly why we’re here tonight at the late hour on their behalf to ask the questions of the Government and to put these issues to the Minister, because they have not had an opportunity out in the community to actually put forward their views.

But I do want to just put to the Minister. He has responded to some of the issues around the localities and the locality planning, but there is still, I think, an outstanding response from the Minister, and I implore him to consider responding, which is, he has indicated that he has, effectively, randomly selected a date at some point in the future. It’s still not quite clear, Minister—in light of some of the feedback and the questions that have been put to you—whether you’re still comfortable with that date, at some point in time, given some of the issues that have been raised. So I think that’s still an outstanding point.

My colleague Rachel Boyack and also the Hon Willie Jackson touched on some of the transfer of entitlements, and there’s still an outstanding question around what level of engagement with worker representations and unions has actually been undertaken by the Minister in light of the fact that this will have implications. Now, it might appear on face value that these implications might just appear on paper, but we are talking about a change in the workplace which may come with a change in the culture in the workplace. And surely there must be an opportunity for those who are going to be directly impacted as new, or potentially new, employees in a new entity—even though the entity is an existing one—the opportunity to be heard. So I’m just interested around that as well.

Minister, I note that in terms of the new proposal, which is clause 36(1)(b), this is relating to, effectively, the transfer of assets and the transfer of information. I note that paragraph (b) talks about all of the information and documents that would be held by the Māori Health Authority are, effectively, held by Health New Zealand. What I’m not quite clear on are two things: one is how that information is securely retained, and it might be that it is actually answered in paragraph (d) further down there. But there’s no indication about—OK, the information might be held by Health New Zealand, but what about the access to it? So on what basis can the information be accessed on an ongoing basis, and also will the information have some indication that it previously was part of a former entity that no longer exists?

The reason why I ask the Minister this is that there are many pieces of information that would be retained—well, not retained. It would be obtained by a new entity that might actually have some archival or former relevance. I note that there is reference in this bill that relates to the context, unless the context otherwise dictates or indicates.

But there is still some uncertainty about not just the retaining of the information but how it is going to be accessed and how it might be used, because there are other implications potentially—I don’t know. I mean, that’s why I think it’s important, Minister. If you were to take a call to respond to that in terms of not just holding the information but how it might be accessed, I think that might be quite not just unique but important.

So those are the questions that I suggest the Minister may wish to take a call on, but I’d be very interested on behalf of the constituents of Palmerston North for a response given that the House is, effectively, sitting under urgency without an opportunity for scrutiny this evening.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. I’ll give the Minister the opportunity to more fully answer that tomorrow. The House will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you for your work tonight.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).

TUESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2024

(continued on Wednesday, 28 February 2024)

Bills

Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Amendments to Part 4 and schedules (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. When we suspended last night, we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 38 to 43, amendments to Part 4 and schedules of the principal Act, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question, again, is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. Mōrena to members, despite how urgency works and we go into another day. Mōrena to everybody here. Mōrena to the Minister, and I do want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Shane Reti for such a lengthy time in the chair. He’s done his job to try to answer the many questions that have been put to him by this side of the Chamber about this particular bill. I won’t spend too much time recapping. As we come to Part 2, it’s really important, though, as we get into the real technical, or some might say—and I spoke to my daughter this morning before she went to school—the nitty-gritty, and it’s now our chance to prosecute just a few more of the matters in Part 2.

This is where I want to start. Last night, I asked a question around clause 43, in New Part 2, which is inserted into Schedule 1. The Minister’s answer was to speak to the Employment Relations Act, if I recall correctly. While I appreciate that the Employment Relations Act is there and it does what it does—it’s a very good Act and, if Labour had their way again, we’d probably make a few more changes just to continue to secure more workers’ rights—it’s really important, though, because this particular clause, clause 43, is slightly more granular, and I mentioned this last night. It does talk to policy. The legislation is there as a structure. The policy, however—and Te Aka Whai Ora in its establishment—was very clear that it was going to be for the pedagogy of a Māori world view. That means, then, that we use the Employment Relations Act as a skeleton, if you will, but, by crikey, the policies there were, first and foremost, Māori policies. I want to remind the Minister that, in clause 43, it says that Health New Zealand must undertake a reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy that is reasonably likely to have a material effect on that employee. That’s important. It doesn’t talk about changing the law—the Employment Relations Act. It talks very specifically about policies that have a material effect on that employee.

We spoke at length last night about the plight of those employees at Te Aka Whai Ora, and the anxiety they must be feeling as the uncertainty dawns upon them that the taonga that our tūpuna—and many members in this House and particularly on this side of the House—have fought so hard for could be gone by lunch time today. So I want to just remind the Minister why that granular stuff is important. To just simply say that the Employment Relations Act—well, no we’re talking very specifically here about employment policy. Yes, the Act can help steer and direct policy, but without Te Aka Whai Ora, which was materially different in the way that it employs, the way that it looks after its staff, and in the world view that it continues to carry—so I’m asking the Minister, with the officials by his side, whether they are able to tell us exactly what that means and why it is important, because of the anxiety that will affecting, in the Minister’s own words, a health workforce that is under the pump. I think the Minister’s words yesterday were that the health workforce is “shattered.”

Well, that is why this is important, and I want to make sure that the Minister has the opportunity to address that, so that as we continue to discuss these matters with those who are employed by Te Aka Whai Ora, we can continue to support them. That’s important because very soon we’ll get to the title and commencement clauses, and if the commencement date is not until June but this law is changing now, we want to make sure that over the next four months those staff have a very clear pathway, a very clear platform for the work they’re doing, in order to continue to serve our communities. So that’s the question that I’m still seeking answers to. I want to thank the Minister, though, for his forbearance and his attempt to continue to answer the questions from this side. So, in that vein, let’s start the day off well, and that’s my question to the Minister.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that you are new in the Chair this morning, I will just say that my questions from my last contributions last night haven’t actually been responded to by the Minister. The debate was closed down after that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I was watching.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you. I’m going to start on a different clause, but I still want answers to my previous contribution.

I want to talk to clause 40 of new Part 2 in Schedule 1. This is my first contribution on clause 40. I want to talk to clause 40 and to clause 43, but I may not be able to do that in the five short minutes that I’ve got. Clause 40 is about the transfer of employees, and I want to know: did the Minister consult with the unions about this legislation that has been brought under urgency?

I want to refer to a press release put out by the Public Service Association (PSA), who are saying that “The Government’s decision to ram legislation abolishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, through the House under urgency is a travesty of democracy and an insult to te Tiriti o Waitangi. PSA Te Kaihautū Māori Janice Panoho says the indecent haste with which the legislation is being pushed through shows how desperate the Government is to avoid scrutiny of [any] divisive decision that has been universally panned by Māori” and public health service experts.

I want to say that in their press release, they said that “ ‘Māori health workers, who are experts on how to address Māori health inequity, have also been shut out of this discussion … The debate about Te Aka Whai Ora goes to the heart of the wider debate about the relationship between Māori and the Crown and yet Māori, who will be the most impacted, have not even been afforded a conversation,’ Panoho says. ‘For such an important Constitutional issue it is vital that Parliamentary processes are used to allow proper public scrutiny and debate rather than to lock out people with dissenting voices.’ Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi, the Public Service Association represents about 30,000 workers in the health sector. Of the PSA’s 92,000 members more than 10,000 identify as Māori. The PSA views the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora as attack on Mana Motuhake and the ability of Māori to deliver health services for Māori in a way that works for Māori. ‘Te Aka Whai Ora aimed to tackle the well documented barriers Māori face to accessing health care. There is clear evidence of Māori health inequalities that deserves to be addressed by more than empty slogans and a rushed parliamentary process … This Government promised evidence-based decisions, but like its decision to row back smoking reforms, which also impact Māori, it would rather embrace ideology than good public health policy.’ ”—

Mike Butterick: Where’s the question?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The question was right at the beginning: did he meet with the PSA? Has he afforded the employees who are going to be impacted by clause 40, “Transfer of employees of Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”—I am reading for the committee’s benefit the press release from the PSA, who say they have not even been afforded the opportunity, the decency, to have any consultation about this legislation, which is being rushed through urgency.

So my question to the Minister is: did you talk to the unions? Did you talk to any of the kaimahi? Do you think that it would have been appropriate to talk to your kaimahi Māori who work for Te Aka Whai Ora, who work in the health system, who have the responsibility, the weight, of delivering these health services for our whānau? Did you talk to them about your proposed changes? Not you, Madam Chair—to the Minister. Did the Minister meet with unions? Did he meet with delegates? Did he meet with kaimahi to talk about the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora? Because it would appear, from the press release put out by the PSA, that that has not happened, and I think that is disgraceful. I look forward to the answer.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the members for their questions. I want to go back to the last question last night from member Utikere. He was asking again around the date in the future for locality plans, which is 2029, which I’d already said was a placeholder for localities. He was asking how that number came to be. I said it was just a placeholder. It turns out, in further discussion with officials, that there are certainly clear precedents for the five-year period. I won’t read through a range of legislation which has review periods of five years. One, two, three, four, five, six—probably at least seven. Then it’s also commented to me that it’s also used in international instruments—so a clear figure there.

Again, the question was raised around the transfer arrangements. The transfer arrangements, as I discussed many times last night—indeed, the member who’s just taken her seat, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, has also raised the question—are consistent with the Health Sector (Transfers) Act, which was how people were transferred from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand into the Māori Health Authority anyway. In fact, member Jackson also asked exactly that same question. So it is the same process, actually in the same legislation, putting those people, repatriating them, back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

The member also asked about data probity when that information is transferred back into those two organisations. What I’ll say to that is it’s consistent with all of Government data policies—that transfer of information that will accompany the Māori Health Authority.

The member this morning raised the question around clause 43(2) of new Part 2 in Schedule 1, which was also raised by member Willis and others during the debate last night, and that’s around the “reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy”. I’ll elaborate further on that, because the reply to that wasn’t just that it’s consistent with the Employment Relations Act, but it’s also been copied across from existing schedules. It already sits there as part of the legislation—that narrative, that wording, is already there—and it just happens to be consistent with the Employment Relations Act as well.

To the member who’s just taken her seat, the question she asked at 21.46 last night, questions of timing—already addressed that, thoroughly and multiple times during this debate, so I don’t envisage going there again. The transfers Act, which I’ve just described—that describes a process by which the workforce will transfer back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

Furthermore, the good discussions I have had with the leadership of the Māori Health Authority give me every faith that they will address the concerns that the member has just raised.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I have a new contribution to our questions to the Minister. It’s in new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1, clause 36(4), and it’s really related to the CEO of Te Aka Whai Ora. We have heard, at length, the lift and shift of our kaimahi from Te Aka Whai Ora to Te Whatu Ora, but in reading the fine print of new Part 2, we can see that the chief executive officer of Te Aka Whai Ora will not become an employee of Te Whatu Ora.

May I speak to the quality of this woman, Riana Manuel. She is an inspirational wahine Māori—health leadership in action, homegrown in Hauraki, and uri of Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia Kāinga, a wahine toa. She is well versed across the health system and appointed to lead, alongside Margie Apa, our new direction forward through Te Pae Ora. I was excited myself as a colleague and former kaimahi Māori in hauora to see these two wāhine appointed to the helm of these waka hauora, Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora. And yet now we see the loss of talent to the health sector in Riana Manuel now transferring over to Te Whatu Ora, which is the right thing to do, really, because, you know, the vision was Te Waka Hourua—that Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora would move as one—taha Māori and taha tangata Tiriti. And yet in this legislation, we are losing one of our very critical health leaders who has moved us over a number of years to realising our first tino rangatiratanga model in hauora Māori history.

So I come with solutions. I’m trying to be positive in this space, despite the pāpouri and the hēmanawa that I feel within my heart for hauora Māori today, and I offer to the Minister the opportunity to take transformational leadership and appoint Riana Manuel as a co-CEO with Margie Apa to lead Te Whatu Ora into the future. How wonderful would that be for both te iwi Māori and our tangata Tiriti to work together to lead Te Waka Hauora or Te Whatu Ora. That would give effect to the transfer, the vision, that Te Whatu Ora would be that vehicle to support improving Māori health outcomes—if we honour the health leadership appointed by the boards, Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora, to lead the co-design of our new Waka Hauora.

So it is my proposal to the Minister that, actually, we don’t need this clause in the legislation and we could remove it, and she could be moved, and that we recognise the mana of this woman, and her hapū, her iwi, and her contributions to hauora Māori, and we put her in place as the co-CEO of Te Whatu Ora alongside Margie Apa. Kia ora.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Madam Chair, and mōrena, everyone. I have a series of questions for the Minister, particularly around new section 15, inserted by clause 11—on page 4, last time I looked. What it’s saying in subsection (a) is that Health New Zealand must take “reasonable steps” and, going further, “administrative, analytical, or financial support where needed”. The concerns and the question I have is: in the absence of baseline data—which is what we have been advised; there hasn’t been performance data arranged from the locality plans. In fact, I understand that we’re still looking at data that’s from the district health board era. What is it, and how is it, that the Minister’s proposing to analyse and provide data so that this section can be met?

A question I have is: what are the outcomes of the Māori commissioning for the blueprint of Te Aka Whai Ora? These are questions that I would expect that the Minister has, or has been briefed on, in preparation for this transfer, and, most specifically, how has it been upheld? Where and how is the locality plans’ data going to be applied for Health New Zealand? If there is indeed an absence, how is the Minister going to understand the regional performances and the required investment?

Also, I guess one of the other things that we have real concerns with: if there is an absence of this data in Te Aka Whai Ora, then one assumes there is an absence of data still in the early stages of those iwi-Māori partnership boards. How exactly, in this period—and I understand there are four months for the staff. I get that. Then there’s five years and there’s going to be a review. What is the proposition for us—that we’re able to keep monitoring of the data and that there is no drop?

And, again, I have a common theme in my concerns for the preparation of Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand to receive this entity and the fact that a lot of that intel will be sitting in the very hands of the kaimahi and those on the ground, no doubt. So my question isn’t asking whether there is data; my question is asking how the datasets are being gathered, how they can be reported on, and most specifically, from your perspective, how they can be monitored so that we can be assured there is absolutely no drop in performance. And what is the baseline of those?

So I just want to emphasise there has been, again, the outcomes of Māori commissioning for, and the actual blueprint that has been analysed from, Te Aka Whai Ora, and how that has been gathered to move into the Health New Zealand - Te Whatu Ora space.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I acknowledge this is the first call I’ll take in this debate, and so I want to begin by acknowledging as a first generation migrant to Aotearoa that a lot of the discourse that has landed us here is sort of a direct result of a pitting of Māori against migrant communities, particularly when it comes to health outcomes. I’m here by virtue of Te Tiriti, and I have a strong sense of responsibility to not allow those narratives to take hold, and to push back against those.

But in relationship to Part 2—and I hope to make more substantive contributions in the third reading—I was interested in just the line around “all information and documents held by [Te Aka Whai Ora] are held by Health New Zealand”. I wanted to pick one of the key initiatives of Te Aka Whai Ora, Te Rangatiratanga Raraunga Māori around Māori data sovereignty. This is one of the key initiatives that Te Aka Whai Ora was running, and it recognised that Māori data is protected under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Right now, Te Aka Whai Ora is doing a piece of work with Te Whatu Ora and Manatū Hauora to facilitate and support Māori to develop some framework for Māori by Māori, and I’m interested to know how the Minister intends this piece of work to progress if all information and documents are transferred to Te Whatu Ora, effectively. And one of the key reasons why I ask this is that there have been incidents of data leaks from Te Whatu Ora, and these have compromised the personal information of people, and therefore if this work is now compromised.

I hear the member from ACT is kind of, perhaps, making a little jab around speaking to the bill, but this is around the transfer of information, and therefore this is incredibly relevant. So I invite that ACT member to, actually, maybe read the bill in full rather than make random calls that are actually not related to what we’re talking about. So thank you for those contributions that I personally didn’t welcome.

But I’m keen to get the Minister’s reflection on what will happen in relationship to the initiatives regarding Māori data sovereignty; how does he intend for that data to be protected as it is transferred back to Te Whatu Ora, and whether he intends, as part of the transfer of information documents, for that piece of work to continue. We have seen, through other pieces of legislation, the need to commit to continuously do—across all Government work—initiatives in relationship to protecting Māori data. So it’s not just a health issue, but I think information in relation to health is particularly sensitive, and this is why I want to bring up how a specific part of Part 2 of this bill impacts one of the key initiatives of Te Aka Whai Ora. I’m just wondering whether, if there is an intent to continue this initiative, the resourcing of that initiative would change—whether it would increase, whether it would decrease—because, otherwise, this is one of the key initiatives that I think could be lost as a result of this piece of legislation, and it would be a deep, deep shame for our health space to not be honouring Te Tiriti via better protection of Māori data.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again I thank the members for their questions. An intriguing proposition from the member—not actually possible, because (1) you can have only one chief executive for an agency; and (2) it’s a board appointment not a ministerial appointment. But I do want to reflect on the excellent working relationship I have had with the CEO and thank her for her professionalism.

To the question that the member has raised, which is really good, around Māori outcomes and what we might look to be commissioning, they will be informed by several bodies of work. They will be informed by the good work that’s already been done in Pae Tū and in Wakamaua—the action plan. There were really good outcomes in there—

Hon Peeni Henare: You’re welcome.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It was good—it was good. My Government policy statement will also express the outcomes—for example, immunisation. That will be very, very important to me. And it was another really good question around the baseline, actually. What will the baseline be so we can measure improvements? And what we will be needing to do is to inventory the data aggregation that has already occurred and what needs to occur to establish a baseline so we can measure outcomes. Part of that, as I described last night, will be dependent on the capability that each iwi-Māori partnership board has and how we need to all get them to one level, and quite quickly as well.

And the other member has, again—probably the third time the question on data probity has been raised. The data probity issues will follow exactly the same policies that all of Government is required to follow as it relates to data probity, so I do have confidence in that.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing us to continue to prosecute Part 2. I want to draw the Minister of Health’s attention to Schedule 2, which is on page 18 of this bill, and it sets out there its intent to repeal seemingly innocuous titles in some of the legislation that’s listed there. It’s got the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022. If we’re going to repeal the role of the chief executive of the Māori Health Authority in those particular pieces of legislation, in light of the Ombudsman’s report, in light of the challenges that Oranga Tamariki are struggling with at the moment, I want to propose to the Minister here, if he is of a mind, that in those particular Acts it describes some of the positions that will work with respect to those Acts, in looking after our tamariki under the Oranga Tamariki Act. In fact, it names the Director-General of Health; it names Health New Zealand more broadly speaking. But it doesn’t actually put in there anything to do with the Māori directorate in Te Manatū Hauora or a role specifically to identify Māori with respect to Oranga Tamariki. And we know the statistics there; I won’t go over those.

But I wonder, and my question to the Minister is, is he of a mind to ensure that the Māori voice, with respect to repealing the Māori Health Authority and the role of the chief executive in those pieces of legislation—it’s just going to continue to silence the Māori voice there. There can be an expectation that Health New Zealand will continue its role, and that’s fine, but as I read through those particular—

Hon Willie Jackson: Madam Chair?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Sorry, I was trying to catch my breath. Ha, ha! I was trying to catch my breath. So it does describe a number of roles, but with such an important role that Te Aka Whai Ora was playing with respect to these Acts, my question is pretty simple: just if the Minister is of a mind to make sure that the role that Te Aka Whai Ora have played—he’s already talked about how it’ll be a straight transfer of those staff. It’s already been described that the chief executive won’t be. But the role was important—the role that those staff were playing in making sure that the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022 continue to do what they’re intended to do, and that’s to continue to support our whānau.

The final one I have on that one is the Therapeutic Products Act 2023. Now, we heard in the House yesterday how the Therapeutic Products Act is a bad bill or a bad piece of legislation, etc. It is quite simple in that repeal—that it once again takes out Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. The question I have with respect to that is: is the intention from this Government and the Minister, with respect to the work that was done on rongoā Māori, which was protected by Te Aka Whai Ora as it went through the Therapeutic Products Bill as we were putting it in at the time—is there any provisional thought by the Minister or this Government, and I suspect we might come there at some point in time in the future again when the Therapeutic Products Bill will be put into the House. Is there an intention to continue to offer the kinds of protections to rongoā Māori, and how can that be done if we’re repealing the role of the Māori Health Authority in that particular Act? Those are my questions.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member the Hon Peeni Henare for his questions. This is actually quite a narrow bill, and the question was raised around Schedule 2, which is mostly required to adapt to places in the legislation where the Māori Health Authority appears. Clearly, if it doesn’t exist any more, that legislation needs to be changed.

We’ve talked about the Māori voice quite extensively through the debate yesterday, and so I don’t envisage covering that again. However, even though people will transfer, of course many of those functions will also transfer into health. We shouldn’t imagine that those functions are disappearing. They’ll transfer into Health New Zealand; they’ll transfer into the Māori Health Authority. There were some questions around the Therapeutic Products Bill, but it is outside the scope of this bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister. I’m glad you’re enjoying our questions. We’ve got quite a few more, so thank you for your response.

I wanted to come to Schedule 2 again. Last night, I spoke about transfer of undertakings, which is an incredibly important area, particularly for those of us who’ve been involved in the union. This has been a huge kaupapa for many of our workers. But I just wanted to elaborate on what our tuahine Willow-Jean Prime talked about in Schedule 2, in terms of the consultation particularly with the PSA. In a former role, I was the Minister of Employment, and that work was embellished by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. In that role, myself and Minister Sepuloni, we rolled out employment strategies that were incredibly important. Now, that hasn’t been touched on in the debate so far, but they were incredibly important, and I’m proud of the work I did and proud of the work that Minister Sepuloni did in terms of our workers. They tapped into every area of the workforce. And in this PSA area—and I felt the Minister has only lightly traversed that. My chair at the time was a woman by the name of Janice Panoho, and Jan was a tremendous chair—

Sam Uffindell: Oh, come on, Willie—just the question.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I know that member over there is not interested, because we know they’re not interested in workers. But Janice Panoho, who was a long—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They can laugh at it, but we treat this very seriously. Jan’s a longtime chair of the PSA. She was in touch with me. She’s been in touch with me over the bill, and she has made it very clear that there are real concerns for kaimahi, for workers. As I said, Jan’s been with the PSA close to 40 years. She wants to know how some of those cultural obligations are going to be traversed; what type of respect, given the rhetoric from particularly the coalition partners in terms of the disrespect to the reo—you know, they’re not interested in the Māori language being at the front of anything. How are those workers’ cultural backgrounds going to be respected in terms of the transfer? Is the reo going to be respected? Is the way that they work, which is a unique way, a different type of way, a different type of style, going to be embraced in the new entity?

On top of that, I need to draw the Minister’s attention, in terms of new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1, to clause 43, “Employment Policies” on page 13, subclause (1)(b), where it is very clear that an employee—and it says very clearly—and I don’t think this question has been asked. It says very clearly that an employee “may be replaced by Health New Zealand by written notice to that employee.” That goes against everything we know that is right in industrial relations. There cannot be some unilateral declaration, no unilateral declaration from anyone, with regard to workers. You cannot say, “Well, there you go. See you later. The job’s over.” We work in a world, in terms of our fair bargaining, where there has to be some consultation, there has to be a reciprocal relationship, and a worker has to have some rights. Particularly in this area where there are cultural obligations, reo obligations, community obligations, hapū obligations, iwi obligations, surely an employer doesn’t have that unilateral right just to send a letter to say, “There you go. No more job. See you later; you’re on your bike.”?

I need some clarity from the Minister over this so that we can give some guidance to workers out there, so that Janice Panoho, who today is still soldiering on despite what’s happened—she’ll work with what’s in front of her; that’s the reality. Whoever’s the Government, our people will have to work with them. But she needs some security and some support with regard to how the workers will be treated. What is the security over this? Are we going to just have this type of clause or will that clause be reviewed? Will there be some meaningful—as my tuahine Willow-Jean Prime has said—meaningful consultation with our Māori entities, Māori workers, and the union movement?

This is a huge kaupapa, Madam Chair, so I urge the Minister to meet with our people. But I ask that question again: clause 43(1)(b), in terms of Health New Zealand, do they have their unilateral right? Yes or no?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually have two questions which I will try and squeeze into the five minutes, with the risk that I might not get 10 minutes to cover them.

I want to ask—and it’s my first time asking—questions about replacement section 43, inserted by Schedule 1, and employment policies. My point is a different one to those that have just been raised and have been raised about this section by other members. I have been listening to the entire debate, so I know that this one hasn’t been covered.

So replacement section 43, inserted by Schedule 1, is about employment policies: “The employment policies of the Māori Health Authority—(a) continue to apply after the commencement date—(i) in relation to an employee who becomes an employee of Health New Zealand by operation of clause 36; and (ii) with all necessary modifications;”. What are the necessary modifications?

It also says that they may be replaced by Health New Zealand by written notice to that employee. I do want to add my support for the questions asked by the Hon Willie Jackson regarding that simple replacement by a written notice.

But an employment policy that I want to ask about in particular is for te reo Māori bonuses. So we heard the Minister for the Public Service very early on in this term of Government say that she was seeking advice on how to stop the bonuses being negotiated in the future. We know that the Public Service Association, once again, on behalf of its many members—not just Māori but, in fact, all of those who think it is important to have fluency in te reo Māori for their jobs—is deeply disappointed with the threat from the new Public Service Minister to remove allowances recognising competency in te reo across the public sector.

What my question to the Minister is: will Te Aka Whai Ora staff who are being transferred to Health New Zealand be entitled to te reo Māori competency payments and allowances? Will they be eligible for te reo Māori training and learning? I note many comments from others who waded in on this debate about whether this should be taxpayer-funded or not, saying that this Government actually campaigned on getting rid of them and stopping them in, as the Minister said, circumstances where they are not relevant.

To the Minister: is proficiency in te reo Māori relevant to the mahi that those working in Te Aka Whai Ora do, the services that they provide? Will policies regarding that transfer to Health New Zealand? Will they be honoured, or will there be necessary modifications, and could it simply be replaced by Health New Zealand providing a written notice to that employee?

I believe te reo Māori is so important in the delivery of health services to our whānau that this is something we need an assurance on. We need a guarantee that that will be honoured by Health New Zealand, and in Minister Willis’ review that she’s doing of this, with an aim to ensure that there is a stop to any bonuses being negotiated in the future, what assurance can the Minister give us that te reo Māori competency will be encouraged by kaimahi transferring from Te Aka Whai Ora into Health New Zealand, and that bonuses for that proficiency of te reo Māori, their competency, the skills that they bring to that organisation will be honoured?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the members for their questions—again, questions around replacement section 43, inserted by Schedule 1. The member over here was further probing around the appropriate transfer of people and their functions into the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand.

There are several parts to that. First of all, the Ministry of Health has maintained a Māori health directorate, led by John Whaanga, and he, amongst others, including myself, will keep oversight and overview of the appropriate transfer of people from the Māori Health Authority into the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand.

Furthermore, in replacement section 43(2), I’ve been advised that the particular words “material effect on that employee” are specific words that trigger good faith expectations. The member who has just taken her seat was also asking questions around replacement section 43, and I’ve been advised that existing terms and conditions will carry across.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I actually just would love to get a little more information out of you on that advice, Minister. I was interested because it looked like there was an assumption that this was a technical redundancy. While the policy I looked at is something that requires further consultation, the movement of people across isn’t.

Yet there is such a fundamental change here, because people have really engaged in something that has a kind of passion principle behind it. This is something where there is a cultural interest that is so strong. So there will be a whole lot of people in the situation now where they’re going to be looking at whether they even want to be in the new structure. What it does is it gives you a workforce that are forced into a situation that they might be suspicious of; it may be that, if there wasn’t urgency and there was time and there was consultation, we might be able to bring those people and their goodwill with us. After all, that’s really what good faith is about.

So I wondered if you had had advice about this being a technical redundancy—because you’ve treated this like it’s a technical redundancy. The Minsters and advisers seem to have treated this like it’s a technical redundancy; so we’re just replacing the name of the company with another as if it didn’t matter. But actually, in the world that we live in, I think what we have learnt very much in the employment law space is that it’s incredibly important that we are dealing with individuals and we use the best of their talents.

What I’m concerned about here is that, because of urgency, which is sort of aggravating the situation quite a lot, there is no period where the Minister and the Ministry of Health will go through a process of opting in and out based on the substantive needs. So I wondered what advice the Minister had had on whether this was to be treated like a technical redundancy or whether this was something that was much more substantive and important, and whether there was advice as to other ways of treating the situation. That will probably feed into the proposal that I’ve got to amend this.

I would be interested in whether there is an appetite for amending the process here so that there was a process that people went through and talked through the implications for their own role and whether that materially affected their own role and their desire to do it in the current structure. Because it’s going to be so important to whether this actually works in bringing up the health of Māori people; that the people involved are not dragged horses, they are actually participants—willing participants—and are giving their absolute best.

We know that this is a field where people don’t earn as much as they should. We’re not flush with money in this country—[Interruption] We are not. It’s actually a shame, and it’s one that I will stand by: that my purpose for being here is to make sure that we start to reprioritise people like this, we start to value this kind of work, because it’s incredibly important. When I hear the sniggering on the other side, I am worried, because it’s flippancy; it’s treating people like they are commodities. It actually comes absolutely back to what I am saying, because it is all about not treating people like they are commodities.

They are precious in this space; there are far too few of them with the capacity to do this job well and to have the sensitivity, and to treat them like a commodity and just shift them across to an entirely different mentality without that kind of discussion and time to come to terms with taking a very different role, perhaps, or perhaps there is a negotiation of their role—all the good that can be done by that process.

I would be interested to know whether there’s been advice on that issue and whether the Minister would have an appetite for an amendment, which I could draft easily, that gave them the right to crystallise a redundancy if they didn’t like the job that they were doing or to actually negotiate a role in the new environment that’s going to work best for New Zealanders and for Māori, who have the lowest statistics. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, I’d just like to reiterate something that the member in the Chair last night explained to members in the House: the five-minute limit is a limit, not a target and, in order to keep the flow of interaction between the Minister and members, we target questions—so just to put that reminder out there.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I heed that request and that advice that you’ve given. I will note, though, that we have tried to engage in backwards and forwards questions with the Minister, but he didn’t actually take us up on that, so you’ve seen us revert back to five-minute contributions. There was an invitation last night to have that question exchange, and it didn’t actually happen. So if the Minister is now prepared to have that backwards and forwards with us—there has been some hesitancy, for fear that the debate will collapse or time won’t be given to carry on that questioning, because we haven’t actually seen the Minister being prepared to engage in a series of questions like that.

However, I’m coming on to a new part—[Interruption] Go back and watch the Hansard—you’ll see it. I’m coming on to a new Part, Schedule 2, “Consequential amendments to enactments”. This was raised by the Hon Peeni Henare, and he used the example which falls in one of my portfolios, which is Oranga Tamariki. And the Minister, in his response to that, was very flippant and, basically, said that all it is doing is deleting the references to the Māori Health Authority, as if they are inconsequential to the Acts that they are in, the roles that those organisations play, the functions that they perform. So, without repeating the contribution from a previous member, I picked out another piece of legislation—“Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act 1975”—where, in Schedule 2 “Consequential amendments to enactments”, it says it will repeal the definition of the Māori Health Authority in section 2; in section 4(e), it will delete the Māori Health Authority; in section 25C(3)(d), it will delete the Māori Health Authority.

Now, of course, we are doing this all off our phones and tablets at the moment. I’ve gone and pulled up that particular piece of legislation where this consequential amendment has effect. And it’s to section 4—I’m just picking out one of them. It is not simply removing a reference to the Māori Health Authority and that it is inconsequential—that all we’ve done is remove that—because, when you look at what the purpose of having the Māori Health Authority listed in that Act actually is, when you just simply remove the Māori Health Authority, you are removing them from performing a function under that Act to deliver what is expected.

So, in this case, it says in section 4 of the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act, the aims of the Minister and the director-general: “Without limiting in any way the functions and powers conferred on the Minister or on the Director-General by this Act, the aims of the Minister and the Director-General in the exercise of those functions and powers shall include—”, and it lists them, (a), (b), (c), (d)—for example, “(a) to assist and encourage disabled persons to become socially and financially independent: (b) to promote schemes providing for the assessment, work experience, training, sheltered employment, and other suitable activities of disabled persons: (c) to promote the general well-being, recreational opportunities, and welfare in the community of disabled [peoples]”, and it goes on. It says in section (4)(e)—the one that we are repealing. And we’re simply just deleting the reference to the Māori Health Authority. In this Act, it is “to foster close working relationships, and (as appropriate) consult, with government departments, Health New Zealand, the Māori Health Authority, and other bodies, organisations, and professions concerned with rehabilitation and training of disabled persons and their placement in employment:”.

Now, I would argue that the reference to the Māori Health Authority in this piece of legislation was not tokenistic. There was a deliberate intent as to why to include the Māori Health Authority in the list of organisations that the Minister for Whaikaha and the director-general will foster relationships with those organisations. Why is that? So that they can have better communication, they can be better informed, they can take into account Māori perspectives—hauora Māori and wellbeing, for example. So, by deleting the reference to the Māori Health Authority and not replacing it with something like—I mean, Health New Zealand is already there. So, if Health New Zealand could already do this, why did it also list the Māori Health Authority? Because this legislation recognised that the Māori Health Authority provided something unique to what the—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Kia ora koutou. E te Māngai o te Whare, thank you for this opportunity to take a call on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. It was around about this time last week that we all were shocked and are still in disbelief about the sudden passing of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, someone who I’ve known for over 30 years; a son of Samoa, a strong advocate for Māori, and a strong advocate for South Auckland. I know that, if Fa’anānā Efeso Collins were still here, he would be in this Chamber, debating this bill, because this is one of those things that he was a strong advocate for.

If I could just say, one of the things we know about young Māori men, including young Māori Pacific—many of us have Māori in our blood as well, because the mix between the Māori Pacific is quite prominent right now—is too many of our people die very young. We die younger. Māori die younger than general New Zealanders.

I would like to just acknowledge just how much of a leader Fa’anānā Efeso Collins was, and how much of a strong leader he was.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this bill. One of the things that I actually have, as a person who worked in the health sector—and this will age me—is I worked in an organisation called North Health in Auckland, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, which was established in the 80s. During that time, North Health was the funder which actually funded “by Māori, for Māori” health services for the first time. Te Whānau o Waipareira in 1984 was funded by North Health. It was under the leadership of Sir Rob Cooper and Gwen Tepania-Palmer. One of the reasons why “by Māori, for Māori” health services was created was because, as a country, Aotearoa New Zealand, we did not know how to serve Māori people in the right way. The inequity that was then, in the 1980s, and actually going back to the 1840s—we still see such a huge disparity between Māori and non-Māori. The reason why “by Māori, for Māori” was funded was because there was the hope that at some point in the future, they would be better served.

Sam Uffindell: How does this relate to Part 2?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Can I say that my questions to the Minister—I will come back to the bill. I would like to ask questions of the Minister about Part 2—clause 41 of new Part 2 to Schedule 1—which is about employment being continuous for the purpose of certain entitlements. My specific question is basically—I would like the Minister to outline this—what are the transitions that are in place for current employees of the Māori Health Authority following its disestablishment? This is important because we also need to highlight the welfare of those Te Aka Whai Ora employees, the Māori Health Authority employees who are currently working right now. When they are being transitioned to Health New Zealand, there is also that issue of ensuring that they are actually served quite well.

The second question for the Minister is: what specific support measures will be implemented to support these affected employees that are being disestablished, in terms of Te Aka Whai Ora?

Third question: how will the Minister plan to maintain and enhance Māori health initiatives and outcomes without specialised focus provided by the Māori Health Authority, in terms of employment and in terms of ensuring project continuity? Because the Māori Health Authority are the ones that actually hold the contracts with “by Māori, for Māori” health providers. How do we assure, as a country, the services at the end of the day? Because we are in here to serve our people. How do we ensure that those services continue, that the welfare of the staff is actually enhanced and continues on as they transfer to Health New Zealand? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. To address some of those questions—the member raised the question of transfer of staff to the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand—I’ve already described, in my first and second reading speeches, the hopes I have that staff will “join me and guide me in the pathway forward for Māori health and Māori health outcomes”. I have a very clear hope that what we’re proposing here is something that they can say: “I want to be a part of that; I believe in the outcomes. This is a different way to what I was anticipating, but I want to be a part of that”.

The member raised the question of legislative compliance, using the example of disability, and clearly, in her own words, said Health New Zealand will still be consulted. So, remember, the parts of the Māori Health Authority—the substantial operational parts—will still transfer to Health New Zealand. So, of course, they’ll still be consulted. That expertise will still be there.

To the last member, who asked the question—it had already been covered several times previously—the first question: existing terms and conditions transfer across. As I’ve said before, the Māori Health directorate, inside the Ministry of Health, will have input into the appropriate transfer of people, into the two respective homes. I’m very focused on continuity of services. That’s really important. We’re going to pick up from the learnings that we’ve had and advance them forward. It’s really important we’ve got that continuity. On one level, the $50 million immunisation project that we announced before Christmas is an example of that.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare.

Just to the Minister’s previous comments on hopes, and the “hope” of one thing and the “hope” of another thing for Māori. It’s a good title for a song, but it certainly does not give us a surety. The “hope” of how Māori will work together and do our best is not good enough to be sure, and that’s demonstrated very much in the title of this bill: the “Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority”. Those words are so frightfully offensive, and I find it difficult to even repeat. But it is the disestablishment of Māori. So if we can just let that sink in a bit. What that says, the message to Māori, is: you do not matter in the way in which you thought you did and that you hoped that you did, in this way.

When the Te Aka Whai Ora idea came to be, many Māori providers got really excited and organised and got themselves prepared, because it’s based on “by Māori, for Māori”. This bill is about “by non-Māori, for Māori”—that’s what this bill is about. It has this “all New Zealanders”, which I keep hearing around particularly the left side of the House, and it is offensive, because what it suggests is that we are all the same. It takes us back into “We’re all New Zealanders, therefore we’re all the same”, and “the same” that it talks about is the white same. It’s the Pākehā same. It is not the Māori same. So I want to make those points.

We call that, in our reality, a white-out. That’s what this bill is telling us. This is a white-out. This is taking us back into a ministry. And why I can talk like this with confidence is because I worked for Ngāti Hine Health Trust for more than 20 years, under the grace and the kindness of Erima Henare, of Rob Cooper, of many, many Māori leaders that said the systems, the pedagogy, the theories failed us. Unfortunately, this bill is taking us right back into that, and it is forcing us to swallow it yet again.

I was asked this morning on radio why do I think this is happening, and I said because the left side of the House believes that they know better for Māori. They believe that they know better; that we couldn’t possibly make up our own Māori minds about what works for us.

Sam Uffindell: That is what the left side thinks.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: So despite the nonsense carrying on while I’m speaking, as a Māori—and I can carry this conversation better than any other Pākehā in this room. And excuse me, Madam Chair, I’m talking like this because every time I hear “all New Zealanders”, that just whites out Māori people, so we all become this great big “all New Zealanders”—whatever that is. We are Māori beings. We are human beings. We are Māori beings. We are sovereign in that regard. We are the other partners in Te Tiriti. We are the reason why—we are the reason why—any non-Māori gets to live here.

So I want to make these points really clear. We don’t want any more of this “We know better for you, Māori mā, so can you just keep quiet”, right? And, by the way, we’re going to move all of the staff that are Māori over to this Pākehā system yet again, and they’re going to have to tolerate and swallow it.

I know this is not as granular as where the stages are in the bill, Madam Chair—I realise that—but I wanted to speak on a more grandeur level, which is a Māori, mana motuhake level. I wanted to take it there. Because the minute we get into granular, we forget who we’re here for. We can. It tends to take us right down into the technicality of it all, forgetting that ko te mea nui, ko te tangata tēnā [the most important thing is humanity], which is why I want to make these points in this particular way.

If we go back, which it seems like we will, it will take us back into a system that failed us. Why do I know? I fought against it for more than 20 years.

Te reo Māori is an issue, so the point that my colleague made earlier—“Te reo, what’s that got to do with it?” It’s got everything to do with it. When our people were punished and stopped from speaking Māori, what they were stopped from was being Māori—when our people were stopped from speaking Māori, they were hindered and stopped from being Māori. Thank you, Madam Chair.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question, Minister, is a supplementary in a sense to my colleague Willow-Jean’s point about tāngata whaikaha. We know, as she has pointed out in the consequential amendments, the removal of the Māori Health Authority for the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act has the effect of amplifying the intersectional harm that we see to Māori. Underpinning it is the perverse logic that taking further rights from those whose needs are being least met somehow makes us a more equal country, and it does the opposite of that.

So my question to the Minister in terms of tāngata whaikaha, our disabled Māori community, is: to what extent did you speak to them and approach that community and understand the importance—

Tom Rutherford: Point of order. I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the clock actually hasn’t started after the member’s time.

STEVE ABEL: I’m OK with that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: My question to the Minister is: to what extent has he communicated directly with that disabled Māori community? To what extent has he considered the impact on that community, whose needs are particular? And there’s very good literature that shows the need for access to health services that provide cultural, holistic connections to te ao Māori, an essential to maintaining hauora and wellbeing for tāngata whaikaha.

Sam Uffindell: What clause are you on?

STEVE ABEL: I’m on the consequential amendments to enactments, in Schedule 2. There’s a specific opportunity here for the Minister to recognise the importance of us representing that community, to recognise the failure of the current health system, to recognise those holistic needs of Māori in a wider sense but particularly this community, and both tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua disabled communities are poorly having their needs met in our health system. So, also, my question to the Minister is: how does he intend to ensure that tāngata whaikaha Māori and whānau hauā are represented on the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee? Are they represented? How will they be represented? And, if the Minister is going to remove the Māori Health Authority as a reference in the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act 1975, what is he going to replace it with to ensure that that community is fully represented and understood so that the intersectional harm and intersectional failings we have in our health service do not continue to be perpetuated?

It is bad enough that we are getting rid of the Māori Health Authority—or rather, the Minister, this Government, is getting rid of the Māori Health Authority—but let us not amplify the harm on those who are most vulnerable within that system, which includes that community of our tāngata whaikaha. Thank you.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Madam Chair, I’d like to table an amendment to the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. My amendment follows on from my kōrero earlier: that, in new Part 2 in Schedule 1, delete clause 36(4), page 10, lines 39 and 40 are deleted. And it goes back to my kōrero on the importance of the CEO of Te Aka Whai Ora being retained within the organisation and the lift and shift of Te Aka Whai Ora staff over to the new entity. E te Minita, he tono tēnei kia pupuri tonu ki tēnei rangatira hauora o tātou. Kia haere tonu āna mahi i roto i Te Whatu Ora. Ināianei me ngā tau kei te haere mai. Koia taku tono. Kia ora, tātou.

[Minister, this is a plea to you to hold on to this esteemed health leader of ours, so that their work may continue within Te Whatu Ora, now and in the years to come. That is my plea. Thank you all.]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you very much. Can I tautoko, first of all, the words of the Hon Jenny Salesa. The Efeso Collins death has had a huge effect, I think, on this Parliament. I congratulated Parliament the other day, actually, on TV—people right across, from all sides, who paid their respects, which I think brought the best out in Parliament. We’re all feeling those effects, and many of us, from all sides of the House, will go and pay our respects tomorrow. I support what the Hon Jenny Salesa said: Efeso Collins would have been right in here asking questions about the effects of this bill on our communities. I have a specific question, of course, that I’m going to come to now. And we have traversed the area in terms of transfer of undertakings, which are incredibly important, and I think the Minister of Health has tried to answer that, or has answered that.

I have another specific question—and we’re looking at new Part 2, clause 40, in Schedule 1—and it’s in that transfer of undertakings area again, and I’ll come down to subclause (3). You’ll see, Madam Chair, the points that are made: “(a) on the commencement date, Health New Zealand and the union are parties to a new collective: (b) the terms and conditions of the new collective agreement are the same as the earlier agreement, subject to any necessary modifications:”. My question centres around paragraph (c) of clause 40(3), where “the employee is covered by the new collective agreement as long as they remain a member of the union.”

Now, of course, that is something that we, as a Government—and I’m here with our main spokesperson, Camilla Belich—would insist on: that that type of clause be in any type of agreement. So we’re pleased with that. But the different set up in terms of Māori and Māori health actually has seen a number of our people not in unions. I’m a person who will always try and organise them and get them involved in unions, but for whatever reason some of our people choose not to go down that track, which is something the other side would always support—they’d always support them not being in unions. With that being the case, what are the plans for these types of workers who transfer across?

I’ll ask the Minister so it’s very clear—paragraph (c) of clause 40(3): “the employee is covered by the new collective agreement as long as they remain a member of the union.” So, if they’re not a member of the union—as I said, many of our workers, kaimahi, choose not to be, which is disappointing—what are the plans from the Minister and the organisation with regards to those people? Those people still have rights. They’re still upholders of our culture, of our reo. They’re still advancing the kaupapa in terms of Māori health. They’re an integral part, have been an integral part, of the Māori Health Authority. Will those workers be dismissed? Will they be sidelined? What is the plan? Has the Minister thought outside the box with regards to this, given that that point is very clear? “The employee is covered by the new collective agreement as long as they remain a member of the union.”

Now, as we know, the National Party are not particularly good supporters of anyone who joins unions. In fact, the strategy has been to discourage these people from joining unions, because they’re into individual rights and the free market and everyone making a choice. So that type of decision, some of our people, for different reasons, find that culturally offensive—they see that’s a breach of their rights as an individual. So, again, I ask the Minister: what is the plan for those kaimahi and our people who decide that joining the union is not an option for them?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to mention to the committee that I’ve been watching the debate very closely, and I also was in here last night as the debate was going through. I’ve heard many calls on dissatisfaction over the bill itself, I’ve heard the Minister answer questions about employment and the structural changes that he intends, and I’ve also heard answers around the disability questions that have been asked. I am looking for very new questions, not speeches of dissatisfaction. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, for that guidance. I’ve got three distinct questions that I hope to get addressed. I totally understand we cannot, for the Minister of Health to answer—and I understand the answers I may get may not be satisfactory, but when I asked about one of Te Aka Whai Ora’s key initiatives around Māori data sovereignty, I only had the part around data breaches being addressed. So I’m just—not with the hope of being repetitive, but just in the hope that it actually gets addressed, around whether Te Aka Whai Ora’s initiative around Māori data sovereignty will continue, and commitments from the Minister around the initiative continuing as we see Te Aka Whai Ora being disestablished. As I’ve said, this is because it is a key Tiriti obligation of the Crown to protect Māori data sovereignty, and so I’m keen to get a sense of where that is heading.

The other question I had was—I know we’ve been canvassing employment issues with a degree of detail, but I was interested in particularly getting a sense as to the ethnic wage gap, which we know that different agencies have—because there’s different levels of reporting around the ethnic wage gap, yet we know that it is quite present across Government agencies and in the private sector as well. But I’m curious to get a sense of what level of commitment and analysis the Minister has engaged on the impacts of reductions of the ethnic wage gap as part of the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, because Te Aka Whai Ora presented an opportunity, by having a “by Māori, for Māori” approach, to actually address that ethnic wage gap, and gender wage gap as well, that is present particularly in the health sector. So I wanted to get an understanding of whether any analysis was done in relation to the ethnic wage gap in particular.

I also wanted to pick up on a comment—and sorry for the shuffling of the papers, because I wrote it down; here we go. One of the previous answers from the Minister, where he reiterated his comments in the first and second readings of this bill in relation to employment, was that he hopes he’ll be joined and guided by those workers. I take the Minister’s personal commitments, and despite, obviously, our opposition to the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, is the Minister confident that those assurances are enough in terms of safeguarding that ongoing feedback loop that he is committing to? For example, should the Minister be replaced by one of his colleagues who has perhaps been far more outspoken in anti-Māori rhetoric, there are no safeguard mechanisms, then, beyond the Minister’s own words around being guided and joined by the workforce to address Māori health outcomes.

So, look, I take the Minister’s personal commitments, but that doesn’t necessarily speak to the safeguards in this bill that would protect, say, another person coming into his role who may not hold those same views actually then being led by the workforce to address Māori health outcomes. So, beyond those personal commitments, I’m keen to get an understanding of what safeguards exists to ensure that, no matter who is in his role, there is that feedback loop that he is committing to creating to address Māori health outcomes.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that debate on this question now close.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve started a vote, so I’d ask the member to resume his seat, thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Point of order. I’m just inviting the Chair for some reflections, because as soon as you came into the Chair you invited us to proceed with the debate within some specific guidelines. There was, I believe, just one call of mine, I think, after you indicated those guidelines, and in my case, I made it really clear that I had three specific questions. I didn’t keep my remarks to reflections of why I dislike the bill and I made sure that these were things that I believed—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: But my point of order is I’m just inviting you to reflect on why you would come into the Chair to make a reflection and then only allow for one call, rather than in good faith allow the members to scrutinise—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I ask the member to resume his seat. I did say that I’d been watching the debate. There are a series of Speakers or Chairs sitting in the Chair, and I did say that the employment issues had been well traversed [Interruption] and I heard repetition in the member’s speech, and so—

Ricardo Menéndez March: That big wage gap was not—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please do not argue with the Chair. I’ve made a decision, thank you.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, for Schedule 1, where there is no debate, the question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 deleting new clause 36(4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come now to Schedule 2, also with no debate.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3, and this is the debate on “Title”, “Commencement”, and the “Principal Act”.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Wow, what an effort. I first just want to acknowledge the advisers who I, actually, in this case, feel sorry for. They were part of building the whare, and now they’re being asked to dismantle it.

I want to help members across the House: when we called this the “Pae Ora legislation”—“pae” meaning horizon, “ora” meaning life or wellbeing; that’s how you come up with the term “healthy futures”. Pae—horizon. Ora—wellbeing. In debating the title, the signal this sends to our whānau outside of this Parliament is, actually, this is pae mate—pae mate. It’s the opposite to a healthy future. It’s the opposite to the horizon of life and wellbeing. It’s actually “to death”, because that’s what this bill is doing.

My proposal to this Minister is that he actually change the name of the title of this bill to “Pae Mate Amendment Bill” because that’s what this is doing to our people. It is saying that it’s OK for Māori to die seven years before non-Māori. It’s saying to my uncle, who on this very day is being buried at Ngāti Manu in Kāretu in Te Tai Tokerau, who died of heart disease, who only came out to the doctors because of the work of Te Aka Whai Ora—but, sadly, it was too late. And now we’re saying to him and his family and Māori and communities right across this country, this is actually the “Pae Mate Amendment Bill”. This has nothing about securing the healthy futures of this country, in particular for Māori and our communities far and wide. That’s my proposal to the Minister; that the more appropriate title for this bill is actually “Pae Mate Amendment Bill”.

Now, I’m going to traverse very lightly across the time line because the commitment date on this bill is 30 June—30 June. Why, then, is the Minister rushing this bill under urgency to be completed within 24 hours when its commencement date isn’t until—guess when? Matariki, the Māori New Year. What signal does that send to our people? Matariki was about a hope for this country, and what this Minister is saying is that, on 30 June, “Oh no, no hope for you fullas. No hope for you, Māori. No hope for your communities.”

So my question to the Minister is: why, then, rush this bill, under urgency, over 24 hours, when the commencement date isn’t until June? The Minister could have had a good opportunity to send this bill to the select committee. We could hear from the experts, like we have many times before, to continue to show this Government why Te Aka Whai Ora was important. But the Minister chose to do it within 24 hours.

Now, I want to point the Minister to another piece that he’s spoken to on a number of occasions throughout this debate: the Minister says, “It’s part of the 100-day plan.” Well, if you have a look at the 100-day plan, there’s 49 actions. In those actions, the word “introduce” is mentioned eight times and the word “begin” is mentioned 10 times. When it talks about the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, it says “introduce” the bill. But the Minister is rushing this bill through in its entirety. He could have introduced it through urgency to have its first reading, and sent it to the select committee, but he chose not to despite the 100-day plan saying “introduce” the legislation. What the Minister has done has rushed it through. Why? It doesn’t even meet with the 100-day plan—the words in the 100-day plan are very different to the actions of the Minister today.

The commencement date puts us into Matariki. Why, then, with four months ahead of us, couldn’t the Minister let it go through a due process? And just finally, because my colleagues will no doubt traverse this, it’s been spoken about the tribunal: that claim could have been heard tomorrow. One more sleep, that’s all it took.

I’m going to leave my contribution there. There will be plenty more on this side.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two contributions. I won’t be able to do them in the five minutes, so I’m seeking two separate calls.

The first one is on the title, “Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill”. Why didn’t the Minister put the words in there: “Te Aka Whai Ora Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill”? Names are important. Symbolism is important. As we traversed last night, the gifting of the name “Te Aka Whai Ora” and what it actually meant, what it symbolises, doesn’t even get a mention in your title.

Last night, the Minister said that he spoke with our whaea Moe Milne about the name. I got a text from her: “I did not meet with him. I did not discuss the name with him, neither did I agree to our committee disestablishing the name.” I don’t think I can say the last word in Māori, because it will be translated to something unparliamentary.

Further to that, this is about respect for our kupu Māori, our ingoa Māori. “Te Aka Whai Ora”—doesn’t even have the guts to put it in the title. But that’s what you’re doing; you’re disestablishing it.

Now, I want to read from the evidence of my uncle Waihoroi Shortland, which he has filed with the Waitangi Tribunal. He says, “When I look at Te Aka Whai Ora, I take the notion quite literally”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just stop the member there. This is about the title and commencement. I don’t think we should be traversing what’s actually being put to the Waitangi Tribunal.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: This is about the title. This is about the words “Te Aka Whai Ora”.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. This is about the title and commencement of this bill, so we’ll keep it really narrow.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: So my contribution has been a challenge to the Minister. Why has he not included in the title the words “Te Aka Whai Ora”? I am giving the Minister information about the words “Te Aka Whai Ora”, which I am arguing should have been included in the title, and it is not.

It says, “I take the notion quite literally. In Ngāti Hine tradition, ‘te aka kūmara’ is that part of the plant that ensures”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I’m going to stop the member. Look, the Waitangi Tribunal is a separate matter. It’s something that we shouldn’t be bringing into the title. You can talk about the member, can talk about the title and commencement, but not directly quoting from the tribunal as it happens.

Shanan Halbert: Point of order. Madam Chair, I’ll seek your guidance on this one. While acknowledging your comments regarding the live Waitangi Tribunal hearing, I take the point of the Hon Peeni Henare in this, who identified that for the commencement date that we’re discussing, the question arises: what’s the rush for the Minister to push this bill through the House?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, so got that point. Mr Halbert, the question of timing has been asked around the Waitangi Tribunal. It’s the content of the Waitangi Tribunal that is not something that we want to be discussing as part of this piece of legislation. Just a moment. I’m just actually getting some advice here. So the Waitangi Tribunal is not a court of record, but it would be appropriate to avoid directly quoting that material.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Is that a Standing Order?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s my ruling.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: You’re ruling that we cannot quote evidence that has been filed with the Waitangi Tribunal ever?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, it’s today, while things are live with the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court of record but it would be appropriate to avoid directly quoting the material that’s within that, so I’m not going to allow people to quote the material. This is simply about the title and commencement, and we acknowledge that there is another process going on alongside this, but this is the title and commencement of this bill. It’s fair to acknowledge that the timing of these two things are coinciding, but we will not have material from the Waitangi Tribunal.

Shanan Halbert: Speaking to the point of order, I want to be clear on this, because while I acknowledge your point around the content of the hearing before us, I do want to ask for your guidance that we are able to reference in this discussion the importance of the Waitangi Tribunal hearing, relevant to this legislation that is being rammed through the House on this particular day. The question arises, and the point here is: why is the Minister pushing this through at this particular time, when in two days we would be able to go through that process of the hearing?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the answer is, as I first said, you can reference the fact that there’s a hearing happening. This is about commencement and timing, and that’s fine, but do not reference any content of the hearing itself.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: So in my contribution, I am making a contribution directly to the title of the legislation. My points have been about why the Minister has not included the actual words “Te Aka Whai Ora”, which is the name—the name—of the thing we are disestablishing. He has not put that in the title, and what I was trying to provide to the Minister, for his consideration, because it’s not too late, Minister, to make changes—it’s not too late; you can do that. I tried to give you an example—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —the Minister an example—of rich kōrero about what “aka” means, and what “aka” means to a tribe like Ngāti Hine, who relies on kūmara for our survival, and one of our most esteemed orators, leaders within te ao Māori and mātauranga Māori offers explanations—deep, meaningful explanations and symbolism—of what an “aka” means. We are discussing the title to this legislation, and what this legislation’s title is doing is disestablishing, and it just says here, “the Māori Health Authority”, but what it is disestablishing is “Te Aka Whai Ora”, and I am making references to those that gave that name, that gifted that name, and the meaning and symbolism within it, but also those who have offered other kōrero about why “aka” is so important when we look at the health and wellbeing of our people. I’m not going to debate on the use of, or bringing into the contribution—Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And please—specific questions.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yep, so I have—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve been very good in the last couple of minutes about specific questions—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes, there are questions there for the Minister to answer, and I would implore him, before the end of this debate, to go and read that evidence that I cannot read for you here.

So now I’ll come on to the commencement date of this legislation.

Hon Andrew Bayly: Oh, very good!

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, did you not like the last part? Do you think we should not talk about the title? Do you think we should not talk about having Te Aka Whai Ora in the title? Did you think that five minutes was a waste of time, Mr Bayly?

Hon Andrew Bayly: I think you should be relevant to the topic.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, right. Moving on to the commencement date, and I’ll try to ignore the interjections from the other side and the disrespect towards us, who are doing this under urgency.

So now I’ll come to the commencement date. This is passing under urgency—all stages, no select committee process. Te Aka Whai Ora, the Pae Ora legislation, is something that took years—years—to put in place. There were multiple, numerous consultations with all parties through all the processes available. It was a recommendation of the health and disability review. It was a recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal that we establish a Māori health authority. And here, in 24 hours, through an urgent process, you are rushing this through—no consultation according to your departmental disclosure statement. I can’t even see a regulatory impact statement anywhere on this bill—so, rushing it.

But when we look at the commencement date, this isn’t actually going to commence until 30 June. So why, Minister—and I know you’re going to just get up and dismiss this as “I’ve answered it in other sections.”, but this is under title and commencement—are we passing this under urgency when it’s not going to take effect until 30 June? That would have allowed ample time, in your rushed processes, to have a select committee process, to stop and do some consultation. But, no, we’re rushing it through today, because, as I said last night, there’s something taking place, or should have been taking place, tomorrow: a planeload of the Minister’s relations are coming down to present to the Waitangi Tribunal their submissions—their opposition—on the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora—his own hapū, Te Kapotai, a named claimant in that urgency hearing to take place tomorrow.

Is the Minister confident that that hearing tomorrow, that should take place tomorrow, has absolutely no bearing on the decision to pass this through urgency, all stages, last night and today? Can he, hand on heart, say that that wasn’t a single factor in the decision to do that right now? The Minister says this has been on notice for some time—that they intend to do this—but not once did the Crown file in the Waitangi Tribunal that it would be happening right now, because if they had been honest, and if that was the direction, then that would have been filed very early on in the proceedings, but it wasn’t. It took everybody by surprise last week to find out that it was going to be introduced and done under urgency this week. It leaves us with no other conclusion except that this has been done deliberately to undermine the Waitangi Tribunal, to undermine the Minister’s own relations, who are named claimants in that claim.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re not going to make personal comments about the Minister. You can talk about the Government’s intentions but no personal comments about the Minister. Thank you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. The Government, which this Minister is part of, which this Minister is responsible for—he is the leader of this; he is shepherding this legislation through. It is not coming into effect until 30 June. So why are we doing it today?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. I deliberately waited until the end of the contribution from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, and I will note before I make this point of order that the advice that Madam Chair provided in regard to the Waitangi Tribunal was accepted by the member, and she followed that advice through the remainder of her contribution. But I think it is important for the committee’s understanding if you could please provide further explanation of that ruling. Specifically, it would be helpful, I think, if you could refer to the Standing Order or, indeed, the Speaker’s ruling that that’s based on, because there does seem to be some concern around the conflation between the courts, which is clearly not in question, and the inclusion of the Waitangi Tribunal, which came as somewhat of a surprise. Given the nature of this debate, which does appear to have some time left in it, I think it would be useful for all members to understand the basis of that, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I come back to you on that. I’m just going to take the Hon Dr Shane Reti.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to speak to why Te Aka Whai Ora doesn’t appear in the title, it’s because it doesn’t appear in the Pae Ora legislation either and the amendment bill has to refer to the legal title in the statute.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Madam Chair, wishing to speak to both name and the commencement date, I’d like to share how ripped off I feel for te iwi Māori and the people of New Zealand knowing that we have so little time as members of New Zealand to contribute to this debate because we’re locked out. Our communities are locked out. And despite the commencement date being in June, we are in urgency, and we are tired, and we are pukuriri, and we are here passionately speaking to save something that our people have invested so much into. So I reflect on the 4,685 submitters to the Pae Ora legislation, who took the time to provide their local voice, their hapū, their whānau, their marae, their community voice, the health providers who contributed to the building blocks of Pae Ora.

What is in a name? A name such as Pae Ora is tapu. Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) means so much because Pae Ora came from so much—Waitangi Tribunal findings and recommendations, as well as a full health systems review that all came together and gave the name, the new path, Pae Ora (Healthy Futures). And to now know that we are being ripped off as the people of New Zealand by not being able to submit. As a member of the Health Committee I was looking forward to the opportunity to see the bill introduced in order for it to come before our committee and open the floodgates for our community, for iwi Māori, for health providers and health professionals to tell us why we should retain Te Aka Whai Ora. So my koha is short but it is to express responses to the communities that have contacted me saying “Why? Why”—because the bill, or the legislation doesn’t come in to place until June 2024—“would this Government rush in urgency to see Te Aka Whai Ora disestablished today?”

So my plea is to the Government to consider the legislation that they are rushing through urgency for their 100-day plan, to give the people of New Zealand a chance. Where is the chance for the people of New Zealand, let alone te iwi Māori, to share their whakaaro on the legislation? What, we’re up to number 16 now in urgency and we’ve got more to come next week. So, me tū patu tātou, me tū patu. I think it’s important that we all front our communities and we own decisions made in this House, and I look forward to the meetings that will occur after this because this has been rushed through far, far too soon for the people of New Zealand and te iwi Māori. Kia ora.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to the commencement date in my contribution and I share the concerns of my other parliamentary colleagues in the House today about this piece of legislation being rushed through in urgency. And I know the Minister will feel it in some sense; it’s a sensitive kaupapa that we are debating in this Chamber in urgency, and I know that he does have a heart and, as a health practitioner himself, he certainly will be looking with interest in this.

Elections are elections, and what you campaign on, of course you have to deliver. But the point here is the sensitivities of what we are discussing today. This is a matter for all of Aotearoa New Zealand. Māori, yes, is a very important part of this. And I share the concerns of my tuahine, Hūhana Lyndon, who talks about our whānau being locked out of this place. It makes me sad that today, when we’re talking about such a sensitive kaupapa, none of our people are here—that the wairua that we normally feel within these chambers at such an important time is missing. And that makes me sad today.

The commencement date is months away—we’re talking about Matariki. It enables an opportunity for us to talk to the communities, the people that are important, and we’ve acknowledged the communities, we’ve acknowledged Maōri, and, particularly today, I think part of the gap in our conversation here and the opportunity to feedback is from practitioners themselves, health practitioners. So the question for the Minister is really: what is the rush here? How did he determine that urgency was required? Did he consider the sensitivities of this particular bill, that Maōri wouldn’t have the opportunity to contribute, that his health colleagues alike—and I think about practitioners like Rawiri Jansen, you know; like my better half, Dr Anthony Jordan, you know; like my tuahine Lily Fraser—good Maōri health practitioners that have the same goal, no doubt, Minister, that you have in mind. They don’t tend to have the politics, but, most of all, to address the health inequities in our system, they will support you to achieve. I just ask you again: did you consider this in making this decision in urgency? Is it purely political? How do you intend to recover from that to ensure that our health practitioner voice is a part of this when we look at the commencement dates, albeit months away?

Madam Chair, I feel a bit nervous talking about the Waitangi Tribunal hearing without a ruling in regards to what Kieran McAnulty just—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s OK if you just stick to the timing of it for this—at this point.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you. And I do think that that is another sensitive point—that through this process of urgency we haven’t allowed that process to occur where Māori will go to raise their concerns, where we will be able to debate in this Chamber, actually, the evidence that comes before that hearing, and it’s a missed opportunity in this debate. I go back to the way I started, that this debate is about Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s about everyone and certainly it’s about Maōri health outcomes as an important part, but the missed opportunity here is the opportunity for everyone—Maōri, non-Maōri, health practitioners alike—to contribute.

So I’m concerned that while the goals may be there for the Minister, his approach to this and the influence of politics on choosing to move this through agency is where my questions lie.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I want to help the Minister out here with regards to the title and also have a bit of a kōrero about our commencement date. I saw that the Hon Peeni Henare gave a very useful recommendation in terms of what the new name of the bill should be. It’s called Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill; he wants to call it “Pae Mate”.

I would respectfully disagree with the former Minister. I’d get rid of all of the Māori words altogether, and I think a better name would be the “Pākehā Māori Health Authority”. No disrespect to the Hon Peeni Henare, but I think it would be a better title that the Minister should consider given the rhetoric we have heard from this Government with regards to Māori names being at the front of anything. We don’t want to upset the Hon Winston Peters here.

So that’s why this is a serious recommendation, because I think if we rename this the “Pākehā Māori Health Authority Amendment Bill”, then everybody would be happy because, you know, we can’t push the Māori language out there. We’ve changed—what did we change?—Waka Kotahi. Well, we got rid of that and we’re getting rid of the different Māori names right across the spectrum. So, I’m seriously saying—although I do like what the former Minister Hon Peeni Henare said: “Pae Mate”. I think if we’re going to go down the reo side, that might be a good description. The Government should be brave here and stick to their guns. They’ve made it very clear that they have no time for te reo Māori. They are making changes everywhere; some of our Māori language speakers out there are not going to be compensated for their expertise in terms of te reo Māori, so they should be true to that and put a title up that encapsulates the philosophy of this Government at the moment.

So I’d like the Minister to seriously consider that title change. Don’t use our reo when it suits; just go down the track that you’ve been going down—that the Government’s been going down—and call it what it is. I think I heard from someone from the Māori Party there, my good friend over there, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who said that this is about encapsulating whakaaro Pākehā. So call it a Pākehā name, an English name, and everybody on that side of the House will be happy: the “Pākehā Māori Health Authority”.

In terms of the date, 30 June, I do not get this date. I’d ask the Minister to reconsider this. This is an affront to te ao Māori, to our Waitangi Tribunal—and thank you for the clarification with regards to the tribunal. This tribunal is very dear to many of us; very dear to us, very dear to our people who have nowhere to go sometimes. They have nowhere to go so they put all their eggs in the basket—our koroua and kuia through the years. Some of them have mortgaged their homes in terms of taking their submissions to the tribunal, and I would ask this date to be reconsidered—two more days.

It is very personal to us; very personal to me, the tribunal. I was the Minister who appointed many of these tribunal members over the previous three years; many of them are good Pākehā people like Professor David Williams, who has been an advocate for kaupapa Māori. We know all our other people on there, like Professor Linda Smith, Derek Fox, who I appointed last year. These are people who have given their life to the tribunal, who are being denied the opportunity to critique this properly.

Yes, they’ll be doing it, but they’ll be doing it after the event. It upsets them and it upsets us as a Māori nation, as Māori people right across the spectrum. So much time into this tribunal, and here their mana has been walked over right now.

So I ask the Minister: why the rush? Why couldn’t we wait a couple of days to show the due respect to a tribunal that has been very much a part of our people’s lives? Kia ora, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, Hon Kieran McAnulty, for your patience. It is true that the prohibition on reference to proceeding in Standing Order 116 applies in respect of New Zealand court and the tribunal is not in that category. Members need to consider whether it’s in the public interest to discuss such matters, and I’m aware that the matter is live before the tribunal and that is relevant. I suggest the way forward is for members to share valuable insights that they may have become aware of in light of the tribunal’s work, but please avoid directly citing material as it is part of the tribunal’s proceedings. I would also remind members that we are on a part of this bill that’s around title and commencement, and we want to keep this part of the discussions in the Parliament to title and commencement. If it’s about the tribunal not being able to have that opportunity, then that is relevant to this piece of the legislation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. Madam Chair, this is actually a really important point, because the starting place in debate is that this House is free to discuss any matter, and the ruling you’ve made is of considerable significance in curtailing that right. Now, the Speakers’ rulings are clear, and at 38/6 it makes it very clear that “The House is not debarred from discussing a matter that is before a royal commission as would be the case if [it] were before [the courts].” Now, the Waitangi Tribunal is a standing commission of inquiry with recommendatory powers only, and your ruling is now cutting directly across an existing Speaker’s ruling. I think, with the utmost respect, Madam Chair, that this needs to be looked at with real care, because the Waitangi Tribunal is entirely distinct from a court and the sub judice rule has no part to play. I would refer the House to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand at section 19.9.3, which lists the bodies to which the sub judice rule applies in an exhaustive fashion, and it does not include any tribunal, any commission, any commission of inquiry. This is a very important point about the privilege of this House to debate topics freely and refer to any material it chooses, so I would respectfully suggest that the utmost care be taken before making any ruling on the admissibility of any matter, including evidence that is before the tribunal.

Hūhana Lyndon: Madam Chair, point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to respond to the Hon Duncan Webb, so just bear with me for a second. It is true that the House is not debarred from that discussion; that is accepted. But I’m asking members to exercise restraint out of respect for that institution. Please consider whether it is appropriate to directly state that the material being used is part of a submission. That’s all I’m asking for, the respect for that institution, and also reminding members that we are talking about title and commencement in this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hūhana Lyndon: Point of order, in addition, please, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a new point of order?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): It is a kōrero tāpiri. I am new to the House, but I wanted to share with the Speaker that at 6 o’clock last night the Waitangi Tribunal notified applicants and the Crown that it vacated the inquiry so is no longer live. It ended last night at 6 p.m. due to the jurisdiction, so just wanting to note that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I’m aware of that—I’m aware of that, yeah, and I just ask members to bear that in mind. Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you very much for what was clearly a considered response to both my point of order and that raised by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Just for absolute clarity, your response to Dr Duncan Webb was an amendment to your original ruling, and I think it goes some way to addressing the concerns that we raised, but for the absolute clarity of the House, I just want it to be made clear that what you responded to the point of order from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb overrules the advice that you originally gave. That original advice was slightly more restrictive than where you’ve landed now, and I don’t think that—given the importance of this, we can’t have any confusion as to where we stand.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, no, look, accepting what the member’s saying, all I’m asking is for members to exercise restraint out of respect for the institution, but also to remember that we are talking about title and commencement here as well. So that’s where we’re at. If someone’s got a call on that basis, I’ll take it.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. We are discussing title and commencement, and I wanted to take a moment to speak to my Amendment Paper because I have a specific amendment around the commencement date. My amendment would move the commencement date from 30 June 2024 to 30 June 2025. There is a very specific reason I’ve put this amendment in place. I’ve been discussing this legislation with members of my community who work in the health sector—and I see we’re having a switch, so it’s Mr Chair now. So I’ve been discussing the removal of the Māori Health Authority with health leaders in my community, who have shared concerns with me. One of the matters they’ve specifically raised with me is that providers who have been receiving direct funding from the Māori Health Authority have actually been rushing over the last few weeks to complete what we call in the sector “the accountability documentation”. For those new to the House, or new to this, who are watching, the accountability documentation is documentation that NGOs, community providers, have to provide to funders.

So the reason I raised this in relation to the commencement date is that we’ve also had discussion and there has been reports since the introduction of the Māori Health Authority that have focused on, I guess, the effectiveness of the authority in its infancy. We’ve been talking about its infancy. One of the things I would like to recognise is that when you do introduce new agencies, new organisations, there is always a transition time where it takes time for things to get up to speed.

One of the reasons I am asking the Minister to seriously consider delaying the implementation of this legislation is because I know those agencies that have received funding have actually just been completing their accountability documentation. What that would do would allow health officials and others who assess it—like the Treasury, for example—to be able to look at that accountability documentation that providers are currently working on and assess it and determine if this bill actually needs to be put in place, or if there are other changes we would potentially like to make to it.

Because we are pushing this through under urgency, we don’t have that select committee process, and there are matters that could normally be considered. I think one of the things that is really important is to actually get a sense check—is the authority working? Is it working as we intended? So a delay in the commencement date of a year would allow that to happen. So that’s why I’ve specifically put in place this amendment, from 30 June 2024 to 30 June 2025. Because when I’ve been talking to providers and to health leaders who work in the health system in my community of Nelson, they have raised that concern with me around the speed of the legislation, both coming through the House but also its implementation time frame—so on the back of those accountability documents. And we all know they look at saying, “Have the outcomes been delivered? Has the money been spent in the intention it was supposed to be spent?”

I think, if health officials—the Treasury, the Minister, and his officials—were to see the outcomes that had been delivered by some of those providers, it may lead to a rethink on whether, first of all, this bill is even needed in the first place, whether there were other tweaks that could be made to it, whether we said, “Actually, we’re not going to introduce it like we are now; we’re going to do something slightly different.” And I think it would allow everyone to take a breath. Because I think that’s what we need to do here: we need to take a breath. Because I think we’re hearing from—within the House—the voices of our communities who are saying, “This has not even had its opportunity to shine, this authority. Give it some time. Give it some time to breathe. Give it some time to grow.”

So this is probably the last opportunity I will have in the Chamber to speak on this very important bill. And I just want to place on record, as a Pākehā New Zealander whose father was one of the first Pākehā leaders in the health system in New Zealand to sit on a committee as the only Pākehā leader to work on Māori health initiatives by Māori, for Māori, I am so proud of his contribution—he is devastated and I am devastated. This is a shameful, shameful bill, and I bring the voice of my father, Jonathan Boyack, and his mahi into Māori health in New Zealand, here, today, to say, “We should not pass this bill.”

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. I am wanting to speak to the title of the bill, if I may, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry to interrupt. Just because a new speaker is speaking on a matter they haven’t spoken on before—when we look at repetition, we look at who else in the debate has spoken on the same thing. Just a wee reminder that new to the member is not new to the debate. So I’ll just start your time again. I apologise for that.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have the perhaps terrifying task of disagreeing with the more experienced members in this House from the same side, Peeni Henare and Willie Jackson. But in the context of what I will propose as the title for this bill, there has to be an understanding of the foundational obligation we have in allowing the fulfilment of tino rangatiratanga for Māori, which is a constitutional, foundational basis. This bill is taking away that right of self-determination for Māori in terms of their health.

In my original speaking to the first reading, I referenced Joseph Banks in 1770, who acknowledged the excellent health of Māori as he perceived them: their diet was “accompanied with moderation” and “must be productive of sound health, which indeed these people are blessed with in a very high degree”. But he made a very interesting other observation. He said, “Such health drawn from so sound principles must make physicians almost useless.” His observation was there was no need for doctors, but he wrongly perceived that there was not already medicine being practised by Māori. There were obviously tohunga, there were obviously rongoā, practices being made.

This is what brings me to the suggestion of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke that this should be called the “Tohunga Suppression Act 2.0”, because what it does is it fails to recognise that Māori have their own mātauranga, have their own knowledge and systems of understanding how best to apply health to their people. When they had free rein to do it, they had the most excellent health that could be observed.

So that is my suggestion. The context also for this, Mr Chair—and I realise you’ve asked me to keep it tight, so I will—is that underlying the logic behind the removal of the Māori Health Authority is the snake oil equality concept that for us to be more equal we have to take away the rights of another group, and the group from whom we’re taking the rights is the group who have the supposed privilege of dying seven years younger than non-Māori, of having twice the rate of cardiovascular disease of non-Māori; who have the privilege of having child health impacts at 1.5 times the rate of non-Māori. So that lie that somehow there is special privilege here in recognising the right of Māori to determine their own health and manage their own health is absolutely betrayed by this bill and is why it should be called the “Tohunga Suppression Act 2.0”. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start this contribution by saying that in my first contribution, I was talking directly to the title, to the name; and, in my second contribution, to the commencement. In my first contribution, I was trying to talk to the title, to the name, to the importance of kupu, of words, of symbolism, of meaning. I have carefully considered the direction from the previous Chair that it is at my discretion whether I use any of the kōrero that we have from the Waitangi Tribunal in this debate. And I believe that the kōrero I was trying to share is absolutely relevant to the legislation that we are debating today, under urgency—shortly going to be passed.

So, with that—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If that’s sort of an inferred question, then I have followed fully the debate to date, and what I’ll be looking for is a reference frequently to any material to the title and commencement.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Absolutely. So, given that I was stopped in my contribution earlier, I would like to return to the contribution I was making about the word “aka”, and why it is important, and why I believe it should be in the title. I agree with the suggestion from the Hon Peeni Henare that the name should be changed to “Pae Mate”, and that Te Aka Whai Ora should be referenced in the title. I heard the Minister’s explanation for why it is just the Māori Health Authority, but he can choose to put whatever additional words he would like to put in there—he can hyphenate it if he likes.

Now, I have been provided this kōrero. They are happy for me to use this kōrero here. So I am referring to uncle Waihoroi Shortland, who says, “When I look at Te Aka Whai Ora, I take the notion quite literally. In Ngāti Hine tradition, te aka kūmara is that part of plant that ensures the health of the crop it produces. It is the part of the kūmara plant which provides sustenance from above and below the ground. For Ngāti Hine, the kūmara is synonymous with the people. Therefore, Te Aka Whai Ora was seen as a means of delivering wellbeing to the people. The aka root system is unseen—it is underground. It ensures the crop will be healthy, will be worth harvesting, and then will sustain the people above the ground. When you look at the connectivity of the parts of the kūmara, the only means through which to maintain the health and wellbeing of the kūmara itself is what the aka is able to do. You do not know what is happening below the earth, but you can assess it based on what is happening above the earth. At a point in time, the foliage will wither—the crop is ready to harvest. We can rejoice in how good the crop is and take the seedlings to generate the next year’s crop. The future crop is always envisaged as being better than this year’s. A good aka will deliver good, healthy people—people well-sustained to enhance the wellness of all it serves. Good Government investment in Te Aka Whai Ora means the people can thrive. Te Aka Whai Ora’s job is to get the investment to deliver a robust crop. So the notion that Te Aka Whai Ora not being there and not being part of the system that nourishes the crop at the end of the aka is tantamount to leaving the fruit to die on the vine.”

So, with that contribution and those words from our uncle Waihoroi Shortland, I support Peeni Henare’s suggestion that we, in fact, change the title of this legislation to “Pae Mate”—the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora: the Maōri Health Authority.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I move, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a simple piece of legislation, and I will conclude with a few simple closing remarks recognising all the work that the House has put into it over this past 24 hours. This bill lays the foundation for a future health system that is focused on health need.

I want to reiterate that I believe we all have the same dream for the health system: we all want to address health inequities, we all want to shorten waiting lists, and we all want a workforce that isn’t overstretched and that has the right skills to respond effectively to all our diverse populations. I said in the first reading debate that even though this particular version of the dream with the Māori Health Authority is coming to an end, I wanted to paint a new one, one that is outcomes-focused, driven by need, and with decisions made closer to the home and hapū.

This Government is totally focused on outcomes. The question we ask about any policy is: will it improve outcomes? Will it mean people get better care? Will it mean people get faster care? Will it mean people will get the care that suits their circumstances, including cultural competency? We will be setting clear health targets to drive improved outcomes, but I want to be very clear that we will be setting ambitious targets that will take some time and resources to meet.

The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will be retained and supported to do even more, including further monitoring Māori health outcomes. The outcomes we are focused on are those that respond to health need. Throughout the debates on this bill, members have repeatedly highlighted disparities in Māori health outcomes. I acknowledge these disparities and the need to improve them. As I’ve said before, when we focus on need, we very quickly find that it is Māori who have the greatest need in most areas of health.

My dream for the health system isn’t about bureaucratic structures and endless plans and reports; it’s about identifying need and responding to it. This bill retains the iwi-Māori partnership boards. They will work with their communities, with hapū and iwi, to identify those needs. There is a positive obligation on Health New Zealand to work with the boards in developing priorities for improving hauora Māori. We seek to empower iwi-Māori partnership boards, but for those who are needy and have capacity beyond what Pae Ora allowed. One of the fundamental differences in approach is enabled by this legislation: this Government believes that decisions should be made closer to the home and hapū. Local circumstances require local solutions rather than national bureaucracies. The iwi-Māori partnership boards will have a role in the planning and delivery of healthcare in their communities. Local input into health services, especially primary and community services, is good for everyone and a priority for this Government.

There will be more to say and more thinking to be done. This bill allows us to pause work on localities while we work out how to ensure genuine local influence on local service design and delivery. We need to have ways of working that identify and support local solutions to local health challenges. That means using data, measuring progress, and working with people who know their communities best.

Primary and community healthcare is most people’s gateway to the health system. When we get this right, we’ll be supporting New Zealanders to stay in good health for longer wherever they are, whoever they are, and whatever their health needs are.

I want to reiterate some of the key changes in this narrow bill: (1) Māori Health Authority staff are to transfer to Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health—this will retain a focus on Māori health and retain organisational knowledge, including any gains that have been achieved—(2) uplifting of the Māori Health Advisory Committee into advisory and monitoring roles; (3) uplifting of iwi-Māori partnership boards, enhancing their relationship with local communities; and (4) pausing of the schedule for localities while we reconsider their place.

Finally, I want to once again acknowledge the many staff of the authority who have worked so hard. Your expertise is essential to achieving this new dream. I know you will be welcomed into Health New Zealand or the Ministry of Health.

We can choose form or function; I choose function. We can choose activism or actions; I choose actions. We can choose outrage or outcomes; I choose outcomes. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Mr Speaker, I want to indicate to you and the House that in the final minute of my contribution today, I will be speaking in te reo Māori.

I’ve known Dr Reti all my life. In fact, Dr Reti was my family doctor, a doctor to my father, and, in fact, Dr Reti also delivered my son into this world. Dr Reti and I also entered Parliament together in 2014, and yet here we are: sadly, one built a whare; the other dismantled it.

I am sad today. I wear a black suit to mark the passing of my grand-uncle John Davis, who is being buried today in Ngāti Manu, and with the help of Te Aka Whai Ora, had it been given more of an opportunity, I’m sure it would have continued to support him in life. I also wear a black suit today to acknowledge that this bill is taking the Māori people backwards.

Dr Reti has said outside of this House that he wanted to hold his powder to deliver a grand plan in the grandeur of the House, to give it depth and volume and the lustre. The contribution throughout the entire passage of this bill from Dr Reti, and indeed members of the Government, has lacked depth, volume, and lustre. In fact, the depth is so shallow that the dissatisfaction on this side of the House with the answers and the explanations given by the Minister and this Government shows that the depth of thinking in this action was not there.

When it comes to volume—volume? Well, if anything, it’s more silence—silence from the Minister and the Government when asked and pressed on matters relating to whether or not he and the Government have met with key stakeholders and whether or not they would be prepared to wait for the Waitangi Tribunal and their recommendations. Nothing but silence from the other side of the House.

Lustre? Well, lacklustre is a better description—lacklustre in the aspiration for the health of Māori people and indeed all New Zealanders.

It disappoints me so much when I think of this whakataukī that says “Kaua e mate wheke, mate ā ururoa!”—“Don’t die passively like the octopus, die fighting like the shark!”—and I look towards my colleague, my whanaunga and my friend Dr Reti to say, please, we, the Māori people and this side of the House, ask you to fight like a shark. Even when those around him seem intent on pulling him down, the ask is that he fights like a shark for our people.

Dr Reti has said he is focused on priorities and targets. The statistics in health for Māori clearly state a case, then, that there will be increased funding from this Government for Māori health outcomes. The statistics are very clear. This House will be looking to the other side of the House, that Government, who are intent on austerity and cuts in the public sector and health services in order to make a tax cut for New Zealanders.

We will be holding this Government to account to make sure that their words around prioritising and focusing the spend and the energy of the health sector to where it’s needed the most will actually be delivered upon. That’s for Māori. The statistics are all there—they are clear—and if this Government had given the Waitangi Tribunal the opportunity for an urgency hearing, every member on that side of the House would have seen the case put forward for those statistics that paint a grim picture for the Māori health of this country.

I make the point that what’s good for Māori is good for this country. Not only is this bill and the bill that’s about to come a detriment to Māori health statistics, it is to this country.

There’s an old saying that I remember Sir John Key used to say outside of Parliament. He’d say, about a rising tide, that all boats rise. Well, my recommendation to the Minister and this Government is that the waka was left behind, that the only boats that rose here were the ones that have dictated to this Government that apparently there’s special privilege for Māori. There is no privilege in dying seven years earlier—show me where that privilege is. There is no privilege in higher rates of type 2 diabetes—show me where that privilege is. There is no privilege for a higher death rate of lung cancer by Māori women—there is no privilege in that. So I am extremely disappointed that today we are taking our people backwards.

I want to acknowledge all of the hard-working people in the health sector, not just the Māori health workers but all workers in the health sector: many Māori, many Pākehā who have continued to support the health aspirations of Māori.

The Minister, in his contribution in the third reading, said that his grand plan would take time. The Minister and this Government gave the Māori Health Authority 18 months—18 months—to see whether or not they could turn around decades of inequities—decades of inequities—and I can guarantee that Minister and this Government that our people can’t wait. He said it would take time; our people can’t wait. They deserve better and we will be pushing this Government to make sure that they deliver that.

Back to the health workers. All have said to me and to us that their commitment to Māori health in this country is unwavering. I say thank you, and I say once again, “Kaua e mate wheke, mate ā ururoa”, to continue to fight for the health outcomes for Māori communities up and down this country. To the team at Te Aka Whai Ora, ka whawhai tonu mātou, and we will continue to fight and continue to champion the cause that you are all fighting for in our communities and in the bureaucracies that have been established by Government.

I also want to note the mishandling of this bill from its inception to here, the third reading, and even to its commencement date in June. My colleagues will no doubt flesh this out even further, but the mishandling has been absolutely appalling. It flies in the face of years and generations of work through the tribunal, good work through different shades of Government over decades, and it’s absolutely shameful, the handling of this bill. The Minister admitted himself that the commencement date in June, set out in the bill, was to allow a transition, etc. But what we were saying was it should allow the voice of our people to be heard.

I want to now turn to te reo Māori. Ki aku tamariki, i whawhai tō pāpā mō te oati a tō tupuna, a Erima, a tō tupuna, a Rob Cooper. I tutuki ia, engari kua tukuna atu mā tētahi e whakakore. Ko tāku e oati atu ana ki a kōrua, ki a koutou, ki tō tāua iwi Māori, kei konei tonu tō iwi e whawhai ana. Ka kore mātou e hinga, ka kore mātou pahemo. Ko tō tāua whakapapa ki runga i te nukuroa ka haere tonu ki roto i ngā tau maha kei mua i a tātou.

E aku tamariki, ko taku oati ki a koe, ka whawhai tonu tō pāpā, ka whawhai tonu tō iwi, ka whawhai tonu te iwi Māori mō āke, āke, āke.

[To my children, your father fought for the vow made by your grandfather, by Erima, and your predecessor, by Rob Cooper. I was successful, but it has now been given over to someone else to abolish. What I vow to the two of you, to all of you, and to our Māori people, your people are still here fighting. We will not fall; we will not pass away. Our genealogy on the breadth of the land will continue throughout the many years that are before us.

To my children, my vow to you, your father will continue to fight, your people will continue to fight, and your Māori people will continue to fight for ever and ever.]

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green):

Karanga, kārangaranga waiata whānau e

Unuhia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te kōmako e kō?

Whakatairangitia, rere ki uta, rere ki tai

Māu e kī mai, “He aha te mea nui?”

Māku e kī atu, “He tangata, he tangata, he tangata”.

[Call, put out the call, sing, family

Pull out the new shoot of the flax bush, where will the bellbird then sing?

Elevate it, fly inland, fly out to sea

Should you say to me, “What is the greatest thing?”

I will say to you, “It is people, it is people, it is people”.]

I share this waiata with us this morning as I grieve the loss of Te Aka Whai Ora. Because in te ao Māori we have a term, moumou, and Whaea Debbie Ngarewa-Packer spoke of the moumou of the loss of Efeso, and now we have the moumou of losing Te Aka Whai Ora through the acts of this Government through urgency in this House.

That waiata reflects on the importance of people at the centre of what we do and why we are here. I’m not here to play games. I am focused on the health and wellbeing of our people. And when I see a blatant disregard for the people of New Zealand and te iwi Māori, to shut us out, to have an opinion on such an important piece of legislation—4,685 submitters contributed towards Pae Ora, and now, within a matter of hours, maybe a day and a half, we see the end of half of what Pae Ora set out to do.

I reflect on the claimants and the aspirations and the challenges that they shared in the Wai 2575 health outcomes inquiry and the evidence that they contributed towards the landmark report, which set the framework for Te Pae Ora, and then the full health and disability systems review that took place that endorsed the same findings and recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Because, you see, we have unacceptable Māori health inequalities. We suffer from institutional racism within the machine. The general health system has not improved Māori health outcomes. Approaches to design, purchasing, and contracting of health services have only worsened health inequalities.

Yet, within a day and a half, we have heard no plan. We have just heard a repeal, a whakakāhore, a whakakoretake ana i Te Aka Whai Ora. Ngā kaimahi, ngā kaumātua, ngā tohunga i tohua tērā rōpū kia tū motuhake mō te hauora o te iwi Māori. E whakakāhore ana i tēnei pire motuhake te Rōpū Kākāriki. Kāhore te Rōpū Kākāriki e tautoko ana. Me tū rangatira mō te hauora Māori; me tū motuhake tēnei mea Te Aka Whai Ora ahakoa ngā mahi a tēnei Kāwanatanga. Me pupuri tonu i tērā mauri.

[We have just heard a repeal, an abolishment, a negation of the purpose of the Māori Health Authority. The Green Party opposes this bill. The Green Party is not in support. We need to stand nobly for Māori health; this thing, the Māori Health Authority, should stand independently despite the actions of this Government. That life force should be maintained.]

Last night, the Waitangi Tribunal, at 6 o’clock—you see, because I’m watching the tribunal all the time. They confirmed that their jurisdiction had now ended; that they could not hold the urgent inquiry into the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. It’s now vacated. All that time and energy from our claimants, our hapū, our hauora Māori, our health leadership that contributed, e whakakoretake ana i ērā kaikōrero [they are negating those speakers]—their work, their contributions, to uphold and share again, as they had previously done on Wai 2575. They were doing it on replay—press replay, we’re doing it again—because that’s how important Te Aka Whai Ora is to te iwi Māori. So I stand frustrated, I stand angry, and I feel ripped off for the people of New Zealand and te iwi Māori.

In discussions and dialogue with Kahurangi Tureiti Moxon—she’s famous, you know. On Breakfast TV yesterday she shared about how important it was for Te Aka Whai Ora to exist; that we might have rima paihēneti—this little 5 percent of a budget to do something and have control over it; that we might have the ability to exercise our rangatiratanga over a tiny space of Vote Health. But instead, she shared on Breakfast TV yesterday, well, we’re being plonked right back in where we started, and, in fact, into a system that’s not working for Māori and hasn’t worked for Māori and will never work for Māori.

Because, you see, we were never asked if Te Aka Whai Ora should be disestablished. Nā wai i teka kua tū he hui? Kei hea ngā hui ki roto i Te Taitokerau mō tēnei kaupapa? Kahore.

[Who lied that there were meetings held? Where were the meetings in Northland about this topic? There were none.]

Just because you campaigned on a kaupapa, doesn’t mean that te iwi Māori gives you the whakaae [permission] to go ahead and disestablish this institution of rangatiratanga hauora Māori nei [Māori health sovereignty].

So I have to ask the Minister, his officials, and the Government: why do you believe that mainstream has the solutions for te iwi Māori? Why do you believe that we should be plonked right back into a system that has deprived us of thriving lives and only increased health inequalities for the people of te iwi Māori, let alone our tāngata whaikaha, let alone our rainbow communities, let alone migrants and immigrants and our refugees?

I keep thinking of our kaimahi, and I worry for them, because will they get pay parity when they go into mainstream? Will our kaimahi be recognised for those skills that they have? Because, you see, they’re specialists and they left Te Whatu Ora for Te Aka Whai Ora and other mainstream institutions to be steely-eyed focused on hauora Māori. So will they receive the gentle care that they so deserve?

I heard from a cousin last night who works in Te Whatu Ora, and he shared how hard it was working in mainstream, being the one Māori in the team, and the battle it is for him to articulate ao Māori perspectives in a mainstream machine that really considers us all New Zealanders. Yet on our wards we need whānau who can care, and that’s why I think our kaimahi from Te Aka Whai Ora are so important. They sit in our hospitals. They are not a bureaucracy. Less than 300 kaimahi e tātou mā. Let’s not use the “This is a bureaucracy, a Māori bureaucracy”. It isn’t. It’s less than 300 kaimahi. Riana Manuel, he taonga mō te iwi Māori, he pou whirinaki mō te hauora Māori.

[Riana Manuel, a treasure for the Māori people, a pillar of support for Māori health.]

She comes with a whakapapa and a legacy of achievement, of advocacy, and knowledge of the health sector, let alone her mātauranga Māori that she brings from Pare Hauraki. Riana stood at Healing Our Spirit Worldwide international indigenous conference last year in Canada, and she was our Aotearoa keynote. You know how proud te iwi Māori was standing alongside Riana and singing “Ka Pioioi” for her? Because on the international stage, Te Aka Whai Ora means something—Te Aka Whai Ora meant something in that gathering of 5,000 indigenous people. Yet we have a Government that doesn’t care—it doesn’t care about the institution of Te Aka Whai Ora and this māreikura Riana Manuel who will lose her job, and where will she fit as the leader that she is in hauora Māori? As her kaimahi reach out to me and say, “Please protect Riana. She is inspiring. We need her. We cannot lose her.”, we have failed, voted down. We could have deleted the clause and enabled her to lift and shift into the new machine, the 80,000plus strong workforce, and let her be the leader that she is, and pay her what she is worth, too—just saying.

Chris Luxon has shared he wants te ao Māori to thrive, and when Māori do well, all New Zealanders do well. Well, show us the plan—show us the plan e tātou mā. Kia ora tātou.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of ACT in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. ACT believes that Māori should have equitable access to healthcare, but we believe that all New Zealanders should have the same level of access to healthcare no matter what ethnic group you belong to or where you live in our country.

The previous health system had many shortcomings and didn’t address local issues such as those of iwi. But the Māori Health Authority provided another level of bureaucracy, another central government organisation that was failing to prove its worth. The authority’s progress report found that concerns were raised about staff transfers not being focused on skills and expertise but, instead, on taking Māori staff from Te Whatu Ora. The report also found the authority was tracking behind in its delivery. Removing the authority did not remove provision for the Government to engage and consult with Māori on Māori matters.

ACT believes in localism and in empowering communities and that healthcare delivers on needs, not race. We believe that healthcare is tailored to the individual. All in the coalition Government believe in better health outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders without the addition of any unnecessary bureaucracy. When we lift the health of New Zealanders, we must not leave anybody behind, and this Government is addressing that. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. I begin my contribution by acknowledging that this bill delivers on the coalition commitment of all parties in this Government. I’d like to thank the health Minister for his leadership on this bill and to actually acknowledge the support that New Zealand First will give him as he drives this mission to ensure we have equity of access and good, positive health gain for all New Zealanders.

New Zealand First and the coalition Government remain committed to improving Māori health outcomes. The coalition Government supports a public health system that is keenly focused on delivering these positive health outcomes for all New Zealanders. New Zealand First believes that equity of access for all, based on need—based on clinical need—must be a core foundation in our public health system.

My leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has always, in fact, been an opponent of the Māori Health Authority as a separatist, bureaucratic behemoth. Māori health equity should be matrixed right across the entire public health system because the delivery of Māori health gain is a fundamental responsibility of the entire public health system, and it is this public health system that is accountable for its delivery, but our health system is struggling. Why would it not be struggling? When you have a previous Government, during a pandemic, with once-in-a-generation health reforms, of course it was going to be struggling.

This next layer of bureaucracy has actually failed to deliver Māori health gain. Where are the outcomes? We have not seen any from this. But this coalition Government will continue work to provide better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a split call. Te Pāti Māori and Greens—five minutes.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Gosh, I wish we could have these people’s eight minutes. First of all, I think it’s really important to put context to the rest of Aotearoa, because that’s who we’re speaking to today, because taringa mārō over to my left, they’re not listening. They won’t listen, and why would they listen when 83 percent of Māori did not support this Government? That is the important part of why we’re here. It isn’t about race or ethnicity; it’s about rights. We have rights. We have rights and interests under Te Tiriti that were addressed here, that were addressing wrongs, and no one can deny those wrongs, because this House has acknowledged not only those Wai claims but the settlements of iwi.

What we have here is a weak Government that lacks courage to follow through on solutions that tangata w’enua came up with for themselves. They lacked the courage to be transformational and instead have resorted back to the comfort of a system that they know really, really well, and they know it well because it was designed by the very people who took our land, our language. It’s designed by the tools of colonisation—and you may hate that word, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Just imagine what we could’ve had. I refuse to have a tangi today, because all you’ve done is rarked up the fire in our belly to come back at this a second time. Do not be fooled that your three—if you’re lucky, perhaps six—years of holding this line is going to keep us down, because it won’t. What we have is a Minister here who admits that the iwi-Māori partnership boards need to be powered up; there was no when, there was no how; that we have a mass of data to be collected; there was no when, there was no how; that we have locality plans that need to be worked on; there was no when, there was no how; that we have regional empowerment strategies, but there was no when, there was no how.

So I want to dive into what would have been—what would have been—and keep our w’anau focused on what would have been if we didn’t have to sit there and go to places and clinics and doctors that didn’t recognise us, that we couldn’t relate to; if we didn’t have to feel judged; if we didn’t have to be in a system that was designed to work against us, that wouldn’t send us to the specialist. I want to focus on what we could have done and what we will do—what we will do. I refuse to tangi, because you will not win—you have never won at anything. This is the whole focus on where we get frustrated with you, that we continue to do things we could’ve done. We could’ve had free primary care for w’anau, and we will do that. We could’ve had free dental care for w’anau, and we will do that. We could’ve had free delivery of medication for houses for te w’anau earning less than $60,000, and we will do that. We will implement a Māori health card, and we will have an independent Māori health authority. It will come back better, it will be stronger, and you will have less say in it.

The beauty of it is that 70 percent of the population of Māori are under the age of 40, and you come from parties where your population aren’t procreating and you aren’t getting any younger. You are politicians on the eve of legacy parties, and you will not come back. You will not get a second chance at doing this. I feel we will have Mokopuna Ora. We will make sure that you all sit here, this Government, and enjoy your kai, enjoy the feast of your feats, enjoy celebrating and salivating in what you think you have done, enjoy thinking you have stopped us—

Carl Bates: We’re enjoying delivering things.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —especially you, Carl. Digest it well. Digest your racism well. Make sure it goes into your puku and sits heavy.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Ngarewa-Packer, you will withdraw and apologise.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I withdraw and apologise. Enjoy—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And you will also use full names.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Enjoy, Government, the feel of being anti-Māori, because this will not be something we let you forget.

We will hold the Minister of Health to account. The Minister has guaranteed that the solution this Government promises will be better then what Māori designed. This Minister has promised that they will stand by and do better than what the Māori Health Authority promised to achieve. So we will hold the Government and the Minister to account. We will question you every chance we get. We will turn up in hordes of w’anau every chance we get. We will make sure we will eyeball you when it comes back and you have failed us. We will not let this Government get off the skates, get off any hook, when it has failed us, because looking at this Government, not a single one of you uses the Māori Health Authority. Not a single one of you can talk for Māori.

So we will hold this Government to account. And I love that you’re all animated. I love that this Government is animated. Te Pāti Māori will continue to hold you to account for what it is that you promised to do and don’t achieve, and we will make sure our w’anau see that you have done it as well. Kia ora rā.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just want clarity. You asked Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, co-leader for Te Pāti Māori, to apologise for using the word “racism”. In actual fact, there’s nothing in the Standing Orders that says that you cannot use the word “racism”. If you call somebody racist, yes, I understand that. But what you’ve asked her to do is apologise for making the statement, and, actually, she was well within her rights to make it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Waititi, if you want to go back and have a look at the record, you will see that she actually referred to a member on my right specifically as racist. That was why I asked her to apologise.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Is this a new point of order?

RAWIRI WAITITI: I’m speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, a new angle.

RAWIRI WAITITI: The new angle is I think you need to go back and watch the video, because she used the word “racism”; she didn’t call that member a racist.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you to that member. And, again, I’ll invite him to look at the record.

RICARDO MENÉNDES MARCH (Green): It’s a shame to see so many members from the Government who campaigned on pitting so many of our migrant communities against Māori for the breadcrumbs that this Government wants to deliver. They talk about this being about lifting outcomes for everyone, but, make no mistake: they don’t want to do this either. What they want to do is undermine their commitment that they have to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Aka Whai Ora represented an opportunity to move towards that. It represented an opportunity to deliver better health outcomes for everyone by actually supporting Māori to deliver better health outcomes for their own communities by devolving resources and, unlike what several Government members have outlined around this being Wellington bureaucracy, that actually would have enabled devolution of resources at a regional level. It’s so important to push back against the narrative that it’s actually not grounded on the aspirations that Te Aka Whai Ora represented.

This debate failed to address that our health isn’t just pinned down by how many hospitals this Government wants to build; it’s pinned down by this Government’s commitment to the social determinants of health, the wellbeing of our environment. So the Minister may want to look at this Government’s agenda when he talks about better health outcomes, because this is the Government that is driving health outcomes down by lowering benefit increases and by railing against homes being healthy and fit for purpose, and that is continuing to push young people to live under the minimum wage. None of those things actually propels outcomes.

So while we could take the Minister’s words around his commitments to lifting health outcomes, his Government doesn’t want to do any of that. So the Minister—who is just walking out—should really look back at—[Interruption] But I’m literally basically describing that.

Carl Bates: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): If the comment was that the member is leaving the House, the ruling is about the absence of a member from the House. So, in anticipation of your point of order, Mr Bates, I take it I have anticipated well? If only I was that good on the rugby field. Mr Menéndez March, continue, and we’ll just put the clock back for the time of that.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. Again, that reaction from the members is so indicative of their priorities. They get hung up about, for example, whether I almost called out someone as they were walking out, and yet what they should be outraged about is what their Government is doing to health outcomes by disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora. Let’s be clear: this is a Government that would rather get really worked up over the minutiae of this House rather than actually what we’re doing, which is gutting an entity that would have delivered better health outcomes.

The Minister, once again, when he talked about his commitments to lifting Māori health outcomes, needs to realise who he is swimming alongside. He’s swimming alongside a group of people who campaigned against Māori rights. He’s going to be having to sit at the Cabinet table alongside colleagues who actively campaigned against Māori health outcomes. His words mean nothing when he is not putting safeguards and commitments to resourcing to lift Māori health outcomes, and when he’s having to sit at a Cabinet table with people who were happy to sit with conspiracy theorists who literally rallied against the foundations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I don’t care what the Minister’s commitments are because he is part of a Government that is anti improving Māori health outcomes by the nature of undermining Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

As a migrant to Aotearoa, I will not stand by a narrative that promotes white supremacy and that promotes racism because what it does is actually undermines the rights of communities that have already been underserved by successive Governments. Māori health outcomes did not get to this point by just stasis; the state of Māori health outcomes came to this point because of ongoing colonial violence by successive Governments.

Te Aka Whai Ora represented an opportunity to redress some of those, and we needed to not just keep Te Aka Whai Ora; we needed to adequately resource it. This is what the Greens campaigned on. So we join with the cause of our colleagues who we will be fighting alongside to not just restore Te Aka Whai Ora but to adequately resource it so that the aspirations of Te Aka Whai Ora and the communities whom it represents are adequately met, because Te Aka Whai Ora wasn’t an entity that was about bureaucracy; it was about working in an intersectional way to lift so many of our communities and it represented a new way of working across all Government.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to firstly acknowledge all the passion and care from around this House, especially on the Opposition benches. And I thank the members for their contributions, in particular the Hon Peeni Henare, you know, but I would also add that this Government is focused on outcomes and we, like you, want better quality care and we want better outcomes for Māori. We acknowledge that Māori are overrepresented in need, and I know our Minister is very focused on making sure that a service gets out to those areas where there is most need. We will retain the iwi-Māori partnership boards, we want to empower them, we want to work with local communities, and we—as the Minister stated—believe local situations require local solutions. I want to thank the Minister for his dedication to improving health outcomes across New Zealand. I support this bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the Minister of Health for nothing, actually. I can’t be as generous as my brother Peeni Henare, but I tautoko to our former Minister Peeni for his wonderful mahi.

But this is a shameful, shameful, shameful day for this Government. I remember when this kaupapa came through. The dreams of our people—the entity, the waka, was fulfilling the dreams of our people. Our people always talked about a Māori health authority, and so many of us, so many people, thought it was impossible within the system. But here, through the great work of Andrew Little and Peeni Henare, we were able to shape this within the system, with support from our people on the outside—no doubt about that. I mihi to our people on the outside. I mihi to the Māori Party for their support—to the Green Party. But to have an entity like this within the system was considered absolutely impossible, and so, so many dreams are being smashed today.

But that is the reality of this Government. In just four months, they’ve rammed through anti-worker legislation, anti-Māori legislation, anti-renter legislation, and anti-environmental legislation—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: And anti-beneficiary.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —or pushed through Parliament under urgency, with none of the critical oversight law required. And, as former Minister Carmel Sepuloni says, it’s anti-beneficiary legislation, putting people into poverty.

So this is a shameful, shameful day, particularly for the Māori members, who I notice are not present now, not here at all—at all. [Interruption] No, no, no, no. I’m sorry, but I’m withdrawing Māori membership from those Māori members on the other side—you don’t deserve to be part of what we’re doing. This is a disgraceful bill that your Māori members have rolled out. So shame, particularly on those members, today, and I say that because this is stamping on the mana and the aspirations and the dreams of our people.

I’m not denying our members over there whakapapa Māori—absolutely—but our people are embarrassed by them. They’re embarrassed by their actions. They can get all the support from their Pākehā journalist friends, who think they do wonderful maiden speeches, but they have no standing—no standing—in te ao Māori. Minimal—zero standing. No one even knows who these Māori members are. Who are they? Who are they?

Dr Reti, like Peeni Henare, is someone who I’ve respected through the years, but he has let his whānau down and he has let his whakapapa down today. It’s a shameful, shameful act for someone who should know better—someone who is a good man, but, sadly, is under the pressure of a Government who is intent on removing every right that Māori has.

It doesn’t matter if you’re right wing or left wing; you have to have due process. But this Government is into public health vandalism. That’s what this is all about. National are participating in the public health vandalism because Winston Peters and David Seymour have dragged the Prime Minister all the way to the right—of that there is no doubt.

Hon Member: He’s not reading it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, I don’t have to read. National don’t want any scrutiny of public health vandalism, basically, because they’re cowards—there’s no doubt about it. They have no respect for due process.

Look at what’s going to happen very shortly. We’ve got the smoke-free legislation coming up. There will be 8,000 deaths—8,000 deaths—from dumping smoke-free amendments. That’s what we’re talking about—an extra 8,000 deaths. We’re remodelling the COVID inquiry into an anti-vax circus for Winston’s crazy conspiracy mates. So they’re going down that track—this is what they’re doing—and now we’re ramming through killing off the Māori Health Authority to stop Māori from having their day in court with the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Māori Health Authority gave us the bureaucratic muscle to ensure Māori health outcomes mattered, but this new, reactionary Government has turned the whole debate into a health apartheid narrative. That’s what’s happened here. They’ve turned everything, and it’s all got the narrative around—we heard the stupid ACT member waffling on, whose leader can’t even be bothered turning up: “Oh, this is about need, not race.” Oh, really?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Willie Jackson, please, you have been here long enough to understand the rules about that referral.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Need and race go together, and the reality is that that member has no idea what she’s talking about, as her leader has used the race argument to advance himself and his “Māori party”.

It does worry us that they’re not following democratic processes, because this is what they talk about all the time. It’s an affront to wonderful spokespeople, wonderful advocates whom I spoke about yesterday, like Dr Mason Durie. They don’t have the politics of some of us. Dr Mason Durie, as I said—despite who his son-in-law is—is one of the most apolitical people you could get. You could not get better people than Dr Mason Durie; Dr Rawiri Jansen; Awerangi Tamihere, who was on the Māori Health Authority; Dr Anthony Jordan; Dr Lily Fraser; Tureiti Moxon; Papaarangi Reid—these are our people who have fought the fight, and—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: And they are experts.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They are experts, but the members opposite clearly don’t want to know anything about them.

We have an obligation as a Parliament to pass legislation that helps and enables our people. How does this help our people? That’s what the question is. Dr Reti is talking about devolving, but he is purposely denying the Waitangi Tribunal its opportunity in the most disrespectful way.

It breaks our hearts. Many of these our members here—you’ve heard some of our MPs in tears. I’ve heard Willow-Jean Prime. We’ve heard Hūhana Lyndon. They speak and they cry. They cry because of the lost opportunity. It’s a lost opportunity in terms of our people.

But I tautoko what Willow-Jean has said, what Hūhana has said, and what Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has said when she talked about how we should not tangi, and that is because we live for another day. There will be another day. There will be another day when this useless, pathetic Government has to stand down. It’s a political stunt, and the most ugly of stunts. It’s shameful that on the other side, they don’t see and hear what we say. They don’t hear our experts. They don’t see—you don’t feel the kōrero out there.

So we hear this “Will Māori buy into what’s going now?”—I think that’s probably the next question. Everyone knows that Māori don’t have any options. We have no options; we have to engage with these mongrels. That’s just the reality.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, is that unparliamentary? OK, I apologise for that. But that’s a fact—we have to engage with this lot. Well, where do we go? If we don’t engage, we get nothing, so it’s either nothing or something. So our people will negotiate, they’ll grab the crumbs, and they’ll pick up contracts. We know they’re going to devolve to a few people. We know what the strategy is—we’ve been around a long time—“Oh, we’ll pick out this one. We’ll pick out that one.” Will our people line up? Well, of course our people will line up.

Hon Member: JT will give the member some hours.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, you can talk about JT or whatever, but the reality is he’s a pragmatist. The reality is our people are pragmatists. They know that it’s either the crumbs or nothing—it’s either the crumbs or nothing. So I will urge our people to do business with these people on the other side, Madam Speaker. I will urge them to do business, because otherwise there’s no business and our people will continue to die.

I want to finish by again congratulating ourselves on this side for fighting the fight—in particular, our former Ministers Peeni Henare and Willow-Jean Prime really have advocated this kaupapa proudly for us. I’m really proud of their advocacy. I’m proud also of the Labour Party, who supported us all the way through; former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who loved the idea; current leader, Chris Hipkins—“Chippy” is doing such a wonderful job—Carmel Sepuloni, our deputy leader. It’s been a great privilege to have our party backing this, and, as I said earlier, there will be another day—that is what we know. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill in its third reading.

I would like to thank all the members who have actually mentioned health outcomes, because that really was the most important thing here. Regardless of organisational form, this remains, and it needs to be addressed to make sure we have better health outcomes for Māori, and also non-Māori.

I thank those people that have mentioned the Māori health providers that are caring both for Māori and non-Māori, which is great and it will continue as we look into the future. We want Māori providers to provide care for non-Māori and for Māori, and we want non-Māori health providers to provide for Māori and non-Māori.

I want to shout out to all our healthcare workers in New Zealand working around the clock to provide the best health outcome to all New Zealanders, which is currently in a very challenging system. I just want to acknowledge that they will use the best tools they have to their advantage to make sure of the best outcomes.

We have aspirin, which we have taken from the Greeks; we have quinine, which we have taken from the Peruvians; and we take the best to make sure our doctors and nurses can provide the best for their patients, regardless of where it’s coming from. Therefore, that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The next call is a split call.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, today returns Māori to disproportionate harm. I want to take a moment to acknowledge all the kaimahi, all of the health practitioners, all of the kaiurungi who have done the hard fight, year in, year out to where we got to establish an independent voice for Māori in the structures of our health system that, we know, wasn’t working for them.

When I return to my marae at Moawhango, I want to go back and tell them that I’ve done better for them by serving in this House. Today, some in this House will have to go back to their marae to tell them that they are returning their whānau back to a system where our people die seven years earlier than their non-Māori counterparts. The blood of their tūpuna will stain their hands for ever.

I wonder if the doctors in this House who have supported the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority today have abandoned their ethical principles that they were once asked to uphold as medical professionals—to act with integrity and in the best interests of their patients. Just not the Māori ones. How morally bankrupt do you have to become to sell out your own people and communities for a couple of trinkets and baubles of political office and a bit of a campaign clickbait? It should be a timely reminder for all people that it might be our health sovereignty and opportunities they are stealing today. But rest assured, they are coming for yours tomorrow.

Te Aka Whai Ora isn’t bureaucracy, as the Prime Minister so casually regards it to be. It’s a chance for Māori to make meaningful decisions about improving their health outcomes through commissioning the services they need, delivered in a way that they want rather than have the same stale ideas rammed down their throats by the greatest pack of bureaucrats that we have ever seen—the other side of the House.

The establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora included the Waitangi Tribunal’s hauora report, and by God, I am disappointed that we didn’t have the respect to wait two days to hear of that hearing. This is a breach of mana motuhake, the incremental steps that this work has done to achieve better outcomes for Māori, to give Māori a voice, steps towards tino rangatiratanga.

I want to acknowledge those that put the work in to put the hearing in place before the Waitangi Tribunal: Lady Tureiti Moxon, Rawiri Jansen, and all of our Māori health practitioners. Today I salute you for the hard yards that you’ve done, and, by God, we stand with you moving forward.

I want to push back on the non-Māori across the House that take cheap shots at Te Aka Whai Ora and say it didn’t deliver anything. That is false. The strength of Te Aka Whai Ora lies in its independence from the Crown and its ability to provide coordinated and independent Māori-focused advice, policy, advocacy, and commission, and one year in we have seen incremental change. We have seen outcomes—and tell me of a structural shift in this country’s history in Aotearoa New Zealand where we have measured the achievements and results within only 12 months, but we only do this to Māori. It is unfair, it is disgraceful, and every Māori on that side of the House, every member of this Government, should hang their heads in shame. And when you go to your own marae, you tell your whānau that you are disgraceful.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Te Aka Whai Ora—the Māori Health Authority—was never really equipped to undo the health inequities for Māori. Those gaps are huge, and the responsibility lies much further outside the health system. It’s for the entire economy, and it’s for all of our Government to take note of those inequities because we can’t fix them within health alone; it has to be done across the board. So I don’t believe that this change will have any effect other than to get rid of a bureaucracy that wasn’t doing anything.

Those strong Māori health providers will still be working for Māori health, and everybody in the health system will be doing the same. I believe that this change is needed because the only symbolism that I remember was the two waka lashed together—really, those two lashed together. What we had was a ship the size of the Titanic with a dingy attached to the back—that’s the real symbolism. So now we undo this, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour):

Kāre te mamae te wāhi ake ne

Ka whakapatu ana te tau o taku ate i

Ki te iwi rā e tahurihia atu rā

Ki raro ki te maru o te Kuīni e i

Hei hāpai mai i te patu a ware

Ki runga ki taku kiri ngārahu e i

Te ngū o taku ihu na i

[The great anguish that cleaves

That assaults the strings of my heart

To the people that turned away

Under the mantle of the Queen

To raise the weapon of the ignorant

Upon my darkened skin

The tattooed scrolls of my nose]

Ka tīmata ake taku kōrero whakamutunga i roto i tēnei Whare i te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire whakakāhore i Te Aka Whai Ora. I tīmata taku kōrero i tētahi waiata tawhito nā te tupuna a Kawiti. E te Māngai o te Whare, ko ngā kupu kei roto i tērā wāhanga o te waiata ki ngā Māori i huri ki raro i te maru o te Kuīni hei hāpai mai i te patu a ware, taku kiri ngārahu e, te ngū o taku ihu.  

Ko wai rātou hei huri ki te tautoko i te patu i te iwi Māori? He Māori e patu ana i te iwi Māori. Koirā te mahi a tēnei pire kua tau mai nei ki roto i tēnei Whare inanahi, i tēnei rā hoki. Nō reira he waiata tangi tērā, he waiata tangi ki ōku whanaunga e te Māngai o te Whare, nā te mea ko rātou e ārahi ana i tēnei kaupapa hei takahi, takahi i te Tiriti o Waitangi. Takahi, takahi i te iwi Māori. Takahi, takahi i ngā moemoeā, ngā wawata o wō tātou tūpuna, o te nāianei, o te āpōpō hoki. 

Koirā tā rātou mahi i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, nō reira e te Māngai o te Whare, i tīmata taku kōrero i te tangi, i te mōteatea o tētahi o ngā tūpuna nāna i haina te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tana tohu tuatahi i runga i te Tiriti o Waitangi.  

E te Māngai o te Whare, e mōhio ana tātou katoa, nā te mea i rongo ahau, e mōhio ana te Kāwanatanga ki ngā tatauranga. E ai ki ngā tatauranga mō te hauora, ko te iwi Māori kei raro e putu ana. E ai ki ngā tatauranga, ka mate moata a Ngāi Māori, e whitu tau. 

Nā ko Te Aka Whai Ora tētahi kaupapa kātahi anō ka whakatūria, kātahi anō ka whakatūria. Kāhore i roa ka whakamatea, nā tērā taha. I whakatūria Te Aka Whai Ora i runga i te tono a tētahi rōpū i āta titiro, āta whakaaro i te rangahau, ngā tatauranga kei mua i a rātou; the Health and Disability Commission. Nā rātou te kōrero me whakatū Te Aka Whai Ora. He aha ai? Tērā pea hei rongoa mō ērā tatauranga. 

Āe, e tika ana, ko te Taraipiunara tētahi atu nā rātou te kī, whakatūria tētahi kaupapa Māori i roto i te hauora. Tērā pea hei rongoa mō ērā tatauranga. I mahi kaha mātou i te wā i a mātou i te Kāwanatanga. Kaha. Kei hea taku whanaunga, kei konei. I kite au, i pau tana kaha ki te whakatū i tēnei. E mōhio ana ia tōna kaha i whakapau, tōna hoa rangatira, tana kaha i whakapau mō tēnei kaupapa. 

Nā te mea e mōhio ana mātou ki ngā tatauranga. Ō mātou whanaunga i mate ohorere, i mate whitu tau moata, ko taku pāpā tētahi. Koirā te take i tū ahau inanahi, i tangi ahau, nā te mea e mōhio ana ahau ki ngā tatauranga kei roto i tōku whare, kei roto i tōna whare. Ko tana pāpā tētahi. Ko te matua e takoto ana ki te marae o Ngāti Manu tētahi. Ko tēnei kaupapa o Te Aka Whai Ora tētahi kaupapa hei rongoa pea mō ērā tatauranga e mōhiotia whānuitia.

Engari e te Māngai o te Whare, te Minita hou, hei ko tāna tekau mā waru marama kua pahure, horekau he kōrero pai i puta mai i tēnei nō reira me whakamate. E kī, e ki! I noho ahau ki te whakarongo ki wāna kōrero, he aha tana rautaki? He aha te mahere? Kahore ahau i paku rongo i tētahi mea i puta mai i tana waha he pai ake i Te Aka Whai Ora.  

Me mōhio tēnei Whare, kahore te Minita i kōrero ki te iwi Māori e pā ana ki tēnei. Kahore ia i haere ki te noho tahi, kōrero tahi ki ōna hoa Tiriti, kahore. Tau mai tēnei pire, ohorere, ka pahure ā muri ake nei. Kahore ia i tatari kia noho te Taraipiunara ki te whakarongo ki ngā kerēme a ngā whanaunga o te Minita. I kī ahau ko tētahi o ngā kaikerēme ko tana hapū, o Te Kapotai. E mōhio ana ahau e haere mai ana ngā kaikōrero o Te Taitokerau ki te waha i ngā kōrero e whakahē ana i wana mahi whakakāhore, whakakore i Te Aka Whaiora. 

I mōhio ia kei te haere tērā nohoanga o te Taraipiunara. Engari e te Māngai o te Whare, kīhai ia i paku whakaaro ki tērā. Ka tū tēnei pire i tēnei rā, nō reira kua whakakorengia tērā nohoanga o te Taraipiunara. I kī ahau i roto i taku kōrero, he aha te take i tino ohorere tēnei mahi, tino tere tēnei mahi? Nā te mea ka tīmata ā te mutunga o Hune. Ko tāku e whakapono ana he haukoti i te mana o te Taraipiunara, hei haukoti i ōna whanaunga i haere mai ki te whakahē i āna mahi. 

E te Māngai o te Whare, e tautoko ana ahau i ngā kōrero ki ngā kaimahi o Te Aka Whai Ora, ki ngā kaimahi Māori i roto i te hauora. E tika ana ngā kōrero: tai timu; tai pari. Ka hoki anō tātou ki tēnei kaupapa ā tōna wā ki te whakatika, ki te whakatika i ngā hē i mahia i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei rā. E tika ana te kōrero, nā tēnei Kāwanatanga e hoki muri ana tātou. Hoki muri. Hoki muri ki wērā tatauranga kino rawa atu.

E te Māngai o te Whare, ka mutu aku kōrero i tētahi rerenga i roto i te waiata nā te mea, te nui o ngā kōrero kua whakapā mai ki ahau inapō, i tēnei rā hoki, ka whawhai tonu tātou, mātou, āke āke āke. I roto i te waiata, “e kore au e mutu te tū ki te pakanga e i, kia kai rā anō i te rerehua o te pō i”.

[My final speech in this House in the third reading of this bill that disestablishes the Māori Health Authority has begun. My speech began with an ancient song composed by the ancestor Kawiti. The words within that excerpt of the song are to the Māori people that turned coat under the mantle of the Queen to raise the weapon of the ignorant, my darkened skin, the tattooed scrolls of my nose.

Who are they to turn and support the assault upon the Māori people? It is Māori assaulting the Māori people. That is the action of this bill that has come into this House yesterday, and today too. So that is a song of lament, a song of lament to my relations, because it is them that are leading this initiative to trample, trample on the Treaty of Waitangi. Trample, trample on the Māori people. Trample, trample on the dreams, the aspirations of our ancestors, of today, and of tomorrow also.

That is what they are doing in this Parliament House, and so I began my speech with a lament, a song of grief of one of the ancestors who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. His was the first mark made on the Treaty of Waitangi. 

We all know, because I have heard, that the Government is aware of the statistics. According to the statistics for health, it is the Māori people that are at the bottom out on their backs. According to the statistics, the Māori people are dying earlier, seven years.

Now, the Māori Health Authority is an initiative that has only recently been established. And before long it is killed off, by that side. The Māori Health Authority was established on the request of a group that carefully examined and carefully considered the research and the statistics in front of them, the Health and Disability Commission. It was the commission who said the Māori Health Authority should be established. Why? As a possible solution for those statistics.

Yes, it is true, the tribunal is another that said to establish a Māori initiative within the health sector. as a possible solution for those statistics. We worked hard at the time that we were in Government. Hard. Where is my relation? Here he is. I saw that his strength was expended to establish this. He knows the extent to which his strength was expended and his partner’s strength was expended for this initiative.

Because we are aware of the statistics. Our relations that passed away suddenly, that died seven years early—my father is one of them. That is the reason I cried when I stood yesterday—because I know the statistics are in my home; they are in his home. His father is another. The patriarch that lies in state on the marae of Ngāti Manu is another. This initiative of the Māori Health Authority is an initiative that could be a solution to those statistics that are widely known.

According to the new Minister, in the last 18 months that have passed there has been no good news emerge from this, and because of that it should be killed off. Is that right? I sat and listened to his comments; what is his strategy? What is the plan? I didn’t hear at all a single thing come out of his mouth that is better than the Māori Health Authority.

This House should know that the Minister didn’t speak to the Māori people about this. He didn’t go to sit with, and to discuss with, his Treaty partners, not at all. This bill arrived, a surprise, and will shortly be passed. He didn’t wait for the tribunal to sit and listen to the claims of the relations of the Minister. I said that one of the claimants is his hapū, Te Kapotai. I know that the speakers of Northland are coming to give voice to the opinions that are in opposition to his disestablishing actions, disestablishing the Māori Health Authority.

He knew that that sitting of the tribunal was ongoing. But he didn’t consider that at all. This bill will stand this day, so that sitting of the tribunal has been cancelled. I said in my speech: what is the reason for the extreme urgency of this work, the extreme pace of this work? Because it begins at the end of June. What I believe is that this is a preclusion of the authority of the tribunal, to cut off his relations that came to oppose his actions.

I support the comments made to the staff of the Māori Health Authority, to the Māori staff within the health sector. The comments are true: as the tide goes out, it will come in again. We will return to this initiative at an appropriate time to correct the mistakes made in this House today. The statement is true: because of this Government, we are going backwards. Going backwards. Going back to those ever so dire statistics.

My comments will conclude with a line in the song, because of the sheer volume of messages that I received last night, and today also. We will continue to fight, well we will, for ever and ever. In the song, “Never to end the stand to fight, until I consume the beauty of the night.”]

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): During the select committee stage, a member from the opposite side was talking on behalf of the first generation of immigrants. As an elected MP for Mt Roskill, the electorate consists of more than 100 ethnicities and a large population of migrants, I can tell you—

Steve Abel: Point of order. Just for the clarity of the record, Madam Speaker, the member said that there was a select committee stage, and it should be clear that there was no select committee stage.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I thank the member. Carry on.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Anyway, as an elected MP for Mt Roskill, the electorate consists of more than 100 ethnicities and a large population of migrants, and I can tell you that people in Mt Roskill, people in New Zealand, want a fair health system they can rely on.

I agree with the member of the opposite side that our healthcare system is broken because under previous Government, our healthcare system was delivered based on race, not needs. This led to a number of health outcomes continuing to go backwards, including the emergency department waiting times hitting the highest level in a decade. We definitely need change, and this Government is committed to bring our health system back on track: a health system that can deliver service on needs not race, and a health system that can benefit both Māori and non-Māori. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

This bill is primarily about giving effect to one of the Government’s 100-day plan commitments by reversing the changes the previous Government made to the regulation of smoked tobacco products. The bill removes the previous Government’s policies in three areas primarily: to cut by 90 percent the number of retailers that could sell smoked tobacco products, which was to happen later this year; introduce a low nicotine limit, which was to happen next year; and a policy to ban sales to all those born after 1 January 2009 that was planned to take effect in 2027.

To be clear, none of the measures being repealed are in place. Like so many of the previous Government’s initiatives, the smoke-free initiatives were, to be generous, intangible. We are not stopping anything that is currently helping to drive smoking rates down, and that is the Government’s focus: we want smoking rates to reduce, we want the harm from smoking to reduce. This Government is committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal, but we are taking a different regulatory approach to reducing smoking rates and the harm from smoking.

We know smoking is harmful, everyone knows this, smokers know it. What they need is help to quit and what we are going to focus on is providing them the programmes, tools, and support to do this. New Zealand has seen some of the largest drops in smoking rates across the world in recent years, and we want to build on the practical tools and approaches that have worked to date. That means reverting back to, then building upon, the regulatory regime that Labour planned to change.

The settings we are focusing upon have been incredibly successful. The New Zealand Health Survey results released in December last year showed that 6.8 percent of New Zealanders are smoking daily, down from 8.6 percent the previous year, and down from 16.4 percent when the survey began in 2011 and 2012. In the last three years, 229,000 people have stopped smoking. If those trends continue without any additional measures, New Zealand will hit the headline smoke-free goal of less than 5 percent of the population smoking daily by 2025. Importantly, 79,000 of those who stopped smoking, more than a third of those who quit, were Māori. As for the smoke-free generation, in the last three years, the quit rate for young smokers—those aged 15 to 24—has been 31 percent in 2021, 37 percent in 2022, and 42 percent last year.

When the health survey started in 2011 and 2012, there were 119,000 young smokers. Last year, there were 19,000. Young people—and this is a very good thing—are turning their back on smoking: a generation that are non-smokers. These achievements have all occurred since the modelling behind the last Government’s initiatives were done. These achievements were well in advance of the starting position of the modelling, which has been referenced as justification for the measures we are repealing.

We have seen success worth giving recognition to. This is what is happening in the real world: our smoking rates have fallen drastically in recent times, better than in any other developed country. This is one of the few areas where the last Government could have actually claimed success in health. Instead of that, they seemed obsessed with trying to prove they loved a good slogan. The last Government was moving towards an untested regime with a focus on prohibition that ignored how well quit-smoking initiatives were working, the potential downside of a prohibitionist approach for smokers, and also the impact on retailers and crime was being ignored or, at the very least, trivialised.

This Government isn’t interested in the virtue signalling in health. We are about measurable outcomes and, importantly, on getting smokers the right resources to enable them to quit. This is why we are progressing the amendment bill. We want an approach on the regulation of tobacco that allows a practical, workable, and tested approach to reducing smoking.

I spoke in particular of the gains we have made with youth smoking. This means that most of those who currently smoke daily are mostly long-term smokers who are addicted to nicotine, and that’s who we need to focus on. That’s who we need to help. When dealing with an addiction of this nature, reduced supply does not remove demand and it presents a real risk of increasing demand and increasing desperation. Tobacco-control initiatives should work for and be targeted to those who need it most, including Māori and Pacific peoples who have higher rates of smoking.

We cannot ignore that vaping played a key role as a cessation tool. It is a major reason we have made such progress and we need to ensure that vaping is available to adults for that purpose. This Government supports initiatives that will provide people with practical tools and access to alternate products like vaping, to help smoking cessation. We also want to ensure continued provision of effective, targeted stop-smoking services and marketing campaigns. We will provide smokers a range of tools, advice, and support that will work for them and that will help them to quit smoking.

We have seen that approach is working, and I will soon be taking a package of measures to Cabinet to increase the tools available that will actually help quit smoking, while at the same time tightening regulations on vaping to prevent young people accessing vapes. Good policy requires balance, and it is important we balance the need to continue to allow vaping as a cessation tool while minimising the impact on our young people.

This Government wants workable, practical policy that improves people’s lives and we are committed to our smoke-free future. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): As a four-year-old, I recall sitting on my grandmother’s armchair while I took a puff on her cigarette. I didn’t much like it, but the thing that I liked even less was the look of horror on the face of my parents that my grandmother would have allowed me to do that. But the thing is my grandmother, at that point, didn’t know better, because the overwhelming evidence that now exists didn’t exist 40-odd years ago. My parents were more aware of the risk of smoking, but my grandparents were not. So that was their excuse.

My question to the members opposite is simple: what’s your excuse, because the evidence is now overwhelmingly clear—12 people a day in New Zealand die from smoking-related illness, and this Government wants to liberalise the sale of tobacco. Where is your moral compass? What is it that has happened between pre-election and post-election that has forced you to completely abandon the platform that you campaigned on? Why is it that you now believe that liberalising the sale of cigarettes is an appropriate way to raise half a billion dollars in revenue every year so that you can fund tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest New Zealanders?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I interrupt the member and remind the member not to bring the Speaker into this.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not, Madam Speaker. In fact, I made it very clear that these were questions to the members opposite, but thank you for doing the Government’s bidding by interrupting my flow.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member will stop.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is a Government that has no moral compass—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member will stop.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —whatsoever—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me. Do not bring the Speaker into your debate—

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I didn’t.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): —and do not disrespect the Chair.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I didn’t.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Do not disrespect me by interrupting me with a point that is not relevant.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member will resume his seat. Your debate is now interrupted and I will give you the opportunity to stand, withdraw, and apologise for your aspersion on the Chair, and then you can resume your debate.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise. This is a Government that has absolutely no moral compass whatsoever—quite content to continue to promote and support an industry that literally kills its consumers. This is a Government that thinks that more people smoking for longer and smoking more is an acceptable way to fund tax cuts. This is a Government that has turned a blind eye to the fact that this bill will cost New Zealanders, the New Zealand health system, $5 billion. They’re willing to pay that price in order to fund the tax cuts that are simply not affordable.

Who will be disproportionately affected by this legislation? We know it will be young New Zealanders, it will be lower-income New Zealanders, and will be Māori and Pacific New Zealanders. This is overwhelmingly clear from the evidence.

Doesn’t it say everything about this Government, that after disestablishing a programme that was specifically designed to improve Māori health outcomes, the first thing they do is bring a bill into this House that will make Māori health outcomes worse? They know it will, because the evidence is there and it is clear—it is clear. The members opposite might be shaking their head about the fact that I’m angry about this. My question again to them is: why the hell aren’t you? Why the hell are you not angry about that, to the members opposite?

This is a bill that will kill people; it is a bill that will increase smoking in New Zealand. The hollow words that we just got from the Minister sponsoring the bill are nothing more than regurgitated talking points from the tobacco lobby. We have heard it all before from the tobacco lobby, and the Minister promoting this bill simply stood up and read it out on their behalf.

But it goes worse than that, because we know that the instructions she gave to the officials that prepared this bill probably came from the tobacco lobby as well. This is a Government that is firmly in the pocket of the tobacco industry, and the Minister presenting this bill is simply doing their bidding, bringing a bill before the House that will do harm to New Zealand.

What happened to notion of the common good, the public good, being the guiding force behind the decisions that we take in this House? Members opposite might not have agreed with everything to do with Smokefree Aotearoa 2025, although that’s not the position that they had before the election when they were supporting that, but there are other changes they could have made. Why not raise the age to 25, as the Ministry of Health offered as a compromise? Why? Because that wouldn’t meet the needs of the tobacco lobby, who are so firmly behind the actions of this Government.

This is a morally reprehensible piece of legislation. It is a stain on this Parliament. Twelve people a day die from smoking-related illness in New Zealand. Let’s put that into context: the equivalent number of all of the members of Parliament in this House die every 10 days from smoking-related illness in New Zealand. This is a stain on this Parliament that we are passing legislation to liberalise the tobacco industry in New Zealand.

We should be driving forward for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. When the Government get advice to say that these changes will push that out to 2061, it says everything that they choose to ignore that and stick to their tobacco lobby talking points. It is a disgrace on this Government.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe. This is a landmark moment in the history of New Zealand. This is a landmark moment in New Zealand history, and I reflect on Tariana Turia in 2011, who stood with pride when the National Government brought into place the smoke-free legislation that had set the scene for my daughter and our future generations to live a smoke-free lifestyle.

But no, this is landmark for all the wrong reasons. You have blood on your hands for te iwi Māori: Te Aka Whai Ora and now Smokefree. For the thousands that die every year—you don’t know the pain of burying your dead over and over because of smoking-related diseases. It was the National Government who committed to this path—Smokefree 2025—and yet now we have a Government who’s huri kōaro—in te ao Māori we call it huri kōaro [you’ve flipped]. You’re a flip-flop. The Government now has chosen to end that pathway for the smoke-free generation. I’m speaking as a māmā of a daughter born in 2009, and actually thinking about what she will inherit. She’ll inherit greater access because retailers—like in Kawakawa, we have nine right now in Kawakawa: vape and tobacco stores, across supermarkets, dairies, and the petrol station right now in Kawakawa. Nine outlets; we can have more in Kawakawa now, whānau—it’s going to be awesome—but also greater access to product. There’s a plethora of product already out on the market but, through this legislation, this Government is opening up a pathway for more into our communities—vulnerable communities who don’t need more than nine in, what, maybe 300 metres of Kawakawa on State Highway 1.

But there is a silver lining, of course, because we’re getting tax cuts for the rich; tax cuts for the rich and to support those of our whānau who work in the tobacco industry. So, therefore, this is a very dark day as a māmā, a mother of the smoke-free generation that will see more deaths from smoking-related illnesses.

There are gross inequalities in this space. Just because there’s been a drop, it’s still not good enough. Te iwi Māori make up 17.1 percent of smokers compared to—and let’s look at the gap—6.1 percent for non-Māori. That gap is still a gross inequality that exists. But further, Māori make up 38 percent of daily smokers. I want to reflect on our matua, our cousin and whanaunga, Anaru Waa, who’s the co-director of Aspire, who shared, “Smoking prevalence among Māori and Pacific peoples is still far too high. It’s not time to put the handbrake on and let on a bit more tobacco; it’s actually keep moving forward.” But we’re not seeing this because repealing the smoke-free legislation, as Anaru shares, means Māori will continue to suffer unacceptable levels of harm due to smoked tobacco products for many years to come—many years to come. Goodbye, Smokefree 2025.

I acknowledge the sector who paved the way in this House, who are watching. Our pioneers, te ao mārama; those of our health workers who have worked so hard in this space to promote smoke-free environments, smoke-free pubs and clubs, smoke-free parks and playgrounds so that our tamariki will not know what it’s like to wake up smelling like an ashtray after they’ve been out for a night on the town. Because that’s the work: we’ve got to provide the smoke-free environment. We’ve got to actively promote community awareness—

Hon Members: We are.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, you’re not. No, you’re not. You’re opening it up for more—more, more, more—and a billion dollars’ worth of tax revenue to give to your rich mates. And, ultimately, for te iwi Māori, we know we are the most impacted. Why are they doing this? Why? You never campaigned on this. We never knew it was coming. Te iwi Māori never knew. New Zealand did not know. Don’t say this is something that you had planned.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Wow! What an animated display we are seeing over this legislation. Quite quickly we’re talking about lobbying from the tobacco industry, but what about the lobbying from gangs? Because under the legislation, the only people that would be profiting would be the gangs: 8.5 million illegal cigarettes were seized by Customs in 2023. How are you not concerned about a black market?

We need to ensure people who smoke have more choice and more help to quit smoking if they wish to do so. This includes effective stop-smoking services, alternative products such as vaping, and targeted campaigns aimed at quitting smoking. New Zealand already has impressive quit rates. The latest New Zealand Health Survey results show that in 2022-2023, 6.8 percent of adults were daily smokers, down from 8.6 percent the previous year and 16.4 percent the year previous to that. What is in place has been working.

What I saw the previous Government legislating was yet again another initiative or another piece of legislation that sounded great but would have an adverse effect on all kinds of people. What about our small businesses? Believe it or not, ACT has actually spoken to our retailers in our communities, our local dairies, and many family-run businesses and shops about the difficulties that they are facing. They are constantly being robbed and ram raided. They are at risk of being violently attacked in their own stores. And then the previous Government wanted to push up to 80 percent of them out of business. These local little dairies are sometimes the only shop that people go to in their community. How is that caring about our local communities?

It is not the Government’s decision to radically reduce nicotine content in cigarettes so smokers who can least afford it will spend more on their habit and in turn do harm to those around them. It is our job to help people quit smoking and to stop young people from starting smoking and vaping. This is a prohibitive Act and we do not support the previous Government’s legislation. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, this debate is interrupted. The House is suspended until 2 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2 p.m.

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. We come now to oral questions.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and particularly this Government’s plan to back our police to crack down on the gangs that peddle meth and misery within our communities. We promised New Zealanders that we would address the rampant lawlessness driven by the previous Labour Government’s soft-on-crime approach, and our plan to reduce gangs’ ability to intimidate and to terrorise our communities is just one part of that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his promise on bringing back semi-automatic firearms, “That is not going to happen. Not going to happen.”; if so, why has Radio New Zealand reported that “Everything is on the table” when it comes to changing the current firearms licensing regime?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No papers have been received or decisions made in our Cabinet, but what I can say is that our Government is going to balance safety and compliance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government will not bring back military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We will not be introducing any firearm types into this country beyond those that are currently available to licensed owners under current laws and regulation.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the case that the Government has no plan to bring back semi-automatic firearms because there are already approximately 6,000 New Zealanders with a licence to have one and it’s logically very difficult to bring back something that’s already there?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government intending to make any changes to the number of people who can access military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As that member knows, our coalition agreement states that we will rewrite the Arms Act to provide for greater protection for public safety—greater protection for public safety—and we’re going to simplify the regulatory requirements and ensure very good, smart compliance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he rule out liberalising access to military-style semi-automatic weapons when the police have made it very clear to the Government, both present and former, that doing so would result in more of those weapons getting into the hands of gang members and others who intend to break the law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because no papers have been received, no discussion has been had, and no decisions have been made in Cabinet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he intending to visit the Linwood mosque on 15 March; if so, will he tell the victims of that massacre that he is intending to change the law to make legal the purchase of those types of firearms again, given that the firearm used in that terrorist attack was legally purchased?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No disrespect, but I won’t take any lectures from that member about that event. I was an employer of someone who lost an employee in that event, and I take that very seriously.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I asked him a series of questions about whether he was going to visit the mosque and whether he was going to tell the victims of that event that the Government was considering bringing back the very firearms that were used in that particular atrocity.

SPEAKER: Well, the problem with the question—particularly the second part of the question—is that it’s relying on an assumption that the member is making when, in fact, the House has just been told there are no proposals before the Government at the present time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why will he not rule out liberalising access to military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve said to the member there are no papers that have been received, there’s been no discussion that’s taken place, there have been no decisions that have been made in Cabinet. The second thing I’ve said is that we are a Government that’s going to balance safe—[Interruption] Would you like to listen to the answer? We’re going to balance safety, we’re going to balance compliance, and we’re going to make sure we have a good decision in Cabinet, and that’s yet to happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister intend to ban coming to this House promising a bazooka but turning up with a pop gun?

SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry. I know that was that was by way of a question, but it wasn’t a question that the Prime Minister can offer a view on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he can.

SPEAKER: Well, really? I mean, it’s a very serious issue, and there was kind of a trivial aspect to the question. So I think I’m going to rule it out.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the year to December 2023, gang members carried out an average of 2.83 firearm offences per day, and does the Government have policies to deal to the illegal use of firearms that has mushroomed over the last few years under current laws?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I agree. That’s what we won’t be doing: we won’t be making illegal guns available to criminals to actually drive violent crime in this country, because we’re going to get tough on illegal guns—period. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: All good, calm down. Thank you very much for your offering, front-bench members from the Opposition.

Question No. 2—Justice (Firearms)

2. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): What law changes is the Government proposing in relation to firearms?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): This Government is committed to rewriting the Arms Act 1983. Rushed law changes by the previous Government have failed to make New Zealanders safer from firearms violence and have unfairly punished law-abiding licensed firearm owners. This Government is committed to creating an enduring Arms Act which increases public safety, simplifies regulatory requirements, and improves compliance. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. The noise is too much. It’s a very serious topic, and it should not be a topic that ends up with a Minister shouted down. Questions can be asked in silence—that’s the respect that the House shows to the questioner—but there should be a little bit more attention paid by way of simply listening to the answers being given by Ministers.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Thank you. I’ve got two points of order, then, Mr Speaker. The first one was just around rulings about patsy questions being used to attack the Opposition, which was contained in the answer that the Minister gave in her primary response, and I just wanted to get your view on that. And the second one was just to kind of clarify what happens when a Government Minister is making policy statements on behalf of the Government when the Prime Minister has just said that there have been no papers received or discussions had.

SPEAKER: Well, on the first point, I couldn’t hear what was being said because of the noise to my left. On the second point, a Minister’s answers are for the House to make a determination about, not for the Speaker.

Mark Cameron: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Cameron Luxton.

Mark Cameron: Mark Cameron—but thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Mark Cameron.

Mark Cameron: Easy mistake to make!

SPEAKER: My sincere apologies, Mark Cameron.

Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What immediate changes is the Government proposing?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The previous Government’s over-regulation on clubs and ranges have forced several to shut down. It is imperative for New Zealanders to have access to secure venues for firearms usage. The absence of such facilities poses additional risks to the community. Therefore, we are dedicated to overturning these unnecessary regulations to ensure the safety and the availability of these important spaces.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has she received or requested any advice on increasing access to military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: No.

Mark Cameron: Which firearm laws is the Government going to review?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Government will review the effectiveness of the firearms registry in enhancing public safety. Concerns raised by licensed firearm owners regarding privacy breaches and unjustifiable costs warrant a thorough evaluation. The review will commence no later than June 2024.

Mark Cameron: What steps is the Government taking to target gang members holding firearms illegally?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government is committed to giving police greater powers to search gang members for illegally held firearms. This legislation will be introduced to Parliament within the first 100 days of Government, as outlined in the National-ACT coalition agreement.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Just in relation to that answer and the one to the question before that, that does appear to contradict what the Prime Minister just said about no decisions having been made or any papers or discussions being read. And I just wondered if the Prime Minister might need to correct his answer to the earlier question.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, that is not a point of order. That is a point that you are making. You’ve made the point. There’s nothing further to be done about it.

Mark Cameron: Will her Government allow competitive shooters to use semi-automatics for sporting purposes?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The coalition Government has yet to decide on this issue, but, currently, over 6,600 New Zealanders are licensed to possess semi-automatic firearms, and this occurred under Labour’s regime. They were never banned under the previous Government. This Government is the adult in the room, and we are committed to finding a solution to this issue for the benefit of public safety and practical regulation.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that “our focus is on making sure … we honour the Treaty.”, and, if so, will he ensure that the new fast-track consenting legislation will uphold the Treaty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I will.

Hon James Shaw: Has he been briefed on feedback from mana whenua, as Treaty partners, on the proposed policy settings for the fast-track legislation, and, if so, what was the feedback?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand that the Ministers have. If he would like to direct any questions to the relevant Minister, he’s more than welcome to do so.

Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track process give effect to the rights of iwi and hapū over natural resources, as recognised in Treaty settlements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track framework protect matters of national importance under the Resource Management Act by ensuring that projects will be declined if they undermine the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we haven’t yet had a Cabinet paper or discussion about that in Cabinet yet, but we will shortly.

Hon James Shaw: Will he rule out the proposal by Trans-Tasman Resources for seabed mining off the coast of Taranaki from the list of projects in the bill, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that this application needed to be reconsidered to take account of tikanga Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there has been no paper presented to Cabinet, there has been no discussion at Cabinet, and there’s been no decisions made at Cabinet. That is yet to come.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) issued its latest quarterly predictions. The report says that recent developments have been mixed, but generally point to further easing of inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy. The easing in capacity pressures has been a key driver behind this drop in inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy; in particular, firms report a further easing in labour shortages and are now finding it easier to find both skilled and unskilled labour.

Rima Nakhle: What does this outlook mean for monetary policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The NZIER report goes on to say that the key question for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is whether it is comfortable that this easing in inflation is occurring at a fast enough pace to get annual Consumers Price Index inflation back to within its 1 to 3 percent inflation target band. The RBNZ’s monetary policy statement came out at 2 p.m. and I’ve been advised that the official cash rate has been held steady. This indicates that the bank does think inflation is reducing at a fast enough pace.

Rima Nakhle: What does the NZIER say about the outlook for economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s better now that Grant’s gone.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s right. The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. Like other forecasters, the NZIER is expecting near-term weakness in the economy but recovery over the longer term. The NZIER also highlights an increase in business confidence. It says that despite signs of weaker demand as the impact of higher interest rates left over from the last lot continues to gain traction, businesses are feeling less pessimistic about the general economic outlook.

Rima Nakhle: When will the next Treasury forecast be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The next complete set of Treasury economic and fiscal forecasts will be released with the Budget on 30 May. Data revisions and recent out-turns since the half-year update in December indicate that the economy is likely to be in a weaker position this year than was anticipated before Christmas. That will flow through to forecasts for tax revenue, so I expect the Crown to be collecting less revenue over the next few years than was previously expected.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What advice from Treasury, if any, has she seen on the amount of revenue that will be gained by the Government from the enactment of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I am advised that regardless of the enactment of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill, excise revenue is predicted to continue to gradually decline as smoking rates continue to decrease. In preparing the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update last year, Treasury did a rough estimate of tobacco excise revenue assuming the continuation of the current smoke-free regime that has existed and been successful for many years. Their estimate was that maintaining the current smoke-free regime involving regular increases in tobacco excise and which has seen smoking rates fall dramatically, would result in additional revenue of around $1.5 billion in total across the four-year forecast period compared to the changes due to be implemented from later this year. I’d say two things to the member: first, those numbers are very rough, and better forecasts will be included in the Government’s books as part of the Budget update; and, second, that revenue, whatever it turns out to be, will go into the consolidated account and be used for spending on hip operations, teachers’ pay, and Working for Families, just as that revenue was used by the previous Labour Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the statement made by Nicola Willis, “we have to remember that the changes to the smoke-free legislation had a significant impact on the Government books,” in response to questions on how she will pay for tax cuts in the absence of the foreign buyers ban; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I tend to agree with myself, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware that the Ministry of Health modelling shows that an estimated $5.25 billion can be saved in health spending, and, if so, how can she justify her support for rolling back world-leading smoke-free legislation when a simple cost-benefit analysis shows the cost to the health system outweighs the benefits of the revenue gained?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is sticking with legislation and initiatives that, with bipartisan support, have seen smoking rates drop by 60 percent in the past 11 years, and we are advised those settings will continue to drive smoking rates down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she reconcile the Government saying, on one hand, “It is our intention to bring smoking rates down.”, but, on the other hand, she needs smoking rates to stay the same or increase to bring in $500 million in tobacco excise per year to help pay for tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because the member has got it completely wrong. We are expecting that excise—[Interruption] Well, the member either wants an answer or she doesn’t. We are expecting that excise revenue will continue to gradually decline as smoking rates decrease. And I have been specifically advised that there will still be a declining trend, and with the assumed decline in tobacco consumption more than offsetting the continued increases in excise revenue that we do on 1 January each year.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is the priority for this Government: tax cuts funded by more New Zealanders smoking for longer or the health and lives of everyday New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The priority for this Government—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. That question is not in order. I’m not going to rule it out; the Minister can answer, but you need to think about how much assumption is put into questions that Ministers are required to respond to.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, I’m very happy to talk about the Government’s priorities, which are to strengthen the economy so that we can address the cost of living, which has been at a crisis for the past two years; increase the jobs and incomes available to New Zealanders; ensure they can keep more of their own money; deliver better front-line services in health and education, where attendance rates have plummeted; and increase law and order by delivering more police.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware of reports attributed to Victorian police in Melbourne that last year 27 convenience stores were attacked with firebombings as part of stand-over tactics believed to be connected with the illicit tobacco trade, and if she has considered the impacts of illicit tobacco on both health and the Government’s books, does she believe that it’s actually time to bring a bit of reality into this debate?

SPEAKER: That was also another interesting question that goes well beyond the responsibilities of the Minister. I know you couch it with “has she considered” and, therefore, it can go ahead, but I think you’ve got to be careful about how much assumption we put into questions.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order. I seek leave to table a Treasury Official Information Act request that documents the forecasting in relation to tobacco excise due to the changes in legislation.

SPEAKER: Are you tabling a request or a response?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: I’m tabling the response.

SPEAKER: Is it publicly available?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Not that I’m aware of.

SPEAKER: Well, OK. Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Member: Is it publicly available?

SPEAKER: Well, is it? I’m asking the question. [Interruption] Hang on, I’ll deal with this. I’m asking the member: is it a publicly available document?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Not that I’m aware of.

SPEAKER: I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not it’s a fact that the success of the present Government’s plan is in the forecasts of the tax for tobacco and cigarettes being hundreds of millions of dollars less than Grant Robertson was forecasting in 2020?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, look, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point, as did David Seymour before him, so I’m going to address both questions in one. I think that’s a good way to do things. We do have to be very conscious of the black market, because what the regulatory impact statement—

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I just wanted to refer back to earlier Speakers’ rulings around the use of patsy questions to attack the Opposition.

SPEAKER: With regards to what?

Hon James Shaw: The question that the Deputy Prime Minister asked then was—

SPEAKER: No, sorry; it can’t be a patsy if he’s referring to Budget numbers. That’s not an unreasonable question.

Hon James Shaw: Well, I’ll withdraw the use of the word “patsy”. Nevertheless, the supplementary question that the Deputy Prime Minister asked was clearly an attack on the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry; I didn’t see it that way. So we’ll finish that answer and then I’ll have to go back to David Seymour because I managed to cut him off getting an answer. So he’ll probably have to ask his question again, in a better way, I hope. [Interruption] No, no—hang on. We’re not finished here.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, perhaps I can help the House by addressing two questions in one. Minister Seymour’s question was about the black market, and this is a very real concern because the regulatory impact statement for the previous Government’s legislation warned specifically that—quote—“The illicit market has been increasing, and recommended policy changes are likely to exacerbate this.” I would point out that the only people that benefit from a flourishing black market are criminals and gangs. In answer to the Deputy Prime Minister’s supplementary question, he makes a good point, which is that the revenue that the coalition Government is likely to receive from tobacco revenue in the forecast future years will be considerably less than was received by the previous Labour administration in 2020, where they earned $2.2 billion in tobacco excise revenue, which they happily invested in roads, hospitals, schools, and the like.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I’m sure that satisfies you, Hon Seymour; it certainly satisfies me, which is all that matters. Can we now move to question No. 6—the Hon—sorry, Miles Anderson.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Housing: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the elevation in position. What announcements has he made about the Government’s work programme in housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, I laid out the Government’s work programme to fix New Zealand’s housing crisis. Five interlocking actions: firstly, going for housing growth, to smash urban limits holding our cities back, fix infrastructure funding and financing, and introduce incentives to encourage cities and regions to go for growth; secondly, improvements to the rental market to make it easier to be a landlord and easier to be a tenant; thirdly, building and construction changes to improve competition, lower building costs; better social housing to look after those who most need support; and, fifthly, reform of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the lives of New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the housing crisis that New Zealand has inherited from the last Government affects almost every aspect of New Zealand society. Young people don’t have the opportunities to own their own homes in the way that generations before them have had, and, of course, the housing market consigns thousands of our fellow New Zealanders to live in motels for months at a time. Our agenda charts a realistic and achievable path out of this mess, and tackling our housing crisis once and for all.

Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the New Zealand economy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the best things we can do to improve the New Zealand economy is to fix our housing crisis. For years, New Zealand has suffered from a productivity disease. In the 1950s, our GDP per capita was 125 percent of the OECD average, and it is now below the OECD average. Fixing this can be done through effective and efficient urban development, because cities are engines of productivity, and when we stop people building houses, we lock people out of cities, and that makes us all poorer. So we are going to allow our cities to grow up and out, and we’re going to let people build more houses.

Miles Anderson: What do his announcements yesterday mean for the local councils and the medium-density residential standards (MDRS)?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The first element of our package will require councils to zone enough land for 30 years of housing growth. We also heard the message from many New Zealanders and many communities that the MDRS standards were too blunt and one-size-fits-all, so as part of that, we are going to give communities and councils flexibility to opt out of the MDRS, striking the right balance between zoning for growth and the flexibility to decide where that growth happens. I also announced yesterday that in my role as Minister responsible for RMA Reform, I will be the decision maker on relevant district plan changes relating to housing, where the councils and the independent hearing panels do not agree, for example, in Wellington.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “The evidence is as plain as day: cities that make it difficult to build more housing have housing affordability problems”; if so, what advice, if any, has he seen on the impact on affordability of allowing councils to opt out of medium-density residential standards?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): To the first part of the question, yes; to the second part of the question, I’ve seen a range of advice on our Going for Housing Growth policy, which, as I’ve just mentioned, includes making the medium density-residential standards (MDRS) optional, while also requiring them to zone for 30 years of housing growth. Our position is that the current rules are too blunt, too one-size-fits-all. We’ve heard the concerns from communities up and down the country, and we believe that our new approach strikes the right balance between zoning for lots of growth and flexibility. I’m still in the process of receiving advice on the design of how we make the MDRS optional; it is legally complex, as there are various councils in different stages of their plan changes. I haven’t received specific advice on affordability to deal with her specific question, but I’ve been clear that councils won’t be able to opt out of the MDRS rules until we’re satisfied they are releasing sufficient alternative development capacity to improve affordability.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen—and if he has seen it, does he accept—the Sense Partners analysis of the medium-density residential standards that showed the infrastructure costs of a house in a new greenfields area on the fringe of the city is nearly double that of an additional home within the existing urban area?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve read the report. Yes, I accept that advice. That is why, as a part of our reforms, we are saying that greenfields growth will have to be paid for by that growth. So the infrastructure cost for that growth will have to be paid for as part of that growth.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So does he acknowledge, in light of that answer, that making medium-density residential standards optional, all else being equal, will lead to less potential housing in the existing urban area, precisely where it is most needed and where infrastructure costs are lower?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That would be true if all else was being equal. The point is: it’s not. We’re making the MDRS optional at the same time as requiring councils to zone it for enough development capacity. The member needs to look at the policy in the round, not a particular one element or component of it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How does he reconcile his plan to “legalise housing” while removing the very mechanism that was cutting council red tape and making it easier to build more housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because we’re being much more ambitious than the MDRS. In fact, if I could point to one example put forward by New Zealand First as a part of the coalition agreement, which makes its way in, which is to make it essentially legal, without a building consent or a resource consent, for granny flats of up to 60 square metres on a property, which I think will have a massive impact. We’re also proposing strengthening the National Policy Statement on Urban Development so that mixed-use zoning is much more encouraged in our cities, and, of course, the much more ambitious target of smashing urban limits, which, as the member’s former colleague in the transport space the Hon Phil Twyford once said back in 2017 and early 2018—which the last Labour Government was going to do in relation to Auckland—there’d be no metropolitan urban limit under the Jacinda Ardern Labour - led Government. Six years on, we’re still waiting for it; the National-led coalition will deliver that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the evidence that people who live on the fringe of urban areas have much higher transport costs, and, accepting that, will he include transport and affordability costs as a percentage of income as a measure and a target for affordability?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it depends on the transport choices that people make. But I’m not sure what the member is so worked up about, because the front page of The Post this morning I was very intrigued to see. Here’s what it says: “Labour, Green councillors pleased that Chris Bishop will decide on housing plan”. So I’m not sure what the members of the Opposition are so worked up about, because it sounds like the Green councillors from Wellington are pretty happy that I’m in charge now.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I really appreciated that—[Interruption]—and you know, I think it’s great that the Minister—

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry—start that again.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, I appreciate the answer. However, I did ask a very specific, technical question, and I would love it if the Minister would address that part of the question, because the question was very specific about whether a measure of a housing affordability would include transport costs.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m happy to answer it.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, I’m pleased you’re happy to answer; it’s your job. Carry on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Indeed. I mean, I broadly accept that analysis, except it depends on the choices that people make. Yes, of course—[Interruption] You guys all right? I’m just waiting for you to—

SPEAKER: Hey, that is enough—that is enough. I know this is the problem with having a third week of a four-week session in urgency; enormous pent-up excitement. Let’s just hear—[Interruption] Sorry, we’re going to hear—Ms Genter, we’re going to hear the answer in silence.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m happy to answer; I was just waiting for a bit of quiet. I broadly accept that. Of course it is true that people who live an hour outside the CBD probably, depending on the choices they make, pay more for transport, but the point is, over on this side of the House we believe in choice. Some people will choose to live in the suburbs, some people will choose to live in a granny flat, some people will choose to live in an apartment. Actually, what we need is housing choice, and, more importantly, we need urban land settings that facilitate those choices.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to get this straight from the Minister, is he saying that under this new change, a 60 square metre flat or building can be erected with just an engineer’s report—or, in other words, a koro’s flat for Willie?

SPEAKER: No, don’t answer that question. We’ve got to stop this sort of clever technique of asking these questions that clearly indicate a very generous attitude towards the person you were talking about, but that’s a private arrangement you can make with him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Mr Speaker, point of order. What’s gone wrong with this place? All I’m trying to illustrate is that some people in this House might be seriously keen to hear that answer, some with greater acuity than others. I was being kind when I said that, and now you’re turning it into some sort of dig that I meant to be offensive.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but when I’ve ruled on something, you can’t have a point of order on a ruling. You know the rules of the House; you’ve been here so long you wrote half of them.

Question No. 8—Health

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

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was she being truthful when she said, “I haven’t looked at a freeze on excise at all.” in an interview with Guyon Espiner?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In the context of the interview that was conducted, the answer I gave to the question that was put within the 25-minute interview was accurate in the response and framework that question was put.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has she solved the mystery of who wrote the document that contained proposals to freeze tobacco excise tax in the three weeks since she told Mike Hosking that she was not sure who put it on her desk?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: It’s not a mystery. That same document also referred to a key bullet point, which was how to destroy the tobacco industry, which was one of the many discussion points that was collated from a range of campaign positioning and statements.

Andy Foster: Has she received reports on the number of people who have stopped smoking?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I have received a range of reports, specifically at the current level of smokers being at 6.8 percent. Importantly, that data also noted that the smoke-free legislation that the previous Government based their positioning on was 2019-2020 data, and since that data on which they based their legislation, 305,000 people have quit smoking, and youth smoking fell from 10.3 percent to 3 percent, proving the existing legislation was highly effective.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why has she refused requests to release the document under the Official Information Act if it is merely, as she has said in this House, a range of historical policy positions and notes?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The documentation is part of the discussion documents relating to this legislation being developed, and therefore it is under that position that it’s being withheld.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: With respect to the mystery of who wrote the document that appeared on her desk, has she considered calling in a former detective to investigate?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No.

Andy Foster: Can she tell the House what practical tools and approaches have worked to date?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Vaping as a cessation tool has worked successfully, and I would like to recognise that the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill 2020, introduced by New Zealand First, which regulated vaping, has been a monumental factor in the smoking reduction rates we are seeing today.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she still actively considering freezes to tobacco excise tax, and, if so, has she been honest in all her statements to the Prime Minister?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have been very clear on the fact that I am not currently considering an increase in excise tax. The first thing I did as a Minister was raise the excise tax in a Cabinet paper that I submitted in November 2023 and came into effect on 1 January 2024.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order. The member answered with respect to an—that she said she is not considering an increase in excise tax. The question was about a freeze to excise tax, which is what the member proposed to officials in the document she sent.

SPEAKER: Well, I mean, she also said that the first action she took as a Minister was to increase tax, which doesn’t exactly imply a freeze.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. In an earlier answer from the Minister, she quoted from the document by saying there was a section headed “destroying the tobacco industry”. That’s a direct quote and I would request that the Minister table the document.

SPEAKER: Was that a direct quote? Is it a document that you have in the House with you at the moment?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No, it’s not a direct quote, and it’s not with me in the House.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes, in the context in which they were made, particularly my statement on Sunday that for too long, gangs have been allowed to behave as if they are above the law. They are not, and this Government is determined to restore law and order.

Rawiri Waititi: What evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, the evidence that I’m most interested in is the 50 percent increase in gang membership in the last five years under the previous Government, which has led to a sense of disorder on our streets. That’s the evidence I’m most interested in.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was clear: what evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities? He didn’t address it, nor did he answer it.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think you could probably have another crack at that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the evidence I see and that we’ve received is the intimidation that people have seen right across the country, and we’ve also seen the progress that similar gang patch bans have had in Western Australia and in other countries.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, he has evaded answering the question. The question is simple: what evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities? He hasn’t addressed it, nor answered it.

SPEAKER: He actually did answer, because he also referred to evidence he had from Western Australia. Now, he doesn’t have to expand on what that is, but that’s what he said in his answer. He also—[Interruption] Well, you can all wobble your heads as much as you like. This is how I heard it and this is how I’m ruling it.

Tākuta Ferris: Look, given this Government seems fixated on gangs with high Māori membership, will his proposed legislation to ban gang members from gathering mean their whānau who have multiple members accused of being in a gang will not be able to meet or even talk to each other for up to three years?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There will be an exclusion for family members.

Tākuta Ferris: How can he justify targeting gang members when the tribunal has found that 80 to 90 percent of Mongrel Mob and Black Power members have come from State wards, and, therefore, both gangs are largely a creation of the State?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We absolutely agree that the background of offenders is relevant to sentencing. But also we are a party that believes in personal responsibility, and I should note that the Long-term Insights Briefing on imprisonment states that “Most people serving sentences in prison [in New Zealand] have been convicted of serious sexual or violent offending.”, and no society can function if people are not held personally responsible for their actions.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he deem it appropriate for a Minister of Justice to say he does not care about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I never made such a statement.

Tākuta Ferris: Are you sure? Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. Was that a question or was that—

Tākuta Ferris: Nah, nah, nah; I just said something out loud.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Well, don’t make those comments. Leave those to Rawiri!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that member in his question made an allegation of a statement made by the Minister. The Minister said that statement’s not true. That requires that member who made the allegation by way of the question to apologise for it. You can’t just fly by like that in this House, Mr Speaker. That’s a fact.

SPEAKER: It is a fact that your comment did question the answer of a Minister, which is not appropriate. So I suggest you withdraw and apologise for that and then ask your supplementary.

Tākuta Ferris: I withdraw and apologise. Does he agree that banning patches and whānau with alleged gang ties from attending tangihanga is a blatant dismissal of the Māori right to mana motuhake and a gross breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: People will be perfectly entitled to attend a tangi if they’re not wearing a gang patch and they are not subject to a dispersal order. That is ultimately in the police’s discretion. So I don’t agree with his assertion.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Seeking clarity: is the Minister of Justice implying that the police make the rules for marae?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not what he said.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry, we just heard that it is up to the police to decide if marae have patched members there. We’re just seeking clarity.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what you heard him say is—

Hon Member: Sit down.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, I’m not sitting down. You’re not the Speaker, and you never will be at your age.

SPEAKER: That would apply to everyone in the House, as it happens. What you heard him say is that police have always had that discretion; in relation to what is not a concern for me.

Tākuta Ferris: What risk analysis has he undertaken to ensure that Government polices such as unbanning pseudoephedrine, unbanning semi-automatic weapons, and increasing benefit sanctions will not lead to more crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Again, I would emphasise that there’s all sorts of excuses that can be offered for crime, but people need to be personally responsible for their actions. This Government is determined to restore consequences for crime and to restore law and order in this country.

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order. The question was: what risk analysis has been undertaken? Not merely a point of view.

SPEAKER: I don’t think that’s a reasonable point of order. In actual fact, it’s not a point of order; it is a concern that you’ve got about an answer. That’s quite a different matter. Do you have another supplementary?

Tākuta Ferris: Just speaking to the point of order, then. The question was around the implication—

SPEAKER: No, no. Look, the place functions on some pretty basic rules, and you’re working outside that rule at the present time.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I just want to ask a quick question in regards to assertions being put at the front of questions. There were a number of supplementaries just in that question, where there was an assertion being put at the start without a question actually being put first. I just ask your guidance on that issue for the House.

SPEAKER: I have already today said that assumptions are not appropriate and nor are assertions, and nor are they actually permissible under the Standing Orders. But there is also a degree of understanding of how the intent of the question is meant to be taken.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): This afternoon, the Government passed the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. This transfers Māori Health Authority staff and functions to Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. This transfer will retain the expertise needed to drive better health outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders, and will be done with respect for fellow health professionals. I look forward to identifying other priorities for the health system.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—hang on a minute. Ask it again.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health Authority?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Disestablishment was agreed to by all three governing parties in their coalition agreements and mandated by the results of the 2023 general election, where it was canvassed at length. The disestablishment is a reflection of an approach that struggled to put health needs for all at its forefront and an implementation plan that faced significant challenges from the beginning. This Government remains committed to improving Māori health outcomes.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What challenges have arisen from the health reforms which the Māori Health Authority was part of?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is not clear to me that the Māori Health Authority was well supported by the previous Government, who, in my view, were distracted by wider structural reforms to other parts of the health system. This distraction is evident from the report today by the independent ministerial advisory committee, which uncovered a significant number of problems which can be associated with a lack of ministerial oversight and political failure. Health reforms should not have been undertaken in the middle of a pandemic.

Hon Peeni Henare: Do the steps taken by the Minister to improve health outcomes include opting out of the international health regulation amendment days after taking office, repealing world-leading smoke-free legislation, and repealing the Māori Health Authority?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The steps towards better health outcomes include some of the outcomes that are present in Pae Tū, some of the outcomes that are present in Whakamaua, and some of the health outcomes that we’ll identify in our Government policy statement.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What is the Government’s vision for Māori health?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government is ambitious for the future of Māori health, and this bill signalled the beginning of a different journey—a journey in which we strive to achieve better health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. This Government will ensure the health system is performing, after six long years of deteriorating health metrics.

Question No. 11—Justice (Firearms)

11. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): Does she stand by all her statements in respect of firearms reform?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): Yes, in the context in which they were given, including my statements confirming the Government’s intention to rewrite the Arms Act to improve public safety, reduce regulatory burden, and improve compliance.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she stand by her statements reported in Radio New Zealand that sports shooters may be permitted to own semi-automatic weapons, or does she agree with the Police, who have said such a change would introduce an unacceptable risk of high-capacity semi-automatic centre-fire firearms again becoming readily available in the black market through theft or provided by non-compliant licence holders?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I did not make the statement as has been referred to by that member. But what I will confirm is that in rewriting the Arms Act and having enduring legislation, this Government will not take six days in which to pass legislation. We will go through a full process that will ensure that the communities of New Zealand are heard and participate in the legislative review. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on, your colleagues aren’t ready yet.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she agree with Nicole McKee when she said of gun reforms at the Justice Committee on 24 June 2021 “And finally, just on the firearms changes in itself, I think it’s really important to remember not only the loss of lives in Christchurch and Aramoana but the quarter of a million people who’ve been affected by rushed legislation changes.”?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Absolutely. I agree with what Nicole McKee said back then—that we need to make sure that everybody is considered when it comes to legislation, including not only those of the mosque shooting but those that have been affected by gun crime that has been allowed to take place under the previous Government’s regime.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Ah—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Kieran.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. I was trying to work out whether it was “Honourable” or not. The Hon Kieran McAnulty. Sorry.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In light of the Minister’s desire not to rush legislation, I seek leave of the House to move out of urgency.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she accept that even stringent licensing, like that for handgun licences, will not stop all misuse of weapons such as that of Ian Dallison, who used his licensed pistol to attempt to murder his landlord on 4 August 2022?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I agree that it’s time that we had legislation that actually looks after the security and the safety of New Zealanders, and that’s precisely what this Government will deliver in this term.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she believe that Christopher Luxon was telling the truth in September last year, when challenged that under his Government people would have more access to semi-automatic firearms, when he said “It’s not going to happen.”?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I’m not going to speak for the Prime Minister, but what I will say is that legitimate use, legitimate ownership—and our coalition agreement agrees to rewrite the Arms Act to make sure that we have a good, safe system for New Zealanders, those legitimate owners and those that have been deemed to be fit and proper by the New Zealand Police.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How would permitting semi-automatic weapons address situations like that of Quinn Patterson, who in July 2017 murdered his property manager and her daughter with a semi-automatic rifle illegally supplied by a licensed firearms holder Michael Hayes?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: What an excellent question, because I’m so glad to be able to speak to the regime that the Arms Act, that is going to be rewritten by the end of this term, is going to present for New Zealanders, which includes ensuring stricter compliance, security, and fit and proper assertations from those that are in possession and use. And I look forward to correcting the mistakes that the previous Government made.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, you’ve used them all up.

Question No. 12—Education

12. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she seen about her recent announcement on the ministerial inquiry into school property?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): There have been many reports on the ministerial inquiry into school property. Schools and principals around the country have been sharing their frustrations with delays and lack of certainty over the last few years. The Secondary Principals Association welcomed the review and the president said that longstanding issues with school property had become “horribly acute”. The Auckland Primary Principals’ Association President said primary schools are facing the same issues with school property and that the costs for bespoke school builds had got out of hand. School property is a priority for this Government. We have a responsibility to invest in property solutions that demonstrate value for money.

Sam Uffindell: What has she heard from schools since she announced the inquiry?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Principals have been in touch with my office sharing stories of their frustrations. One principal wrote to share that after prefab buildings were demolished at their school in early 2023, building that was due to commence in July did not start. Instead, there have been delays, reviews, a business case, a review by an investment board, a detailed design, a consent process, and then a soft hold. Another principal wrote to me today to say “I believe that this is very timely indeed, as many principals and boards have had grave concerns for a number of years.”

Sam Uffindell: What other feedback has she received about the announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: An industry leader in the construction sector wrote to me saying, “A massive thank you for getting on to this total mess. I watch in despair at what our schools are being put through.” Another letter from a senior project architect expressed a concern that Ministry of Education requirements are contributing significant and unnecessary costs to projects. I also heard that “Aspects of the briefs are gold-bricked” and that “A silver standard will more than adequately meet education requirements while at the same time delivering better value for the taxpayer.”

Sam Uffindell: Why is this inquiry needed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Schools and communities deserve better. As I said in the House yesterday, these challenges are due not only to building cost increases but also, in the ministry’s own words, to scope creep and over-reliance on bespoke designs and over-engineering add-ons, like extensive landscaping and infrastructure. It is imperative that we deliver the core infrastructure needs of schools, and the ministerial inquiry will consider how we best achieve a portfolio that is efficient and effective and delivers learning spaces that are functional, warm, dry, and fit for purpose.

Tākuta Ferris: How much longer will kura kaupapa, wharekura, and kura ā iwi—all Māori immersion schools who have already been waiting for decades for their classroom rebuilds—have to wait for their school rebuild projects to be delivered in order to provide for our tamariki the best possible learning environments; and how long will this Government’s inquiry take, and what is the time line for our kura receiving the school rebuilds that have already been promised to them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The ministerial inquiry is set down for three months.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support this bill. Look, nothing’s really changed. We’re sticking with the same legislation that’s driven down smoking rates to 6.8 percent last year from 8.6 percent in 2022, and down from—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what; just hold on, Mr Uffindell. We’ve stopped the clock. Would members who need to leave the House please do so quietly, with a bit of respect for the speaker on his feet. Please resume.

SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And down from 16.4 percent in 2012. Look, smoking rates have been falling consistently for some time, and that trend will continue under our Government. Labour’s changes would have created a black market with more smuggling, more ram raids, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Look, this Government is committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal, but we’re taking a different regulatory approach. New Zealand has seen some of the largest drops in smoking across the world. And in the last three years, 219,000 people have stopped smoking, with 36 percent of those being Māori. If those trends continue, New Zealand will hit the deadline smokefree goal of less than 5 percent of the population daily by 2025. I support this bill.

SPEAKER: Ayesha Verrall.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe, te Pīka. Is it No. 6?

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just lost my way here slightly. I call the honourable Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. I really appreciated being called “honourable” e te Pīka. I’d like to stand and speak in opposition, as Opposition in opposition, to the bill that is before us. This bill is married to the last one, which is also married to the one before it and the one before it, where we continuously have a Government who puts profit over people and prioritises industry interests over public health interests. We continue to see a Government which has absolutely no shame in its continual advancement of its anti-Māori approach in policy and how it continues to justify its wellbeing of profit over people. It is well known that Māori have the highest smoking rates and we have the highest rate of death and tobacco-related illnesses, so to sit here and say that these decisions aren’t being made against us is an absolute myth. We know what this Government’s agenda is, and we will continue to call it out for what it is so that our people can see, because we’ve got to keep reminding ourselves, Aotearoa: 83 percent of Māori did not support this Government—83 percent of Māori did not support this Government—which is why there is such a comfort in how and what it is that they are rolling out in this hundred days of absolute colonising chaos.

What we have here is an ability for a Government to actually do the right thing by its indigenous peoples and by tangata w’enua, but they are so hell bent and so bitter and twisted by what has happened in the past to them, and so vengeful against Māori not supporting them in the last election, that we continue to see this absolute kick in the face of advocates such as our whaea Tariana Turia, Hone Harawira, who are champions of Smokefree Aotearoa; many of our advocates who are upstairs in the gallery. You completely disregarded the experts, such as those from Hāpai te Hauora. It is an unconscionable blow to the health of Māori in what we are seeing rolled out before us today. Nine hundred and nineteen submissions—Hāpai te Hauora, Tala Pasifika—and here we have this Government with a Prime Minister who says, and I want to make sure I get the wording right. The question was, to the Prime Minister, “Do you know how many lives may be lost because you are making these changes?”, and the Prime Minister responds, on 4 December, “Well, not really. That’s not been our approach. What has happened here is that our party and others oppose this legislation.” “Have you asked the question how many lives might be lost making this change?” “No”, our Prime Minister responded. “No. What I have focused on is actually realising that [we’re] concentrating on the distribution to 600 outlets throughout the whole of New Zealand”. So, again, when the Prime Minister was asked “How many lives might be lost by making this change; have you focused on that?”, the answer was no.

So, today, we were debating with the Minister of Health on what he is guaranteeing. The Minister of Health is guaranteeing to us and Aotearoa that he has a better model, that he will personally take focus and responsibility and be all in the detail, all over what has been proposed to look after us. We are being told and guaranteed that he will act in the best interests of us as Māori, and I guess that helps us in some way, to put to rest that this isn’t about a billion-dollar tax revenue opportunity for this Government’s rich mates—absolutely not! Why would those 83 percent of Māori who didn’t support this Government go away with that belief, that, in fact, we have a Government who’s prioritising the interests of the industry, the tobacco advocates, and continuously showing to us that they are out of touch, out of communication, out of contact with any of the very communities, the very public health experts, who have spent generations trying to hold this? And to take credit, to say, “Hey, it’s OK how it’s going. We feel we can make the changes now because the status quo’s working.” is to insinuate that there is no future investment or future vision for the wellbeing of us. There’s absolutely no transformation ever promised by this Government. They will continue to backpedal to the place of comfort where the very systems that have harmed us are what they are going to be putting forward before us.

We are calling for bold and systemic action—we are not going to see it from this Government, whānau mā. So we stand again in opposition—complete opposition—of what’s been proposed before Aotearoa.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let’s be very clear about a few points about smoking: smoking is bad for your health. Second, our intention is clear: we want to continue to reduce smoking rates and to stop young people from starting smoking.

The nature of addiction is that demand does not respond rationally to reducing supply. While the demand for cigarettes is falling abruptly, limiting the number of outlets penalises the 300,000 people still dependent on cigarettes. If we take Auckland for an example, a 90 percent reduction in retail outlets will cause chaos. That would make for probably about 30 outlets for approximately 90,000 smokers. If you do the rough maths, they would need to serve two customers every minute, which kind of does point out that this legislation—there’s no way to make this happen; it does not make sense.

We’re on track to hit the smokefree target of 2025 and continue to drive down our smoking rates. While we’re committed to it, we do not think that this legislation will do it. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): In the last day in this House, we have heard some outrageous statements made about the last 2022 amendment to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. We were told that that bill was virtue-signalling and that it will have no effect. So I want to say why it is that that bill matters. This is why. It matters because tobacco is the most harmful product in New Zealand. It kills 50 percent of the people who use it. It is the leading preventable cause of death in New Zealand.

I want to tell the people on that side of the House about what smoking does to the people in our community, in case they don’t know. In my years as a junior doctor, I admitted to hospital thousands of people suffering from the harms of smoking—people who had emphysema so bad that they became prisoners in their own home, and the slightest cold set them off and brought them to hospital gasping for air, and they would tell me that even when they were well, they couldn’t walk to their mailbox. I have diagnosed dozens of people with cancer. I have seen many people have amputations due to tobacco.

The 2022 amendment to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act was evidence-based. The denicotinisation of cigarettes has been studied in multiple clinical trials. Retail outlets are known to be associated with undermining people’s efforts to quit. They are known to be concentrated in our poorest communities and those communities with more Māori and Pacific people living in them. Do you know the reason why this Government is cancelling our Act? It’s because it actually would have got there. It would have got us to our Smokefree 2025 goal, which previously was a bipartisan-held goal, and without that legislation, it’s predicted that this Government will take until 2061 to achieve that.

We know that that legislation is incredibly popular, and 60 percent of New Zealand don’t think this repeal should go ahead. That’s why that side of the House was silent on this issue at the last election, and in the coalition agreement the voters learnt that a dirty deal was done behind closed doors, and we found out that these proposals that are a wish list from the tobacco industry were making their way into our households. Thousands of people, over 40,000 New Zealanders, signed a petition against this bill. Over 9,000 doctors were parts of organisations that demanded a select committee process. Hundreds of health organisations have condemned the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health for bringing in this bill.

The cartoonists have had their turn too, calling out “Dr Cigareti” and “Nicotine Willis” and making the Government a laughing stock. And speaking of a laughing stock, we have the mystery of the document that miraculously appeared in the Minister’s office, but she can’t say how it got there, and she can’t really give satisfactory answers to the House about whether or not she spoke the truth to a journalist on this matter. This—

SPEAKER: Anything that might be considered to be an accusation of inappropriate speaking to the House—I’ve let go the term “dirty deal”. I think you’ve just got to be a little calmer about the way you put your argument.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This week, I had the privilege of travelling up and down the country to meet with New Zealanders who care deeply about this bill. One of the highlights of my visit was to go to Manukura School in Palmerston North. I met with about a hundred year 12 and year 13 students who should be entitled to a smokefree future. They deserve long years with their grandparents. They deserve a future free of the influence of tobacco. I want to tell the members on that side of the House that their ramming this bill through under urgency will not achieve what they think it will. Citizens have options in this country too, and the options that many in the Health Coalition Aotearoa are considering pursuing is a citizens initiated referendum to make sure that this issue that stinks doesn’t go away. The smell of this issue will hang around this Government for months and years to come.

Our people deserve a smokefree future. I’m proud that in the Labour Party I played my part in fighting for that, and we continue to oppose this bill.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): There is no doubt that smoking and second-hand smoke directly cause and contribute to long-term negative effects on the body, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease. It is one of the main causes of premature death and disability in New Zealand. This Government is committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal. We want to continue to reduce the smoking rate, but we are taking a different regulatory approach. We want an approach that is practical and helps smokers to quit. We are supporting a package of initiative—an initiative that’s focused on those who need them the most—to ensure we reach the Smokefree 2025 goal. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I enjoy listening to the language from members on the other side of the House, who are clearly not describing exactly the detrimental effects and impacts on communities that this repeal legislation will do.

Smokefree 2025, at its core, is simply about saving lives. It was making sure that our tamariki and our mokopuna didn’t grow up around tobacco, they didn’t grow up around cigarettes, they didn’t get tempted to have a sneaky cigarette, because we know that once they do, they are hooked. What this Government is actually doing is making it far more accessible. Despite their semantics and their words saying “Oh, no, we still believe in the target.”, the facts are on the table. Smoking kills. It is very clear.

Thousands of New Zealanders around this country are clear that they don’t support this. The Government talks about having a mandate. Simply look at the numbers: New Zealanders have said they do not support this course of action. It is absolutely appalling that the Minister introduces this bill here off the back of repealing the Māori Health Authority.

Every member on that side of the House has stood in this House and said, “We’re committing to smoking cessation programmes.” Show me the money. Show all of those workers out there who work hard in our communities to stop people from smoking—on that side of the House, it’s all rhetoric. They are going to take the money that’s going to be provided through taxes and they’re going to give it to their rich mates. It’s as simple as that. Follow the money. The lines they read come straight from the lobby industry for tobacco. It’s as simple as that. They might sit down on that side of the House and say, “No, no; this is what our community have said.” They’ve all said the same thing, and those are drafted lines that are given to this Government to put through this terrible, terrible bill.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that it is quite contrary to the Standing Orders to suggest that anyone in the House is somehow beholden to anyone outside of the House—other than those who elect them, of course. I just suggest that the member think about that in the balance of his contribution.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The evidence will bear itself out.

It’s quite clear to me that on this side of the House—and to many of my colleagues on this side of the House—when that side talks about a black market, actually what they mean is targeting Māori. That means that they’re going to put more cigarettes, more smokes, into our community. Guess what! It’s going to be Māori people, Pacific people, low socio-economic people who will be hugely impacted by this.

We’ve heard terrible statistics. We’ve heard this Government say, “Oh, well, you know, it’s already trending down, but we don’t want it to trend down too fast.” That’s the message that they’re sending: “We want it to trend down, but we’re going to just slow it down a little bit because it’s going too fast for us. We’re not making enough money out of this.” That’s the sad reality of the work being done by this Government.

I recall my cousin—actually, member of the National Party—Mr Tau Henare, who led the Māori Affairs Committee on an inquiry into Smokefree 2025. At the end of that inquiry, Tau Henare, a long-time smoker, a lifetime smoker, took the commitment to stop smoking. It’s been an up and down journey for him, but guess what? He’s there now, and I’m proud of him. The point, though, is that at that time, some 50,000-odd New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori—signed a petition to say, “This just isn’t good enough. Let’s set a target and let’s make sure we eliminate smoking in our communities.”

Some of those people are in the gallery today; those hard-working people who made the target a reality for our people—the reality that this Government is stripping away. The likes of Sue Taylor; a staunch advocate for Māori health and, indeed, for this particular kaupapa. I want to mention one of my good tuakana Shane Bradbrook, another man who fought really hard and, sadly, also copped the consequences from, what we like to call in politics, the dark arts. Hone Harawira, a former member of this House, campaigned up and down this country passionately and still does to this day. Anaru Waa, Heather Gifford, the many Māori researchers who have clearly made the case that smoking kills—this Government is going back on that, and that’s simply not acceptable. I don’t buy for one second them saying that “We’re still holding fast to the target, yet continuing to increase the accessibility of cigarettes in our community.” It just doesn’t stack up.

Throughout the course of this bill, this side of the House will continue to prosecute this bill clause by clause, line by line, to make sure that the stink that comes with it will continue to hang around the neck of this Government.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise after my whanaunga from the North, the Hon Peeni Henare, and to follow this for a brief contribution on this bill. I rise as a former smoker—I’m not proud of it and it’s something I deeply regret. But I look at New Zealand’s track record of reducing smoking rates over the last few decades, and the evidence is clear: what has driven that down—the two main reasons are increase in taxes, and the second area is a change in attitudinal behaviour towards smoking. It’s just not cool.

We are absolutely committed to following that line of thinking through actions to get us to Smokefree 2025. My colleague down here pointed that we are on track to achieve Smokefree 2025 aspirations. I just don’t believe that this, the actions that we’re repealing, would have actually substantially reduced smoking rates even further, so I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: I call on Ingrid Leary.

Ingrid Leary: Sorry, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: We’re done.

Ingrid Leary: Thank you.

SPEAKER: No, sorry. We’ve actually used up all the speaking slots. Sorry about that.

Ingrid Leary: Sorry?

SPEAKER: What’s that? [Interruption] Oh, sorry—

Ingrid Leary: I believe it’s a first lot—

SPEAKER: We’re done? [Interruption] Yeah, we are done.

Ingrid Leary: I would have been happy to take a call, but thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I know that you’re always happy to take a call, and many of us are quite happy to listen. But that concludes the first reading.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

We have seen a lot of emotion and heartfelt passion in the House today, and it is to be applauded and acknowledged. This is a truly important issue. Firstly, I want to comment that, unfortunately, even today it is clear that there is a lack of understanding on what is being done and the approach that is being taken. Even today, there is commentary about increasing access. It is clear that this is incorrect and it is not what we are proposing.

The black market will hit Māori—I can say that as a sad reality. And that is exactly the point why we are wanting to ensure that there are the tools to enable those who are addicted to smoking to quit. And cutting off supply does not reduce demand. There has been much talk of a landmark position, and I would have to agree. The landmark is that we are all united on the outcome we hope to achieve. We want, collectively, to remove the scourge of smoking harm.

I can, sadly, attest to nursing and watching the last breath of people who I’ve loved more than anything, and felt the loss in a way that draws me to anger at the harm that tobacco smoking has caused. This is why I’m so focused on bringing about legislation and regulation that is targeted where it can do the most good. I will bring a paper to Cabinet next week, and that will provide for immediate actions and longer-term strategies to achieve our collective objective. We will continue to clearly identify what is working and looking at all options that might help those who remain addicted to smoking tobacco to quit. I think it is important at this time to refocus our thinking and provide some balance.

We have heard a lot from the other side of the House about the numbers on which the modelling that drove the development of this legislation we’re repealing. The statistics they relied on were from 2019 and 2020. We have had four years of outstanding progress since that time. In the period since the data was used, 305,000 people have quit smoking. Youth smoking in that time fell from 10.3 to 3 percent. This is the position we are in now and this is the strategy we are focused on to continue to meet our smoke-free targets.

This is why we need to calm the noise and recognise that we are focused on addicted smokers who need help to quit. Currently, we have 284,000 daily smokers that need our help. This is not a contest of who thinks smoking is the most harmful. It is an opportunity to make a real difference and deliver on our Smokefree 2025 targets.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I rise once again to oppose this bill. This bill repeals the provision of the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act, and it’s worth canvassing, for the purposes of our debate, the measures that were in that Act.

The Act contains three measures that are crucial to ending tobacco’s hold over the health of our people. Firstly, it addresses the number of retail outlets. Tobacco, despite being the most harmful consumer product there is, that kills half the people who use it, is not regulated with respect to who can sell it, and that means that we do not even know where tobacco outlets are. That, firstly, means that there is a proliferation of outlets, particularly in poor communities, in Māori and Pacific communities, and that drives greater use amongst those communities. In particular, it drives youth smoking in those communities, and it undermines people’s everyday efforts to quit.

Once more, targeted enforcement activities are very hard when you don’t know where the outlets are, and that’s why making an approved retailer scheme would have meant that efforts to do controlled purchase operations, so as to identify where outlets were selling to people who are, say, under the legal purchase age, would have been beneficial.

Secondly, the Act sought to denicotinise tobacco, and that has been studied in multiple clinical trials from around the world. It is incredibly effective at helping people to quit with the correct dose of nicotine, as the studies have shown. The correct dose, a very low dose of nicotine in those cigarettes, will make sure that people do not compensate in their smoking. Many of them—a majority of them—go on to be able to quit with that. Of course, in the context of a safer alternative—not a safe alternative—like vapes, there is a way for supporting people with their addiction, too.

This proposal, the denicotinisation proposal, was incredibly popular with the National Party when we debated this in 2022. In fact, Dr Reti’s key concern about the bill, if I recall, during the debates, was that the denicotinisation should be brought in first. The evidence clearly points to its effectiveness.

Thirdly, the Act does something that you would think all people in this House could agree on, which is to create a smoke-free generation to mean that people born after 2009 would never be able to legally purchase cigarettes. It’s not prohibition, as some have suggested; there is still nicotine available in the form of vapes. Secondly, it is not a criminalisation of the people who are underage. The Act says that this will be enforced by fines against retailers who sell to those people; it does not regulate social supply.

Those measures together were deemed to be incredibly effective, and modelling presented to the Health Committee—that’s separate modelling from the one that the Ministry of Health commissioned—showed that this was not only incredibly effective for reducing the costs on our health system and for saving the lives of New Zealanders; that modelling also showed this was far and away the most effective public health intervention of any intervention that the investigators could think of on the books. So on a day when the House has heard so much about wanting to promote better outcomes for Māori, this is the same day for Māori health that we are repealing an Act that could have done so much.

In fact, the modelling also showed that the Act would have eliminated one-third of the life expectancy gap for Māori women—one-third. That is such an important difference. It is not a difference you’ll be able to make by speeding up wait times in emergency departments or getting surgeries faster. You cannot make that type of difference, as the research has showed, any other way. This is such an important thing for the health of our people.

I want to thank all of the researchers who put time into coming up with that evidence. Not only did they do considerable work to support the deliberations of the select committee but they also have had long careers in tobacco control, which are not the most comfortable careers to have. And there have been notable examples of academics who do this type of research and activists who support tobacco control being targeted for their views and for their work. Kia kaha to my friends who are doing this work. You know we will continue to make sure that your findings are heard in this House.

I want to go back to why the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal was set, and it’s worth remembering that that is a 5 percent prevalence rate across all of New Zealanders, but also recognising the inequities—5 percent for Māori and 5 percent for Pasifika. My colleague the Hon Peeni Henare has also already pointed out the work of his whanaunga Tau Henare, who was on the Māori Affairs Committee at the time that that goal was set. The Māori Affairs Committee took deliberations up and down the country in the course of setting that goal. They heard from people who had lost their relatives to tobacco. They heard, I believe, some quite confronting stories, and so that’s why it was with bipartisan support that they were able to bring the goal for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. Now, the advice we had was that we would miss that goal and we would not achieve it until 2061 without doing something differently, and that is why the 2022 amendments are so important.

I want to touch on some of the issues that the Minister has raised about what else, not just the—our approach to tobacco is never just a regulatory approach. There is also a very important role for quit services in New Zealand and for other supports. I agree with that. In fact, that was embedded in our smoke-free approach. We had over $20 million allocated in the recent Budget for supporting those initiatives.

I’ll tell you about one of them, one that is really dear to my heart. I went to visit a service called K’aute Pasifika in Hamilton, where they are promoting smoke-free, and they explained to me that the types of services that they are running are culturally specific. They’re not confrontational; they don’t sit you down and ask you why you haven’t quit smoking yet. Instead, they create a positive environment around people where they do waka ama, they are surrounded by people of their culture, taking pride in their culture, doing physical exercise, and smoke-free messages and support are provided incidentally to that. Those sorts of initiatives are really important.

Vaping has played a role in supporting quitting as well, but I am also concerned that the way in which vaping has been regulated has meant that what is intended as a quitting tool is now far too frequently available to younger people. I was pleased to attend the rally with members of Vape-Free Kids at Hastings in the weekend. We must make sure that our tobacco control initiatives are also making sense in terms of keeping kids away from vapes. I know that group who is present in the gallery desperately want a meeting with the Minister, and I hope that that meeting will happen soon, because the issues they raise about keeping kids off vapes are very important.

This issue is one that is of profound importance to our health system, and our health system, full of its hard-working staff, has struggled in recent years coming out of the pandemic. I think one thing that really cuts to the core of so many health workers is an absolute belief that we have to get rid of the scourge of tobacco from our communities. So I know that many of them are hugely disappointed by the idea that the 2022 amendments are about to be repealed. I think it really behoves the members on the other side to listen to the perspectives of hundreds of organisations that have called out how awful this bill is, how shameful it is that such violence and harm is being done to the health of our people.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. My question for the House is: who asked for this? Because, freely and frankly, looking through the select committee submissions and the public outcry that we’ve seen in response to this track of agenda from this Government, and the support that we saw when this world-leading legislation came in, is that the only entities that we can identify who are asking for this legislation to go through the House today are New Zealand First and the tobacco industry. If that doesn’t give you a clue of who this legislation serves, then I do not know what does.

The next question is: why is this legislation going through under urgency? Because, we’ve had a lot of back and forth over the last few days about the fact that this Government is ramming through an agenda under urgency, without any regard for convention or public input—the select committee process that would usually occur when legislation is before the House. The argument that we’ve frequently heard in response is, “Well, there was an election. An election therefore means that, you know, with all of the things that we went out and said that we would do, well, we can just do that.”, without any regard for parliamentary scrutiny, without any regard for due process or the usual protocols of this place.

That kind of leaves us with the outlying question of whether it’s the case that this Government sees that simply because there’s an election every three years, we can revert to authoritarian rule outside of that. Because that does fall as a question to the feet of this Government, because what we have here is a piece of legislation that, so far as we can identify, has only been asked for by the tobacco industry and by New Zealand First. It is going through under urgency by virtue of the fact that that exists as a commitment in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement.

The next question then becomes: what does this legislation actually seek to achieve? Because I’ve got to be honest with you that I’ve heard some really Orwellian and completely contrarian contradictory statements from the Government on this. They’re saying that we’re reverting back to a track by which we were already seeing a decline in smoking rates. That is what existed prior to this landmark legislation. But the really simple question for them, which they have not been able to front up to and be honest with the New Zealand public about, is that this legislation will—must, by virtue of the evidence and the advice that they themselves have commissioned—result in a slower decline in rates of smoking in this country. What that means, by matter of fact, is that more New Zealanders will die as a result of this legislation going through the House. That is a fact. That is the evidence. That is a fact. It is irrefutable. I dare any members of the Government to stand up and say that, to say the opposite.

What this bill does is slow down the reduction in smoking rates, therefore meaning that a product that kills 50 percent of its consumers will continue to do so while there are slower rates of people coming off smoking.

We’ve also heard in question time, just today, that there was some apparent concern for the black market, and for, you know, dairies. I just wanted to put, actually, in the public record—once again because, you know, facts do actually kind of matter when we’re debating legislation, not the least when they’re doing this under the guise of urgency, within less than 24 hours. There has been a lot reported on and a lot kind of undertaken by our investigative journalists in this country to get to the heart of the fact that the campaigns and the petitions that have been fronted by ostensible dairy owners have been backed by Big Tobacco, which takes us back to the core point that the only people, the only entities and organisations, asking for this legislation to go through, let alone under urgency—

Tim Costley: You just held up a picture of dairy owners. What about dairy owners?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —without due public process or scrutiny, is the tobacco industry, which will kill half of its consumers, Mr Government member, and New Zealand First. So, we come back to this point around the black market. I was saying, off hand, just as I was leaving the Chamber before, to another member of Parliament, that evil and cruelty in a Government agenda does kind of frustrate me, but, more so than that, the most fundamentally frustrating thing is inconsistency, because we’ve heard this Government consistently say that they’re concerned about the black market that’s going to be generated by virtue of greater regulation in the tobacco space.

Tim Costley: Are you consistent?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I dare members of the Government to show any logical consistency whatsoever—

Tim Costley: Smoking marijuana is fine; smoking tobacco is not!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I am really glad that a member of the Government brought up cannabis, because if we want to talk about cannabis and we want to talk about sensible regulations to cannabis, you are saying that criminal prohibition of tobacco results in further issues with regards to people consuming tobacco. What we’re saying, when we’re talking about regulation of substances, with the Greens being the only party consistent on this, is, if you’ll listen to me, that at both ends of the extremes, my friend, criminal prohibition of substances results in extremes of harm. A completely legal free market results in extremes of harm. The reason for that is that whether you have commercial entities or criminal organisations who are responsible for the supply chain of these substances, you have the maximisation of harm. That is because profit is the core motive. So, my friend, if you will listen to me and engage in a meaningful debate about evidence-based policy on substances and drug harm reduction in this country, then get up and actually make a meaningful contribution.

The point is that we have to take away from those extremes and get into a space of sensible regulation. That means that we do not have criminal prohibition and we do not hand over controls to an unregulated free market. So what the legislation did—which the Government passed through before there was this change of Government and now this unpicking, shredding, of all of the actions that were undertaken in the last six years—is that it would have reduced the number of retailers in this country who were selling tobacco. That would have resulted in less tobacco being sold and less tobacco being consumed.

We have it here in black and white, actually, from an Official Information Act request, through Treasury and a number of other Government officials who were asked to reflect on what the impact this might have for revenue forecasts for the Government. We have it on record, as tabled today, that half a billion dollars in extra revenue will be added to the Government coffers as a result of this change. Once again, that gives us irrefutable evidence that there will be an increase in consumption of tobacco, and, as a result, more New Zealanders will die.

That leaves us with the final question of “why”—why the Government is doing this outside of the fact that New Zealand First and the tobacco industry have asked for it; why the Government is doing it under urgency without any due process for public scrutiny as is the typical convention in this place; why they’re riding roughshod all over that; again, that question lies at the feet of the Government.

The kind of quite dark insinuation that you can draw from all of this is that this Government also is pursuing an agenda of austerity and of tax cuts. They are cutting public services—they themselves declared that in black and white—and they are pursuing tax cuts, which we know, again, based on their own public statements, will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest and the highest income earners in this country. It is not outside of the realm of believability, because, again, it is in black and white here from Treasury and their own correspondence that this is going to add half a billion dollars in revenue to the Government’s coffers because more New Zealanders will die consuming tobacco.

It’s really just that black and white, and it boggles the mind that the Government is somehow trying to say that they’re still really concerned about—in fact, the Minister, the Hon Casey Costello, was saying that this is not a contest of who cares the most. Well, Minister, I would say to you that this is a contest of putting your money where your mouth is. This is a contest of actually following through with evidence-based policy. So far, all I have heard is quite Orwellian statements akin to “War is peace.” We are being asked to believe one thing, one piece of rhetoric, when the evidence just says completely the opposite. We are not even able to have a meaningful parliamentary process with select committee, with experts coming in and telling us how this is actually meaningfully going to function.

If that doesn’t frustrate parliamentarians, new MPs, particularly on the Government side, who came to this Chamber—I heard their maiden speeches over the last few months saying that they really care about this country. They really want to do this thing properly; they really want to reach across the aisle and do things for the future outside of the three-year cycle. Guys, I hope you’re waking up and realising that you’re the bad guys. This is what happens when you railroad across democracy. You actually really not only frustrate those who would like to come forward and put their opinions forth, and showcase what the evidence and data says, but you also make the country a worse place.

I’ve just got to say in summation that it’s a dark day. It’s really, really gutting. It’s really, really gutting that in the blink of an eye—in the blink of an eye—we are going to undo some of the most evidence-based measures that any Government has taken on reducing substance harm in this country.

Just finally, I wanted to point out to what the former Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall was speaking to, with regard to how the framework that this Government is repealing is not criminal prohibition. The Greens fought really damn hard to make sure that the framework that the Government put in place just prior to the election was not criminal prohibition; it was sensible regulation, and we do not commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start by sharing some of my experience with smoking personally. It’s not about a family member; it’s about me. You know, I was a young builder on a building site smoking rollies without filters for years. It’s not a good look.

Why did I quit, right? I didn’t quit because it was made impossible for me to buy. I quit because one day I realised that every tax that I was paying on that cigarette was going to the Government. And, as a young, ideologically consistent person, I couldn’t quite do that. I didn’t want to be ripped off, so I stopped buying cigarettes. I threw a packet out the window and no longer smoked anymore. It took me a long time to lose the cravings, so I understand how hard it is to actually quit cigarettes. And I was only smoking for a few years, right? It’s actually difficult. People who have smoked for decades, I can only imagine how much that tears at you. I have family with addiction, not cigarettes, but I can see how hard it is to quit and how reliant you can become.

So the idea that prohibition of nicotine, which is essentially what this is, was going to have any good result, the fact that it was a gradual lowering of the nicotine in cigarettes to the point where it basically was driving people into the arms of the worst to get their fix—and yet the last Government decided that banning outright was the thing that was actually going to solve this, not push it into the black market, as we’ve heard about. Addiction, as member Hamish Campbell said, is not rational. People with addictions go to irrational places to feed that addiction.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Decriminalise drug users, then.

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, I mean, if you guys had done a better job in 2020, we might be able to liberalise it a bit more.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: We weren’t in Government in 2020.

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, you campaigned on it. So the point is—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: We weren’t in Government.

CAMERON LUXTON: You guys had it; there was—look, let’s not get derailed into a cannabis—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re derailing it.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, sure. Fair enough—fair enough. I’ll get back on topic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s the Speaker’s choice. You can either get into the debate or you can carry on with your—

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

But last week in this House, Greg O’Connor gave a speech in which he referenced the book Chasing the Scream, and it talks about how prohibition, when poorly thought-out, leads to bad results. There’s evidence accumulating over the Tasman, over our own borders, and in container ships coming in in my home city with black market tobacco on board. A small and illegal market versus, as we currently have, a large legal market will invert. We will have a large illegal market putting profits in the pockets of gangs, and that is the last thing that we need to have in this country. Thank you.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, there’s a lot of passionate debate around this. I want to acknowledge my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick for her contribution—very passionate evidence-based contribution, and I continue to enjoy your efforts here.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Give us some passion!

SAM UFFINDELL: I can bring my own passion, and the reality is that the National Party supports this bill. Look, we want to be clear on our intent that we want to continue reducing smoking rates in New Zealand. We want to stop young people from smoking and taking up vaping. We’re just taking a different regulatory approach.

I remember when we were having this discussion last year and—he was the Opposition health spokesperson at the time—Dr Shane Reti put through a few Supplementary Order Papers around vaping, which would have made a tangible difference to the significant uptake in youth vaping we’re seeing in New Zealand. The Government at that time did not support them and I was very upset to see that, but we can revisit that in time.

Look, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) says New Zealand’s progress is unprecedented and we are on track to hit the smoke-free target. We will provide people with the practical tools to stop smoking and vaping, and better protection for young people to stop them accessing vaping products. But, you know, this is a much better approach to the prohibition-style approach that the Opposition has put forward and planned by the previous Government. We’re going to be a lot less punitive than they were. We’re going to provide them with more choice to help them quit, and we are supporting a package of initiatives to ensure we reach the smoke-free goal 2025. I support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a spilt call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe. Thank you e te Pīka. So I rise for the second reading and continue our approach on disagreeing and standing in opposition to what’s been proposed. I do want to make reference to the Minister and reflections on—often we’re here and we agree on the same goals, just not the same way to get there. And we all agree that a healthy, smoke-free country is something that we all aspire to. So, on reflection, I have absolutely no doubt of the new Ministers and some of their intentions to assume their role and make their mark, and obviously make their mark in the hundred-day time line that they’ve got as well. But—I guess the “but” has to be—on the basis that in this particular case, and the ones before, actually, there is not the support of the experts—there is not the support of the experts—of those communities most affected. And I cannot say that enough. I think it’s really important that we as politicians remember that as much as we can do—all that we do in this House—it’s the experts out on the ground that have to live with this and live with the decisions that this place makes.

The second thing with my “but” is it’s really reconciling the Minister’s absolute intent to make a difference—is that the decision coming out of this Government is aligned with the amending and the intention of the tax cuts. So it’s really hard—and actually there’s a third “but”.

The third “but” is that this is done through urgency. So those experts, and those that know a heck of a lot better than you and I in this House—I beg your pardon, e te Speaker—are not given the opportunity to share what it is that, in their expertise, they know we’re going to have to contend with as a country beyond the three years of Governments—the three-year terms, six; whatever. So it’s really hard not to remain cynical about this Government’s intent.

I understand the appeal for us to be quiet and to be calm. And yet there were 47,000 signatures on the petition that we received that asked us to be extremely loud and extremely vocal and make sure the views of those who had opposing views were heard and seen. And this continuously is the theme because we are a Government, and have a Government, that did not get supported by 83 percent of Māori. So we have to make sure that the Government feels and hears and sees them. It doesn’t matter that you may have relationships. It doesn’t matter that you may have had a side conversation. The reality is that the stats are the stats; the facts are the facts. And while you have a mandate, you do not have a Māori mandate. So it’s really important—our place in here is to make sure that the opposing views to your views are heard. You cannot debate with 47,000 signatures. If we are going to use these positions of influence to ignore that, then what else are we going to ignore going down the track? So we are here, by right, to make sure that we speak for those that haven’t voted for you, that we speak for those communities you don’t reach into, and that we make sure that they are seen and heard. So they urged—they urged—that we don’t support this bill and that we stay focused on the Smokefree 2025 vision that’s been in place since 2006.

Today, I heard a member on my left saying Māori should take personal responsibility—damn right. Damn right we should. Every time we try to—it’s called “tino rangatiratanga”—you take it away. Every time. Every time we go to self-determine—through the Speaker—you take it away. You take our ability to look after ourselves, you take our ability to speak to ourselves, you take our ability to be well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member please refrain from using the word “you”. Thank you.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: The Government—the Government. Thank you. The Government—particularly this Government. So this assertion that there is no such thing as “personal responsibility” is actually, simply, an ignorant point of view of how we work as Māori. That’s my whakaaro.

So I think it’s really rich—it’s really rich—that we continue to see a Government that promotes and says, “Māori, get up off your backside and go and look after yourselves.”—that’s my summary of what “personal responsibility” is. But every time we go to do it, we have a Government to my left, who has absolutely no reach in that community, saying that you should repeal, that they will disestablish, and they will counsel every move we make. I hope that those petitions and those signatures get seen and heard in this place. Kia ora rā.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Madam Speaker, members of this House, we have a whakataukī in te ao Māori: He aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? [What is the greatest thing in the world?] Sang a song about it too earlier. Engari māku e mea atu ki a koutou, he pūtea, he pūtea, he pūtea. [I will say to you, it is money, it is money, it is money.]

What is the greatest thing in the world? As we’ve heard today—and, in particular, around smoke-free and the cuts that are going to come—it’s pūtea; it’s a dollar, because the tax cuts that are to come need to be funded from somewhere, and it’s this Government’s proposal that it’s going to come from the pockets of those addicted to nicotine. Five-thousand people die annually from smoking-related illnesses, and I’ve been on the front line in my history, working as a quit coach. I can tell you about the ABCs, offer you some brief advice, and access some cessation support. I know the work of the sector has been strong and long, and Smokefree 2025 was a reality for us all. I acknowledge Auntie Catherine Manning and the team that have been in the House today monitoring the debate, hearing the kōrero, and, in fact, the passion and commitment that we have to continue to push for a smoke-free generation.

Increasing access to tobacco products and retailers in our communities only leads to further harm. I spoke earlier about Kawakawa having nine retailers in the community. We don’t need any more—we don’t need any more. And the Health Coalition Aotearoa, they released an analysis around, actually, if we maintained the trajectory of Smokefree 2025 and implemented it as planned, we could save $1.3 billion in health spend. We would not need to fill up our hospitals with those who are impacted by ill health caused by nicotine.

We heard on the campaign trail the National Party talk about better health outcomes and a relentless focus on results. Yet I can’t find anywhere in the National Party’s campaign where they said they were going to repeal smoke-free legislation—something that’s world-leading, that the entire sector looks to us for leadership—can’t find it. Maybe I’ve missed it. It might be somewhere. Or maybe it’s just been a kaupapa of New Zealand First bringing it into the House as a part of their coalition agreement. I am disappointed, as a kaimahi of the sector, having worked with Māori health providers in DHB, and also as a portfolio manager at the Ministry of Health, knowing the gains made to date.

Will resource be put into smoking cessation services, community awareness, and pushing for further community action? The inception of Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 was based on evidence. You’ve heard that from this side of the House. Because, ultimately, this repeal will see te iwi Māori as casualties. It will impact us the most. We have the highest smoking rates. The goal was never about maintaining addiction e tātou mā; it was about eliminating the harm within our communities, because our communities are the ones who are dying from these products. And yet we have a Government now and this legislation wants to remove the approvals of the Director-General of Health to sell tobacco products, remove the limits on the number of retailers so that there can be more than nine in Kawakawa, remove the Director-General of Health’s approval of products to be manufactured and produced and sold in New Zealand, and remove the requirement of tobacco products to meet the low nicotine limit of 0.8.

I worry about the retention of the sale age of 18. My baby, my pōtiki, born in 2009—we need to see a smoke-free generation now, not tomorrow, and not in the future. May we make the commitment to better health outcomes for all New Zealanders based on real evidence, not on political lobbying. Kia ora tātou.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in the second reading of this bill. I want to thank the members who have shared their personal stories of overcoming addiction, because it is a great challenge here in New Zealand. But I am glad that over the last number of years we’ve seen a steady decrease in the number of smokers, down from 16.4 percent in 2012 to 6.8 percent last year, and those rates have been continuing to fall before even this last amendment comes into effect.

In the last three years, 219,000 people have stopped smoking with vaping playing a key role. Importantly, close to 80,000 of those who stopped smoking were Māori. If these trends continue, New Zealand will hit the smoke-free goal of less than 5 percent of the population smoking daily by 2025. We already have a smoke-free generation. Smoking rates for young people have dropped hugely. The 2023 Action on Smoking and Health survey of year 10 students shows youth smoking rates of 1.1 percent. These numbers should be encouraged. We would suggest that people stop smoking, but we don’t think the previous amendment legislation will do it. That’s why we support this bill. Thank you very much.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure where to start, to be honest. It is a sad day, it’s a dark day, it’s been a terrible day for this Parliament, and it’s been a terrible day for New Zealand. Why I’m not so sure where to start is because I just listened to the previous contribution and I expected something a little bit more passionate from a cancer researcher. I remember sitting by Hamish Campbell, the member who has just resumed his seat, at the Christchurch Cancer Foundation pre-election, where not one single mention of repealing this legislation was made.

In fact, when I look back, I remember him feeling a bit sheepish, and I remember the good people of the Christchurch Cancer Foundation being very specific and being very exercised about what might happen if this lot took Government—and hasn’t that just come to fruition, because National didn’t campaign on this. They didn’t campaign on it because it wasn’t a priority for them at the time. It wasn’t a priority for them at the time because it wasn’t until afterwards, when New Zealand First and ACT got in on the act, that they realised that they now had to fund those tax cuts somehow. So all things were now on the table, weren’t they?

When I think about the legislation that’s being repealed, I remember my time as the chair of the Health Committee, listening to the submissions and all of the experts who lent their time, who gave us their expertise, who were very passionate about not only their lived experience but their life experience as experts in this area. If we recall, as our contributions that have come before us have done so, about the three legs to this piece of legislation that’s now being repealed: reducing the outlets, reducing the nicotine in cigarettes, and actually creating a smoke-free generation. It’s like a three-legged stool: each of those components was part of taking the next step forward.

It is true that smoking rates have reduced—fantastic. That’s happened over time, but now comes the gnarly bit where we have to get to the tough-to-reach people. Now comes the bit where we don’t just say to ourselves “We’re dealing with the people who are over 18 and under 100 today.”, because people age into this cohort. Every year, those young people are growing up and they’re growing into the cohort that we are talking about. It’s not going to end unless we do something more, and this was a really, really good piece of legislation that’s now being repealed. It was regarded as being world-leading.

How did we go from literally talking about end game for the tobacco industry in New Zealand, to now talking about “Wow! What an influence the tobacco lobbyists in New Zealand have.” We’ve caved into them. We’re protecting people who, by virtue of selling smokes—as long as you take it as directed—will kill half of the people whom they’re selling to, and all the time just to fund tax cuts. It’s just incomprehensible to me. I don’t see many people on that side of the House who can actually look straight and go, “We knew that this was going to happen.” You didn’t know this was what you were going to do. You didn’t know this was what you were going to have to sit there and defend, but that’s what you do.

I think about all the people who made submissions to the Health Committee, and, in particular, some of the experts who have spent their life, whether it be in behavioural science, whether it be in economics, whether it be in health research—people with various expertise, different modalities, and different methods of getting to the nub of the facts, and they all were so excited. Almost all of them had to get up in the middle of the night to submit to the Health Committee because they were in the Northern Hemisphere, and they couldn’t wait to do so because they were so pleased that New Zealand was making this move. We had media from all over the world talking about what good legislation this was going to be, and we know that officials and people within New Zealand, within the ministry, within advisers—many, many people who brought a whole expanse of their expertise and their evidence to pass, and it just seems like such a shame.

When we talk about the smoke-free generation in particular, it was said by Dr Humphrey, who was the then chair of the New Zealand Medical Association organisation, that the best way to become smoke-free in Aotearoa was to prevent our tamariki taking up smoking in the first place. That just seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?

It makes me think about the Minister now being faced with an opportunity to make some compromises. I just can’t get it through my head why those compromises wouldn’t be undertaken. Look, I understand you’ve got to save some money to make tax cuts work. But why can’t some compromises be made?

There were compromises offered to the Minister to introduce a purchase age of 25, which was not ideal, but it still would have saved some lives and it still would have saved some money; there were compromises being offered to the Minister to introduce a nicotine limit of 1.3 milligrams per gram, which was a little bit more than the 0.8 that we were aiming for, but an awful lot less than the 15 that exists at the moment; and there were compromises offered to the Minister to consider maybe even a higher cap of 600 outlets, maybe a few more, maybe a sinking-lid policy. There were plenty of things on the table, but they were all turned down because, by hell or high water, this was going to go through.

When situations arise to that effect, you’ve got to wonder—as other contributors have said today—who’s actually running this show. For whose benefit is this repeal? This is just the tobacco lobbies and this is just for tax cuts, and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just take a moment here. We looked up a Speakers’ ruling earlier, and I just want to make it very clear for the House, because we’ll have a committee of the whole House stage coming up soon, but under Speakers’ rulings 55/5 and 56/1, a member can say that the Government has been influenced or was given advice from outside. That’s fine, but I just want to let people know, before anyone steps over the line, that it’s not in order to say that the Government has been dictated to or subject to outside domination or has received instructions or directions. Just so members know where we stand on that one at this point in time.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not suggesting that the member has gone over that line.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Point taken—point taken. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to move on. I’m absolutely happy to move on.

One of the other things that we’ve heard in the contributions that have been made to date is this bogeyman of the illicit tobacco trade. Again, this is something that came up in select committee. I remember the New Zealand Institute talking about “Black markets, black markets”. So afterwards, we asked researchers “Give us everything you know about that. We need to be informed.” They came back and said, “Not so much so.” There wasn’t any hard evidence to justify those lines.

Then, when you look at it and you look at the academic study, just a quick google search five minutes ago shows the British Medical Journal in 2019 did a comprehensive study looking at all of the different research that’s been done—that which was commissioned by the tobacco industry versus that which wasn’t—and it just showed up that tobacco industry data on the illicit trade of tobacco is not reliable, the methodologies aren’t good, there are lots of different ways in which it’s not robust, and that is the conclusion. So if that’s what you’re basing your arguments on the black market and the illicit trade, it’s a white elephant, and it’s not good enough.

We’ve also heard about the cost-benefit analyses and all of the other things that made sense with the previous legislation that’s now being repealed. We heard that the New Zealand health system stood to save $5.25 billion in health spending with these repeals in place, not to mention the $6 billion in increased productivity over the lifetime of the New Zealanders who were alive in 2020, and that’s not to be overlooked.

What we’ve also heard is that whilst the Minister has said, “We’re still committed to reducing smoking. Everybody’s committed to reducing smoking.”, no one has come up with a plan, and, if this was something that they were hellbent on doing, if this was something that they’ve got their mandate from, why haven’t they done the policy work? Why do we have to sit here today and have this repealed without any idea of what’s yet to come? It’s because the policy work hasn’t been done, because it’s an afterthought.

We also know that despite all those well-meaning wishes of how the Minister would like to see smoking continue to be reduced and how it’s only just a matter of continuing on with the status quo, even though that trajectory hasn’t been played out in real life, we know that the reduction in those rates won’t be achieved until 2061. How many people die in between that year—2061—and when we would have achieved that?

Look, honestly, National and the Government have death on their hands. I just think it’s a shameful, shameful day when after we have just sat through a day and a half of listening to the vacuous arguments about repealing the Māori Health Authority, we’re now doing exactly the same thing for a piece of legislation that collectively we all should have been proud of, but because someone’s got to get $2.50 a week for tax cuts, we have to see it repealed. I think it’s a very dark day indeed.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I would like to acknowledge all the healthcare workers, community leaders, and volunteers for their contribution to the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal. Under the current legislation, we—together—have successfully driven the smoking rate down over the last decade. Daily smoking is down from 16.4 percent in 2012 to 6.8 percent in 2023. The number of year 10 students who smoke has dropped from 11 percent in 2009 to 3 percent in 2022. However, this is not good enough. More work needs to be done, especially in the Māori and Pacific communities.

This Government is committed to the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal. Our new approach will be focusing on those who need—and we’ll accelerate progress towards our 2025 smoke-free goal. I support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, I do feel for some members opposite because I think they’re being forced to get up and take a call and talk about something that, in their heart of hearts, they know is absolutely the wrong thing to do. What I would say to them is that there is still an opportunity for them to do the right thing and to cast their votes in favour of the future generations of this country, something that is still always open through to them to the last moment.

This is an absolutely outrageous opportunity for this Parliament to effectively repeal amendments that were put in place; that there was no doubt about the fact that they were going to make a real difference. They were changes that were based on evidence. It seems something that this current Government is actually not willing to take a look at, is actually not willing to make sure that evidence is something that they are basing decisions on. I know that, for example, the Health Committee that looked at these particular amendments at the time did consider things like a sinking lid, but in the end decided not to head down that particular path, instead limiting the number of licensed premises. I also know in terms of denicotinisation, that was something that was discussed; there was evidence around that and landed where the current law sits.

What’s really compelling, I think, is the opportunity for a smoke-free generation to come from all of this. That is a fantastic opportunity that this Government seems happy to just squander away. And we know why: because this is something that was not campaigned on. This is a Government that is very eager and keen to remind everyone that they won a general election. Well, I tell members of this House that they did not win a general election going to the polls based on this particular policy. Recent movements—recent examples—indicate that that has come as a huge surprise by members of the community, that they have, effectively, been blindsided by this. To have this piece of legislation rushed through this House in urgency is an absolute shambles. This is, effectively, a report card on a Minister who is deficient in her ability to actually deliver change that is meaningful for our community up and down Aotearoa New Zealand.

I had the privilege of chairing the Health Committee when this piece of legislation progressed through the Parliament, and I recall that there were members who came from all around the country. I recall Tau Henare, I recall Hone Harawira, who encouraged the select committee to go far and wide to hear from the very communities of interest for whom this piece of legislation that is currently enforced would make a huge difference—and we did that. I recall going to South Auckland, and not a single member of the National Party members of that committee bothered to turn up to that select committee hearing. Not a single member bothered to listen to the evidence, the experiences, the personal tragedies, the personal stories, the opportunities that this piece of legislation would provide for them and their whānaus now and into the future. That is an absolute indictment on the way in which some members on the opposite side of the House seem to take the views of communities of interest for whom this will make a huge difference.

Earlier this afternoon, my colleague Dr Verrall talked about visiting Manukura in Palmerston North. I can attest to the fact that those young folk who are there—who are largely from members of our Māori cohort—were absolutely dumbfounded that this was something that this Government wishes to progress, that this is a Government that, effectively, is prepared to sign the death warrant for future generations by this particular piece of legislation.

This is something that, actually, also members of Manukura talked about: “Why is this not actually something that members can vote along matters of conscience? Why are members bound by party politics when it comes to protecting the health and wellbeing of future generations?”

Hon Member: Kids are smart.

TANGI UTIKERE: And that is that—kids are smart, particularly in Palmerston North. I know that that was something in particular that they felt should be available to the Parliament. But we all know, don’t we, that if this was a matter of conscience, we know that the Government would not have the numbers to pass this legislation. Because deep down in the hearts of members of this Government—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Must be a few.

TANGI UTIKERE: —they know that—and some of them do have a heart, Mr O’Connor, I’m sure.

Hon Damien O’Connor: A conscience.

TANGI UTIKERE: A conscience is another matter. But they know that this is the wrong move; this is the wrong route to take. Well, I say to members opposite that this is not going to be an easy run through the House—this piece of legislation—because members of our community all around Aotearoa New Zealand who submitted to the select committee and who didn’t expect us to hold members opposite to account—and we intend to do that because this is a crap piece of law.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): A member across just asked “Why haven’t they done the policy work?”, and can I just remind the House and those viewing today of a couple of key pieces of legislation: the 2011 Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Act and the 2016 Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Act, all under a previous National Government. And there was also a plan to more than halve the smoking rates and haven’t we achieved that so well. As Dr Campbell said, we are on track to reach Smokefree 2025, where 5 percent or less smoke. And so we are on track to achieving those goals of 10, 12 years ago, and so I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Three weeks ago today, I said farewell to my elderly mother. She passed away and we had her funeral. My mother was 87, and she is someone I would describe as a born-again non-smoker. So, when I grew up, my mother smoked—she smoked a bit. She smoked quite a bit, actually. And then, I remember when I was about seven years old that mum had a really bad asthma attack. And I remember her pointing to a number—it was 111 on a piece of paper—and indicating to me that I needed to call that if she was going to pass out. That was the last time that my mother—who had cut back to two cigarettes a day—ever touched a cigarette. And after that, she became an ardent non-smoker.

I mihi to her today, and I am so proud of her for making that choice, because my mother lived to 87 years old, and she got to meet my three children, the last of whom is 10 years old. That would not have happened if my mother had kept smoking. She got to spend holidays with them. I got that joy of seeing the relationship between my mother and my children. It’s something I am so grateful for.

But my best friend did not have the same experience. Her mother also smoked at the same time my mother did. My best friend, Beth, and I, I remember we would go on car trips. In those days, the tobacco companies were really pumping out a lot of misinformation about the harm from tobacco, including passive smoking. And I would feel physically sick at the end of the drive for two hours as she chain-smoked in the car. When my eldest son turned one year old, my best friend Beth’s mother passed away from lung cancer. She never got to see any of her grandchildren. My best friend has missed out on that whole journey with her mother, and so have her grandchildren.

This is the reality of what we are talking about in this House today. This is a product that kills half the people that use it. I find it appalling that members of the Government stand and read off notes, that they have not acquainted themselves with the arguments of this incredibly serious matter before us today. I take the point that my colleague Tangi Utikere said—it is not too late. This is your nuclear-free moment. This is the moment. Through you, Madam Speaker, I address members of the Government to say, “You can cross the floor.” It happened in 1984 when Marilyn Waring was nearly stopped from speaking on a nuclear bill. She threatened to cross the floor and it resulted in a snap election. That is how seriously she took her duty to her constituents. It happened in 2004 with Dame Tariana Turia and the foreshore and seabed legislation. Well, guess what? It’s 2024—let’s have another 20-year cross of the floor. Let’s see the Government members find their conscience and do what is right for them, for their constituents, and for their communities. That is the justification for crossing the floor. Because Tangi Utikere is absolutely right: this should really be a matter of conscience. Alcohol and drugs are matters of conscience. For some quirk of history, or perhaps it is the misinformation peddled by the tobacco industry, this has not been included in the conscience voting. And I guarantee you, if it was, they would not have the numbers there today.

It is absolutely incredible that the Government, who has not campaigned on this, is taking this incredibly serious matter and using the numbers, providing MPs with notes—MPs who have not engaged with select committee, who have not engaged with the hui around the country—to just read off notes, to do one- or two-minute speeches and rush this through urgency.

The experts are saying that this is wrong. The experts—9,000 doctors—not just my colleagues. And I have to tautoko to Dr Ayesha Verrall here, who did incredible work leading the smoke-free legislation—world-leading work. That has not been acknowledged. And she was continuing a journey that was from Governments of all stripes. So it is disingenuous for the previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, to say that it was their Government. This has been an ongoing trend where Governments of all stripes have taken the responsibility seriously. This is the first time there’s a break in that. The experts wrote to the Prime Minister. They asked for this to be repealed. And they said, “If it cannot be repealed, at least put it to a select committee so we can hear from communities whose whānau will die as a result of this.”—the 8,000 whose lives would have been saved by this legislation. But, no, that hasn’t happened.

What about the $5.5 billion to the health system? That is not only cost savings for those who would have not smoked, but we know the strain on the system. What about all the other people lining up for other health-related issues who will not get their operations, who will not get their interventions, who will not get their scans because it is being taken up by a new generation of smokers?

The amendment before us has been described as weak, deceptive, and embarrassing by Health Coalition Aotearoa. They have collected more than 50,000 signatures, and yet this Government persists in the face of all that opposition. Why? I’ll tell you why, because they seem to hate Māori—they seem to hate Māori. On Radio New Zealand 10 minutes ago, there is a story by Guyon Espiner which says that the Minister was told that putting this bill through would be seen as a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi—she was told that. She was told that the health gains for Māori would be five times that of the general population. That might have done something to bring the smoking rates down from 17.5 percent to the 5 percent that this Minister purports to want to achieve. Well, I don’t know how she’s going to do that unless she can come up with something radical in this ghost paper that we have not seen yet going to Cabinet.

This is an affront, on the day that this Government has dismantled the Māori Health Authority; in a week where this Government has said that cultural reports will no longer be available to those who cannot pay for them in our judicial system, which is going to put more Māori into prisons. That is the advice that the actual justice Minister Paul Goldsmith gave to Cabinet—it is on the record. He said, “This will put more Māori in prison.” But, no, they’re going to do it anyway.

The thing that offends me the most is the sneaky, insidious way that this is being done. Where is the health Minister? Why has this number one public health issue that has so much impact been delegated to an Associate Minister of Health? Where is he? Why is the Associate Minister rejecting any compromise at all, carte blanche? We heard from Dr Tracey McLellan that perhaps there could be changes around the nicotine levels that were a compromise, or the age of sale, or perhaps, at least—at least—get the outlets away from our schools. But no, carte blanche. What does that mean? Why does the Minister seem to have lines that echo very clearly with those of the tobacco lobby? I will quote from the Public Health Communication Centre: “Tobacco companies have an overwhelming commercial interest in opposing effective tobacco control policies … They have made misleading or false assertions, lobbied and influenced decision makers, manipulated research ‘evidence’, undermined independent researchers, and developed alliances by creating or cultivating front-groups to promote their goals.” That is an evidenced report, which is more than I have seen from this Government.

Their data is shonky. There’s been the question that Dr Ayesha Verrall has raised time and time again in the House about the inexplicable handwritten note about an excise tax change for tobacco companies. We have not heard adequate answers to that. There have been Official Information Act requests on vaping from leading New Zealand media. The Minister has failed to answer any one of them. She has said that she will answer when she puts this bill in the House. I take that as an indication that this Minister is going to stand up at the committee of the whole House stage—given that there is no select committee and that this is in urgency—to answer the very, very, very many questions that we have. Because, as other people have said, this Government did not campaign on this. They cannot say they have a mandate within their 100 days. It was not transparent, they are doing this under urgency, they have not got the consultation and the voice of community that has been demanded by experts, by communities, by petitioners.

So, Madam Speaker, through you, I urge members of the Government—it is not too late—to do the right thing. Do the right thing by the constituents that no doubt are lobbying you and walk across the floor and cast your vote according to your conscience. I guarantee, if that happened, we would have a historic nuclear-free moment, and this Parliament would have done its job.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Speaker, I’m not going to stand here and listen to members opposite parading around on their moral high horses as if they’re the Midas of anti-smoking. I’m not going to be lectured to by those who drove our health system into the ground, to hear the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly cares so much about this that we haven’t seen him in the House ever since he spoke.

The arrogance of those who would say that their bill, their measures in 2022, were all that was going to work to deal with smoking in New Zealand when none of them are in effect. They haven’t banned smoking; the ban was going to trickle in slowly over the next 80 to 90 years. Well, frankly, I say a ban in 90 years is not a ban at all. The only measures that have worked for anti-smoking in this country are those measures that this bill leaves in place. They have halved smoking in New Zealand in the last 10 years, and they will get us through the next 10 as well. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. Members, we now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 24, “Amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I want to ask a set of questions around section 3A, “Purposes of this Act”, in clause 5. I want to ask the Minister a series of questions about changes to the purpose of the Act and I want to understand why she has taken the approach she has. I want to understand better the direction she is seeking to chart in terms of tobacco control and the outcome she has said she is pursuing in terms of reducing the number of smokers.

I want to first ask why the purpose has changed, and in particular why the following provisions are removed from the purpose section of the Act. Why is it that the purpose statement that read “to prevent the harmful effect of other people’s smoking on the health of others, and especially on young people and children;” is now removed from the purpose of the Act? Second-hand smoke is a serious health issue. People can die from second-hand smoking. Tragically, babies die from second-hand smoking through sudden, unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). Second-hand smoke affects young people in their homes, in their cars—which has been regulated against—and we also regulate smoking at schools.

If I am to understand the Minister correctly, she has stated she does not intend to change other elements of tobacco control away from what she said was working in the past. Yet we see in the purpose clause of this bill a removal of the idea that we should be preventing tobacco control impacting others when it does so as second-hand smoke. So I want to understand from the Minister why she is making this change.

Secondly, I want to understand why there is a change in the language with respect to marketing. As far as I have known up until this point—and we’re working under urgency, so we don’t get the bill long in advance—I didn’t understand that the Minister intended to bring changes around the laws for tobacco marketing. Yet in section 3A(e) we see that she has changed the language. It now reads “(e) to regulate and control the marketing,”. In 2022 the amendment Act said, “to restrict” marketing. And, indeed, that is the point. We don’t allow tobacco marketing in public places. We also have plain packaging—a change proudly brought in by a National Government, as we heard during the second reading. So why has this language changed? Is there actually an intention to change how the marketing of tobacco or vaping products occurs in New Zealand? I think these are very important questions that have not been surfaced by our debate so far. And I do hope that we’ll be able to get answers for those because, of course, as we’ve heard, we have not been able to have a select committee on this bill. So we must get as clear answers as we can at this stage.

The third area of changes in this purpose statement occur in multiple places in section 3A(e). We see that the emphasis is on “(e)(i) discouraging people, especially children and young people, from taking up smoking; and (ii) discouraging non-smokers, especially children and young people, from taking up vaping or using smokeless tobacco products; and (iii) encouraging people to stop smoking, vaping, or otherwise using regulated products; and (iv) discouraging people who have stopped smoking, vaping, or otherwise using regulated products from resuming smoking, vaping, or using regulated products;”, and so on.

The language in the previous Act said “preventing”. That is much stronger language, and so when we hear about the Minister’s other plans, which we’re told will be the subject of a future Cabinet paper—and we recognise that we do have to wait to hear what these initiatives will be, uncomfortable though that is—it does seem that there are rather large policy changes afoot here. So I’d like to understand that from the Minister.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity—which is very welcome—to ask some incredibly important questions of the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello, and just to remind this committee that this is an urgency process and we’ve had a Minister who has not been very forthcoming to the fourth estate, the media, or I might say we are not satisfied with the answers given in question time. So it’s really important that we get some good-faith responses to the questions that we’re about to ask, particularly in relation to the legislative process.

So if I look at the section under the general policy statement and departmental disclosure statement and refer—I went to look on the House website to try and get a handle on the robustness of the process that has been gone through in order to inform this bill. I’d really like to hear answers from the Minister, because, when I look at the legislative disclosures, there are questions in here, which the Government are required to answer, around “publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that are informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect”—the answer is no.

The same applies to the regulatory impact statement. A regulatory impact statement was not prepared for the bill, as this was part of the Government’s 100-day plan. This is something that doesn’t sit easy, clearly, with many members, and so we’d like to understand the checks and balances of that, given that this was not campaigned on. So where exactly does the mandate come from, that the Government is saying that it has? To say that it’s just from the general election is not satisfactory when there are no checks and balances and where there has not been transparency of the policy that is being implemented. “Extent of impact analysis available”—no. Any analysis, like cost-benefit analysis—no—or “potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?” No. And that’s a really interesting point that I would like to understand, because all the evidence would show that those who are affected by smoking-related illness, many of them will suffer a huge loss of income or wealth that would be avoidable should they not have taken up smoking.

The purpose of the original Act, the one that is being repealed, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022, is to stop people taking up smoking in the first place. When we look at testing of legislative content, the Treaty of Waitangi—we have a bit of a blurb about the urgent Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, and yet we have the timing of this bill being introduced prior to the outcome of that. So that’s another question that I would really like to hear from the Minister.

We also have external consultation. And this one really gets me, because the following agencies were consulted—there’s a yes on that one, and then there’s a whole list of Government agencies, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Customs Service; Police; Oranga Tamariki—that is what is purporting to be “external consultation”. Well, I would ask the Minister: what is her definition of “external consultation”, given that we have 9,000 doctors who were begging for this repeal not to happen and who wrote to the Prime Minister? Does her definition include Te Hā—Waitaha smokefree support; Oranga Hā—Tai Poutini: Stop Smoking West Coast; Quitline New Zealand; Quit Strong, Te Whatu Ora; Smokefree; National Public Health Service; Action for Smokefree 2025; the fono students’ groups? What about Te Hā Aukati Kaipaipa Stop Smoking Services? What about the iwi groups? Are they external? Do they fit into the Minister’s definition? What about hapū groups? What about individuals?

What about the chap that came up to me on a street corner in Taieri and absolutely begged me to get smoke-free laws that were workable and that would stop the next generation from smoking? Because he had been addicted all his life and he had spent vast amounts of money both on cigarettes and trying to quit and just couldn’t.

So these questions for the Minister speak to the type of process. We really do need answers, because, when I look at all the sections that say, “No, there is no paperwork.”, and then the two parts that say, “yes”—one of them says “yes” to external consultation. I’m really struggling with the idea that going to Government agencies is considered external consultation. So I’d really like to know what the Minister’s definition of “external” is, and whether those other groups that I have referred to fit the definition.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Madam Chair, thank you for the ability to talk in this committee of the whole House stage. As other speakers have addressed, this is the first and only time that we will have to meaningfully chew through the substance and the content of this legislation. So I would really like to have a meaningful, genuine, and authentic engagement with the Minister on the substance of this legislation, given that this is the only meaningful ability that we will have as the House to scrutinise this in lieu of having a select committee stage.

So I guess, to that effect, I intend here to start a little bit broader, in drilling down into the purpose and the drivers behind this legislation, and then also to address some of the really important points about why this is occurring under urgency. Then we’ll get to some specifics. But I would really appreciate it if the Minister would meaningfully engage with these points, because they’re not just matters of political rhetoric. They are indeed questions that I believe the public deserves to have meaningful answers to, and, if I might add, it feels as though—as other speakers have alluded to—there is a sense of obfuscation and not a whole lot of clarity that the public and definitely members of Parliament have on why it is that we’re doing what we’re doing today, under urgency, no less.

So my first question for the Minister is a really clear one, and it is: where has this come from? I understand the technical point that this is contained within the New Zealand First and National coalition agreement, but what was the driving force behind that? I understand that at question time we’ve had a bit of a back and forth about the potential engagement of industry or otherwise. But, as I said in my second reading speech, the only entities or organisations that we can meaningfully identify in the public realm who were opposed to the Government in the last term passing the legislation were the likes of New Zealand First—the only party, I might add, of Government to propose that the legislation should be repealed—and the tobacco industry. Notably, the tobacco industry was backing a campaign that was fronted by those dairy owners. So my first question for the Minister is a really salient and important one and goes the heart of this bill: where did this come from, who asked for it, and who was asking New Zealand First to take this into Government and to put it on the 100-day plan?

The next question flows quite logically from that, and that is: why is this going through under urgency? Why is it necessary, because we’ve had other pieces of legislation introduced in the first 100 days, but they’re going through select committee processes. This bill doesn’t, from what I can ascertain, need to go through this urgency process where we’re going to pass it in the blink of an eye, and—as I’ve said before—therefore, this provides us right here and now with the only opportunity to have that meaningful input with the Minister and, through the Minister, with her officials. All of us here, I think, on the Opposition benches really would have benefited from a meaningful opportunity to engage with officials on the intention, the evidence, and the purpose behind this legislation at that select committee stage. But in lieu of that, this is all we’ve got. So the second question for the Minister is: why is this occurring under urgency?

Just to unpack that a little bit more, we have heard from the Minister in many question times and also in her first and second reading speech that this is very much part and parcel of the Government’s broader process and agenda here. They’re taking pieces of legislation that the former Government passed, they’re shredding them, and they tell us, “Well, wait and see.” In a few months’ time, there’ll be a Cabinet paper containing God knows what and we might end up with some form of replacement, but we have no meaningful ability to scrutinise what that replacement might actually be, so we revert to the status quo in the meantime.

So why is it necessary for this to go through under urgency? As previous speakers have alluded to, in the departmental disclosure statement, we have here at paragraph 2.5 a point from departmental officials saying that there has not been any analysis on potential costs and benefit, yet we have it—to be read contemporaneously with Official Information Act requests from Treasury and officials advising the Government—that there is going to be an approximate $500 million increase in revenue. So why is it that the Minister is not allowing these changes to bed in and then—I don’t know—potentially reviewing their efficacy, as would typically be the case? Actually, I’d point the Minister to one of the clauses that we got in the legislation, which is presently being repealed, which required the Ministry of Health to review the efficacy of the legislation, which is something that I managed to get in through the Health Committee process, because these were novel, world-first measures.

So my two questions to the Minister—and I’m really appealing to her here to engage with members of Parliament on this—are: where has this come from and what was it that meant that New Zealand First picked this up and ran with it and had it so fundamentally important to them that it was not only in the coalition agreement with National for a foundation pillar of this Government but was included in the 100-day plan? More so than that, why is it that every stage of this is going through under urgency—what is she afraid of?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak during the committee of the whole House on this particular bill. A number of my colleagues have already canvassed, or, at least, with a light touch, something that I wish to delve into with respect to my particular contribution. That is clause 7, which repeals section 3AB(a) to (c) of the principal Act. Wow; where do I start? On the other side of the House, over the past 24 hours, we’ve heard that there is going to be this great big empowerment of iwi-Māori partnership boards so that they can have a determination over the health outcomes and aspirations of their local regions, their rohe, their papa kāinga—all of those places. Yet in this one fell swoop—and I’ll get to the question very shortly for the Minister—that opportunity to be able to contribute to those health aspirations and the goals that your community might have is being stripped instantly.

But not only is it being stripped, my challenge to the Minister is that it’s being stripped from a particular group of people with this, and that is Māori. It is the iwi-Māori partnership boards, which for the past 24 hours I’ve heard from that side of the House are going to be this great big saviour of Māori health, because this Government is empowering them to do that. Yet in this particular bill, it’s being taken away instantly, without explanation.

That’s the question I have to the Minister: does the Minister realise that this particular move is contradictory to the bill that has just been passed in this House, ushered in by her colleague Minister Reti? Does the Minister realise that? And without the proper consultation—and my colleagues have already canvassed that particular challenge to the Minister—it’s being taken away under urgency here in the House, without the ability for the community to speak to this.

Well, in the absence of that community voice, all of the people on this side had the same question: when did the Minister meet with that particular community—in this case the Māori community, in this case any of the iwi-Māori partnership boards—to discuss this particular matter, to advise them that regarding their rights, their ability to speak up, their ability to discuss with the Director-General of Health where tobacco can be sold within the region, etc?

My question to the Minister is: did she meet with iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPB)? I’m not going to buy one of the arguments that I’ve heard in the past 24 hours that they’re yet to be established—that’s simply not true. Under my time as the Minister, we established 11 of them, and there were a couple more still in the pipeline.

So my challenge to the Minister is: has she met with an IMPB? We’re going to go a step further here and ask if she has met directly with the iwi to discuss the matters with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Hon Simeon Brown: Which clause?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Now, Mr Simeon Brown might chirp away on that side of the Chamber in arrogant bliss of what’s taking place here, but the fact of the matter is that in his electorate, Ngāi Tai, or the iwi there, I’m pretty sure they haven’t spoken to Minister Costello about this particular bill, and that’s the point that I want to make. Not only is it stripping the voices of those Māori and the Māori leadership on these matters, it does something far more fundamental than that. What it does is it actually continues, despite the words of the Prime Minister, saying that they won’t support a Treaty principles bill by the ACT Party past the second reading, but the National Party are going to do it by subterfuge anyway.

Andy Foster: What’s this got to do with smoking?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The Treaty of Waitangi, my friend; have a read. It’s clause 7. It’s repealing Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the bill, and if that member wants to get up and take a call, I encourage him to, because at the moment from that side of the Chamber it’s silence. It’s nothing. It’s an embarrassment—in fact, it’s her own colleague. So the member might want to get up and help her, might want to get up and assist her to push through what we regard as a terrible bill in the House.

So just to recap, in the last 50 seconds, I want to know whether or not the Minister has met with any IMPBs—iwi-Māori partnership boards. Her Government has already applauded IMPBs, that they’re going to be the answer to Māori health aspirations. So I want to hear it: has the Minister met with an IMPB? Stretch that further into iwi: when the Minister went and met with the iwi chairs up in Waitangi, did the Minister raise this matter with the iwi chairs not three weeks ago, and if she did, what did they say? What was their reply? Simple questions to the Minister, and we want to hear answers to enable us to interrogate this bill properly, otherwise it’s going to seem like more cover-up, and that’s not what we want on something so important to our community. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’ll just respond to the first questions that were received around why second-hand smoking is changed and the change in the language with regard to the amendment bill replacing the overarching purpose section of the Act. The clauses have been drafted to remove the purposes that reflected the previous Government policies regarding retail reduction, low nicotine, and smoke-free. That is the reason why that language has changed.

I will note that the matter for urgency arises from both New Zealand First and ACT’s coalition agreement with National, which placed this into the 100-day plan, which is why the urgency is required.

Finally, in terms of the amendments around the Treaty clause, this was required to be changed as a result of—the section that existed was to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi relating specifically to the retail reduction scheme, but we have retained the requirement for the Minister for Regulation relating to requirements for smoked tobacco products to consider the risks and benefits for Māori of regulating a constituent. So we have retained the requirement to consult, and we will continue to do so.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I want to thank the Minister for making an attempt to engage in some of those questions, but with complete and full respect—because I genuinely would like to meaningfully dig into this—I don’t quite feel as though we got a very clear answer.

What we had there was an outlining of the reason that this is being introduced to the House—it’s because it’s in the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party—and this is, in philosophy, known as a tautology, where we are hearing that something is occurring because it’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan. So I really want to lift the lid on that, and if the Minister can actually meaningfully address that question and explain to us why—why is it in the plan? Not “It’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan.” Why is it in the plan?

Because, as I said in my second reading speech, the only identifiable organisations that we can see that are supportive of this—aside from now, obviously, the coalition Government. But, you know, when we had this going through the House supported by experts as world-leading and incredibly important as far as evidence-based policy goes, the only opposition that we heard was from the tobacco industry—granted, with the astroturf sometimes of those involved in the dairy sector—but also from the likes of New Zealand First.

So where is it that New Zealand First got this idea from, if not from—and, again, this is not me imputing anything; the only other identifiable organisation that was in support of repealing this legislation being the tobacco industry. Where has this come from, if not from the tobacco industry? Because that’s where logic takes us. So where has this come from? That answer is still not being addressed. You cannot simply refer, in a cyclical manner, to the Government’s coalition agreements.

The second question also was not addressed. We heard that the reason that this is being introduced under urgency and being passed through all stages under urgency is because it’s in the coalition agreement and the Government’s hundred-day plan. Once again, we’re back in the cyclical logic, and I really, really put it to the Minister: why is it not the case—

Hon Simeon Brown: It’s called an election.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that we could have had the opportunity for a select committee process, Mr Simeon Brown? Because if we had a select committee process, we could have heard from the experts. We could have chewed through the evidence that members of the Government are saying that they care about yet are unwilling to look at in the face.

Hon Simeon Brown: It’s our resident expert.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Because the evidence tells us, Mr Simeon Brown, based on the only advice that we’ve been able to get hold of—which had to be obtained through an Official Information Act request because the Government wasn’t particularly forthright about that—is that this will increase, or rather result in a reduction in the amount of people who are smoking.

So we are ending up with, instead of being on the track for a reduced number of people as a result of the plan that this Government is now repealing, more people going to be smoking than otherwise would. So perhaps that’s the third question for the Minister. Is it the case that, as a result of repealing this legislation today, under urgency, more people are going to smoke than otherwise would? Because that is the logical and evidential consequence that we come to looking at all of the advice that the Minister has had in front of her.

I come back to that key point again. There are two key questions for the Minister here. Where did this come from and why has it been put in the coalition agreement? Who is behind it? What is the driving force? And, secondly, what’s the Government scared of as far as a select committee process is concerned—and due procedure and Parliament going for that scrutiny, and those experts and community leaders coming forward to tell us what matters to them and whether things will meaningfully work?

Because, again, I take the Minister to the section within the legislation which she is repealing, which requires there to be a review of the efficacy of the regulations, which is something that I pushed for at the Health Committee and got across the line at the Health Committee when we were putting these regulations through in the first place—was that evidence-based review. So, if I may, I just really want to labour this point because we haven’t got answers to it and this is the only opportunity that we’ve got to have this scrutiny.

So I really, really implore the Minister to answer these questions. Firstly, where has this come from? Why did New Zealand First pick this up as a hobby horse that got included in the coalition agreement? Secondly, why could we not have a select committee stage? Why could we not unpack this issue in greater detail—which actually could have potentially provided all the more information, data, evidence, and community input for whatever regulatory regime is going to replace this? Thirdly, are more people going to be smoking as a result of the repeal of this legislation?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo the concerns of my colleague, Chlöe Swarbrick, in the fact that this legislation is going through under urgency before coming to some specific questions.

The New Zealand people are done a disservice by this bill being passed under urgency. We understand that sometimes urgency is needed, but certainly not in the passage of this bill where it is only seeking to deprive us of the opportunity to hear from those who might have a contrary view to the Government. One of the challenges is, without the opportunity to go into this in depth at select committee, really this is all we get in terms of hearing about what is intended by the bill.

I asked the Minister earlier a series of questions about the purpose, and I don’t believe she has adequately answered them because what her amendment bill is changing is effectively repealing the 2022 amendment. And yet there are changes to the purpose statement that alter the interpretation of other parts of the original Act from 1990. That includes the marketing—because the statement about marketing has changed—and it includes the statement about smoke-free environments because of the change in language and the weakened language around second-hand smoke.

This question has not been answered, because that is hugely important. We take at face value the Minister’s comments about wanting to keep the regime that was in place and was making such good progress. But how can we take those statements as true if the purpose of the bill, of all the other things, which—like marketing and environments—are being changed? This is very, very confusing and I believe she needs to set the record straight on whether this is a narrow repeal of what was done in 2022 or if a much wider change to New Zealand smoke-free legislation is actually what is intended here.

I want to go to the matter of the illicit market. Those of us who are in the Health Committee have been discussing the issues of illicit markets when it comes to pseudoephedrine, and no doubt these issues will be coming up when we talk about firearms reform in this House as well. What I want to know from the Minister is: what advice did she receive about the size of the illicit market in New Zealand? Because New Zealand has particular characteristics. The excise tax increases in New Zealand that have been successful at bringing down smoking rates means that we have some of the highest priced cigarettes in the world, and therefore you’d think we would have the biggest illicit market in the world. I have heard multiple claims during this debate about the illicit market, about how the 2022 amendment would support the gangs. I want to know what reasons the Minister has for believing that they are true and what advice she received about the illicit market.

I’m also interested to know about how she assesses efforts to reduce the illicit market done through the hard-working people in the New Zealand Customs Service, and if she has any views on whether or not their initiatives, funded through Budget 2022, to reduce the import of tobacco—about the effectiveness of those initiatives.

So, to summarise, before I resume my seat, I believe there are still outstanding questions relating to the purpose of this bill when it comes to marketing and smoke-free environments. And secondly, I have questions about the advice the Minister has received on illicit markets.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate the West Coast loyalty.

I’m going to table an amendment to Part 1—it’s to clause 5—and the purpose is, actually, to follow through on what is a philosophical approach from this coalition Government, and that’s freedom of choice. But I’ll step back a little bit and give you and some of my colleagues a little a history lesson, because section 3A(i), in clause 5, refers to “the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, done at Geneva on 21 May 2003.” I was there. I was the Associate Minister of Health and I was advised by one Ashley Bloomfield. So we were in Geneva at that time working with the World Health Organization (WHO) to make progress on the very challenge that we’re talking about in the committee today. I’m proud of the progress that we had made, and I have to acknowledge in this Chamber Dr Rob Beaglehole who had worked at the WHO for quite some time, who was a passionate advocate—and indeed still is today, along with his son—on reducing the harm from tobacco use across the globe, and I have to say that a lot of their good work followed through into what we passed in 2003.

So it is mentioned here: the obligations to give effect to that framework. But my amendment goes one step further and adds on paragraph (j), to say, “to support personal choice by removing the addictive component of smoked tobacco products.”

We have, as I say, a Government that’s all for freedom of choice, and we, on numerous occasions, through legislation, including this bit here, are trying to—and the Government claims it’s trying to—reduce the use of tobacco. The uptake—I’m not sure I buy into their views on the uptake because, actually, we know, and it’s been shown, that more outlets promote more uptake and utilisation. Then the issue of addiction is the one that we grapple with across our society and indeed across the globe.

So you can smoke, and indeed people have smoked through the centuries, in fact, different weeds and different products. But what we have in modern products, of course, is nicotine, which is in lower concentrations in many natural products but has been concentrated up to drive addiction. Indeed, it’s said that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. That is, people who use it find it harder to break away from that than they do from heroin. That’s a fact. And if the Government is indeed based on evidence and facts and they say they want to reduce the rate of smoking in this country because smoking kills—that’s a fact. If this Government does have a conscience, if the Government does indeed want to reduce rates of smoking, then it will accept my amendment, which adds on to or builds on the 2003 conventions from the World Health Organisation, which says we want to reduce harm from tobacco smoking. And if we want to go into this further, we would then take away the addictive component of tobacco. You can do that now. You couldn’t probably do that a couple of hundred years ago when people were chewing or smoking tobacco with smaller amounts of nicotine. You can do that now.

So I call on the Government, I call on coalition parties in the Government, to honour the statements that they are making in this House to reduce rates of smoking and to take my amendment and to just add on “to support personal choice”. Well, we hear a lot about that—personal choice—whether you own a gun, whether you want to smoke, or whether you want to drink. It comes flooding at us from the coalition Government time and time again. Well, give people personal choice, free them from addiction, and let them smoke if they want to. But the minute you have nicotine—which is more addictive than heroin—in tobacco that is sold to people across this country, then you have a problem.

So let’s try and reduce the issues here—of addiction. So I call on the Government to support my amendment in this piece of legislation, and I ask the Minister to respond.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I would first just respond to the question that’s already been answered about why we’re in a state of urgency.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Not answered very well!

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I can accept that the question might not be acceptable, but the fact is it is in the 100-day plan, and we are working through to meet those obligations. And I would create clarity around the fact that this was in both ACT and New Zealand First’s coalition—so it has come from two parties in the three coalition Government and that’s why we are moving it through.

I think the final question, “Is it the case more people will smoke?”, I would refer to the purpose of the legislation which is in the clause summary as to what our objectives are and the purpose of this legislation.

I’m not sure where it fits within Part 1, but in terms of the illicit market and what advice we have received, the member has clarified the position around the investment that was made in driving down the illicit tobacco market, which was the $10 million introduced in 2022. The advice I’ve received around the illicit market is from Customs, and it continues to be a concern and that money is continuing to be invested. But I’d note that this illicit market existed at a time when none of these measures that we’re talking about were in place, and, therefore, it would be hard to quantify what the illicit market would look like if these measures, which we were now repealing, had been implemented. And finally, just in terms of the final comment from the member, “We know more outlets create greater uptake”, I would suggest that that is contrary to our evidence we’re sitting with at the moment given that we have seen a massive reduction with the same amount of outlets that we’ve got currently.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m acknowledging that I’m going to ask a series of questions that would have been canvassed at the select committee stage.

I want to start by first of all asking if a child impact assessment was done on this bill, particularly because we know that there is concern around the harm tobacco can cause in children, and particularly if people start smoking at a younger age, those harms can compound. So I’m interested to know whether a child impact assessment report was done as part of the process of this bill, and, if not, I’m really interested to understand why that wasn’t the case, because that is a tool that exists to further assess the impacts of policy on children. It is a tool that the Greens, at least, encourage legislators to use when it comes to the production of bills. So if the Associate Minister didn’t think that that was worth doing, I’m keen to get a sense as to why.

The other one is in relationship to looking at the departmental disclosure statement, the list of agencies that were consulted. It’s pretty extensive, but I’m really keen to get a sense of the feedback and actually would invite the Minister to potentially table some of those papers in relationship to the external consultation.

But I’m interested particularly in what feedback was given from the Ministry of Social Development in terms of the impacts that the greater harm that could come from tobacco use would mean for people who are already on low incomes. I’m interested to get a sense of feedback around the Ministry of Education. So what feedback was given in that external consultation in relationship to potential changes of tobacco use in schools?

Also, I’ve noted that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities was consulted, and that ministry can provide a really important second opinion on a range of policy issues. I’m keen to get a sense of if there was feedback given around how the policy could impact different ethnic groups, because we know that substance use can manifest in different ways in different communities and therefore the interventions for harm minimisation could look quite different, depending on the different groups. Equally, I did note that Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People was consulted and keen again to get that intersectional lens around what feedback was given in terms of the impact on disabled people.

The reason why I’m asking for those agencies in particular is that we know that the harm of tobacco, again, compounds when it comes to communities who are already living week to week. The health impacts of tobacco mean that people who already have the least may struggle to access the health services that they need to address some of that harm, and so that’s why I’m focusing on those agencies.

But if the Minister would like to illustrate more broadly or to table documents around the feedback that was given by those agencies, that would help inform the debate—right?—because if the feedback from those agencies was encouraging and positive as to what she wants to do, then I think the public deserves to know that. If there were concerns from those agencies, actually we would invite a more robust debate, because that doesn’t even have anything to do with the use of urgency, which we oppose.

But I think we deserve and the public deserves to get a good robust understanding of the feedback that was given as part of that external consultation, because we know it happened, even with the use of urgency, and so we are keen to get an analysis as to not just the feedback but, I guess, the extent of the process to which that feedback happened. Again, I think this is something that we would have been able to canvass within a select committee process, but otherwise I think it’s pretty fair to ask whether a child impact assessment was done and for the feedback that was given as part of that consultation. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister some follow-up questions on the statement that she made about the number of outlets that are in an area and the proposal to scrap Subpart 1 of Part 1B, in clause 9.

I have an amendment which relates to this on the Table where I am suggesting that that doesn’t happen, because my understanding is that those outlets that are there and the number of them is actually a temptation, is causing an issue, and that the Minister needs to work on an evidence basis on this. What I’ve heard from her today is she simply doesn’t consider that is an issue because this hasn’t happened yet, so how would we tell?

Now, my understanding is that there will be psychological expertise around the nature of this kind of availability. I remember that when we passed a law many years ago now in New Zealand to stop people having the availability of tobacco and smoking in our restaurants and our cafes, there was a lot of scepticism, and then we saw the effect of that not only in those places but on our culture. We saw a dramatic difference in our culture from here and in somewhere like Paris, and, quite frankly, less people died.

I changed my attitude to smoking at that point and I saw a harm I hadn’t seen before. So when we have 6,000 outlets which are unregulated, selling these products, they are very likely having an effect on our psychology at the very least—and the psychology of our children who are walking past those outlets all the time, because we had normalised that behaviour. So I wanted to know whether the Minister had sought advice, or would seek advice, over the impact of the number and availability of those outlets and would consider, while she waits for that advice, not changing the law here, because this itself could be an experiment. This could be a chance to see what happens when you reduce the number of outlets.

Now, one of the things that Part 1B does very effectively—and I’ve heard the former Minister who brought in this legislation talk about her rationale at a public meeting in my electorate recently—is it regulates who has that product to sell for the first time. Now, I am concerned about the availability to children in those places where people are selling. We know very little about how many people and who are selling these things, and there is no regulation of who is selling those products, so how could we possibly expect that everybody is complying with the requirements of the law in this regard.

So this Part 1B is actually all about regulating that industry. It has things like a fine if you apply and you are misleading and deceiving. It’s a whole thoughtful, mindful process about who is selling, as well as a reduction in the numbers of those who are selling. I would like the Minister to tell me how she can be so confident that those people are not breaking the rules and whether she has asked anybody about that, because I have an area in my electorate, which is Point Chevallier, and it has several schools in it. It has issues. There is alcohol, there is vaping, and people are really concerned.

These are genuine concerns of genuine communities. We already have major concerns about vaping, and now what we seem to be doing is regulating vaping a little bit more with regard to those things—maybe too tentatively—but we are not regulating cigarettes in the same way. So I’m also concerned, Minister, whether you have considered or had any advice about what the effect might be on strengthening your regulation around vaping while actually liberalising the access to selling and the access to cigarettes in your community, because that, it seems, is what we’re doing.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that smile as well. I want to traverse—hopefully I’ll get to three points in this contribution; three questions that I’ll get to: one about urgency, one about the purpose and the changes to the purpose from various different versions of the principal Act, and one about a tabled amendment in my name.

Firstly, on the urgency, I know the Minister says that she has answered this question a number of times and it is because of an election and a 100-day plan. But that is not good enough. Because what we are doing here is we’re not just using urgency to have a bill introduced and then go to first reading and then maybe even a quick select committee process. No, no, no. What we are having here is a bill that we only saw yesterday and that we are now debating in all-stages urgency.

An all-stages urgency is very different from using a bit of urgency here and there to progress a bill at pace. Obviously, there are a lot of sitting days in that 100 days and there would have been ample opportunity for the Government to be true to all their policy decisions—which, of course, I think are terrible but I’m commenting here on the process. Their terrible policy decisions around environment, around labour laws, around health could all have been introduced, had a first reading, gone off to select committees, and come back for the second reading and committee stage and not be using this all-stages urgency process. This is just the worst lawmaking process that is possible really anywhere in the world.

Hon Member: No, you took that prize.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: So I would like the Minister to make all stages—and now the members on the other side are saying, “Oh, you did it.” I note, again, that the use of urgency is different from the use of all-stages urgency. There’s an important difference there because there is no time for scrutiny.

Now I’m going to move on to one of these issues about scrutiny, and this is in clause 5, which says that section 3A is replaced. Section 3A is the purpose of the Act or the purposes of the Act. We’ve heard the Minister say that what we’re doing in this piece of legislation is going back to exactly what was in place before the last Government’s amendments in 2022. But, in fact, there are some differences. If you look at section 3A, the purposes, in clause 5, the new purposes of this Act compared with a version before those 2022 amendments, there are some changes. Maybe they are small, but I don’t know why they are there.

So, for instance, the numbering is different, and at paragraphs (c) and (d) there’s the new (c)—I think from my looking at it—“to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people; and, (d) to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people;” and so it goes. Then the rest is the same, but then there is a difference in wording at (g), which is “to regulate the safety of regulated products;”. Previously, it was to regulate the safety of vaping products and smokeless tobacco products. I don’t know the reason for that change—the Minister could comment on that. At (h), there is “to monitor and regulate the presence of the constituents of regulated products and their emissions;”. So the word “harmful” was there after the “presence”. So it did read “the presence of harmful constituents of regulated products and their emissions”.

There may be a great policy reason for this change, but I don’t know it and this is the only time we get to scrutinise this bill. That takes quite a little bit of time, going back and forward between different versions of the of the bills and of the Act quickly. But I would like to spend more time on those changes of the purposes, and I just note the additions of “to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people;” and “to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people;”. These are both similar to what the wording was in the 2022 change, but is different from the primary legislation before that 2022 change. Related to that is my tabled amendment and that asks—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Chair. So going to my tabled amendment—noting that these parts of the purpose relate to children and young people, and I think that seems to be a good policy decision; I’m sure nobody in the committee would question it.

So what this amendment does is to introduce, after clause 9, a new clause 9A and insert a new section 20OA into the legislation. That part of the legislation is around the regulation of tobacco. So what this is is to add in section 20OA, “Proximity of tobacco retailers to schools”, and that is that the director-general must ensure, when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, that any premises is not within 1 kilometre of a school. Obviously, the intention of that amendment is to support what we have in the purposes of the Act as amended by this bill and, as in fact, the purposes of the Act and the amendments from 2022, but not, as I said before, in the original piece of legislation pre its 2022 amendments.

So I’m very interested if the Minister can tell us about why she’s kept in those two—paragraphs (c) and (d) in the bill—provisions around children in the purpose, and, hopefully, we will all be in agreement about why she’s doing that. But then also could she comment on why it would be useful to have my tabled amendment—there’s probably some other similar tabled amendments as well—about actually giving effect to that purpose, which is to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people and to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people. Obviously, if you cannot have premises near a school, that is a good way of achieving that purpose. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I think it’s important just to reiterate here that the bill we’re discussing is not undoing anything that’s currently in place. So we are looking to change the legislation, but none of these measures are actually implemented as of yet, so I think we need to work forward from that position. So that refers to the driving down demand, I think, question that was raised. I think that that’s why we keep going back to the statistics: we have driven down demand significantly with what’s in place and our young smokers have been a significant reduction—down to just 19,000 young smokers now—so we will continue to work on those aspects that are working.

I think I’ll just respond to the clarifying about exactly the purpose being exactly the same as previously. I think, just to clarify, the previous purpose statement reflected the previous Government’s policies regarding the regulation of smoked tobacco. This included a purpose that was intended to reflect the equity focus of those policies. Because these policies have been removed from the Act, the purpose statement was revised to reflect the substance of what remains in the Act. For this reason, the new purpose statement largely reflects the purpose statement that was in the Act before the previous amendments.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some focus questions and I’m wanting to examine, with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello, clause 5, amending the purpose of the Act, noting that there’s a removal of the purpose to reduce disparities in smoking rates and illness between the New Zealand population and the Māori population. And it really perplexes me, as a Māori who is heavily impacted by smoking, why we remove a piece of the legislation that actually provides focus—it provides focus for our policy makers and then for those who will procure services to meet these new legislative guidelines. So I want to unpack that a little bit, and query with the Minister: did she consider the 2011 Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry and the impacts of tobacco on Māori? Did she consider that, in preparing this legislation? And did she have any other evidence or reports, in terms of the Māori health impact, that informed what the Minister has put forward to the committee tonight?

Further, wanting to dig into Te Tiriti compliance, were there any Te Tiriti audits conducted on this repeal, or have you had any advice, whether it’s from Crown officials or legal advisers, in terms of whether this repeal is Te Tiriti compliant? And who prepared that advice for you? So I’m really keen to understand the “who”.

In progressing some of what my colleague Peeni Henare has shared in the House, I’m interested to understand any consultation that the Minister has undertaken with te iwi Māori on the repeal of this legislation, of our smoke-free environments legislation. In particular, just considering, you know, the diverse expertise that exists within the Māori health sector and Māori organisations, on top of te iwi Māori, was there any advice taken or received? Sometimes you may not have taken the advice, but it was received by your office. Can you share with the committee any concerns that you may have received from Māori health experts, advocates, or others through your office?

In closing, thinking about, you know, iwi Māori engagement, as members of te Iwi o Ngātiwai, Minister, I noted on Facebook today that te Poari o Ngātiwai, our Iwi Trust Board, made a post to remind the Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, that on 14 December a letter was furnished to the Minister outlining concerns around the smoke-free environments repeal to come. There’s been no response received. But I believe another invitation is being extended to both Minister Reti and Minister Costello to attend a hui-ā-iwi with the people of Ngātiwai to discuss your plans and how you intend to protect Māori health outcomes and improve those outcomes for te Iwi o Ngātiwai and Māori people in general. I look forward to your responses, kia ora.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I want to take this opportunity, as the first time being able to kōrero about such a sad day for Māori, for te ao Māori, today—knowing that we are in urgency and it’s the only opportunity that we get to have to ask questions to the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello and to the Government. I want to let the Minister know that our people are weeping today—that we haven’t had the opportunity to kōrero, to wānanga, to share time, to be able to reflect on the impact that these amendments to the legislation will have on our people. And our people want to ensure that their voices are being heard. And here, those of us in Te Pāti Māori and Te Pāti Kākāriki and in Labour are those voices for our people. So it’s only right that we get the opportunity to have a kōrero about the bill in its entirety.

I want to provide some background. I was part of the—it was called MEEG, the Māori Expert Advisory Group, that actually wrote the alternative paper for the establishment of the Māori Health Authority, which was then named Te Aka Whai Ora. I want to mihi to the experts that were on that panel—in particular, Sharon Shea, who was the chair who fought hard to ensure that we did establish the Māori Health Authority and Te Aka Whai Ora. Today, I mihi to the panel and to that rōpū that fought hard for that. Why are we talking about that? Because it’s all interrelated. The falling of Te Aka Whai Ora, the amendments to the legislation—it’s all impacting on Māori.

I also want to share that when I was the CEO for Te Kaha o te Rangatahi in Manurewa, we held a smoke-free contract. So I managed a smoke-free team. We fought very, very hard to ensure that we reduced outlets that were selling cigarettes, tobacco, and vapes in our community. Why? Because it was about our mokopuna. It was the best decision for our tamariki. They were walking past outlets, like, all the way that they were going to school. If you don’t know Manurewa well, Manurewa has—on Great South Road, it’s a strip of shops like 250 metres long. Every second shop sold cigarettes. As a Māori health provider, working alongside Hāpai te Hauora, working alongside the Cancer Society, we fought hard to ensure that those outlets reduced the selling of cigarettes—by closing down or they made different choices.

Can I say, there was a product—I don’t know what you’d call it, but it was called a “killer combo”. Our kids were going to school every morning, stopping at the local dairy to buy a killer combo. A killer combo was a pie, a coke, and a cigarette—all for $5. And we wanted to stop that. But this bill will ensure that outlets can continue to do that. You know, in our communities, they’re not just selling packets of cigarettes; they’re selling single cigarettes—alongside vaping mechanisms. That is the truth and the reality of the community that we’re in. Our providers, Māori health providers, work hard to reduce that. We want our mokopuna to live. We want a better generation and a better future for our whānau, for our mokopuna. So we have to stand up and continue to fight and to raise our voices.

I have a question for you. Both bills that we’ve had for Māori over the last two days all talk about the iwi Māori partnership boards. What we never heard in that kōrero was an urban Māori voice. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, there are 250,000 Māori, 80 percent of them do not belong to the iwi in Tāmaki-makau-rau. We are an urban population and their voice is missing. My question is: how will the Minister ensure that the urban Māori voice will be heard and will be at the decision-making table alongside iwi Māori? My other question is: how will the—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa o tēnei taha e whawhai ana mō te tika o ngā tāngata i roto i tēnei āhuatanga.

[Greetings to us all on this side who are fighting for the welfare of all peoples in this situation.]

I have an amendment to be inserted after clause 9, and that is new clause 9C which inserts new section 20OC and that is that “The Director-General must ensure, when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, that any premises is not within one km of a marae”, a kaupapa that follows on quite nicely from the previous speaker, Takutai Tarsh Kemp.

I am proud to be a marae girl, born and raised, and I’m definitely more proud to say that while smoking, of course, was present, it is not what defines my memories of being raised on a marae. I also love that when you ask someone, “Got a light?”, the answer is usually “No.” these days, and that can be largely attributed to the fact that marae, of their own volition, made their premises smoke-free to protect their whakapapa and our mokopuna. Marae are a physical depiction of the tinana—of the person, of the body—te mana, te tapu o te tangata, an argument which, sadly, I have not heard coming from that side of the House. We’ve not heard the value of mana tangata, the value of life. Another reason for this proposed amendment is, obviously, the common-sense one, that our tamariki, mokopuna are not exposed and do not easily have access to tobacco.

As a culture, we’re still recovering from so much. We’re still recovering our reo, and, as such, our marae are already vulnerable. Our paepae are struggling. We’re very limited with speakers who have the oratory capacity. This bill makes us even more vulnerable, not only culturally but physically. We all know the impacts of smoking on our health, and it’s such a shame that in a time that we know better, we’re not doing better.

Speaking of our paepae, I think of all the people we have lost. This morning, I did an interview on Radio Ngati Porou, and I couldn’t help but reflect back to a wahine whose daughter I went to school with, July Minnell. July Minnell was cut down in her prime and is a loss not only to Ngati Porou but to her daughter, who I had to watch go through school without her mother. July’s legacy was one that certainly influenced my decision not to take up cigarette smoking, but she had to die to leave that legacy, and we know that. People over there are acknowledging it, and yet here we are today still promoting this kaupapa. How many more people have to die before we are all influenced by their legacy?

Now, marae have made their decision to protect whakapapa on their land, in their buildings. The least we can do is respect that by guaranteeing that retailers will not be allowed to sell this paitini, to peddle this poison, to our tamariki, to our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi in such close proximity to an already vulnerable institution of te ao Māori. Therefore, I ask the question: can you guarantee that when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer that any premises is not within 1 kilometre of a marae?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to take the opportunity to actually make a submission today on behalf of a local group of young anti-smoking activists who are incredibly disappointed that there is no select committee process to enable them to come and have their voices heard. This young group are known as the Hashtags, and they reside in Wainuiōmata. They have seen firsthand the harm that smoking does to their community, and they have taken action and they have been incredibly powerful and successful in their past actions. The Hashtags were the core group that had a petition and lobbied Government to ban smoking in cars, and they were successful in that legislation being passed. But they did not stop there. They continued by making sure that there would be further restrictions placed on vaping, because they saw the harms within their community. They have been strong, staunch advocates who have repeatedly come to Parliament and submitted to our select committees, and it is a travesty that young people who are directly impacted by this legislation—these young people would have grown up in a smoke-free New Zealand. This bill stops them from growing up in a smoke-free New Zealand, and this House stops them from having their voice heard when it directly impacts upon their wellbeing and their livelihoods, and I find that despicable.

I’d like to read out their submission; it’s come in tonight, so I would like to share that with you tonight. I’d like the Associate Minister of Health to hear this, and maybe the Minister might like to answer some of the questions that the Hashtags have asked. So, “Smokefree 2025 is the National Government goal that Labour Government helped lead by listening to the voices of their communities, particularly the rangatahi led by the Hashtags. The Hashtag acronym explains their eternal health goal for whānau, which is Holistic Action Sustainable Health Through All Generations”. Under the smokefree amendment Act, this is one of the multiple Acts that ensures the health and wellbeing of our future. Our question is: how can the Government justify your actions by repealing your own goal? As stated by Pōtatau Clarke, choose the right. Wrong decisions can never be right, and right decisions can never be wrong. On behalf of the Hashtags and rangatahi, we now urgently challenge the Government to stop smoke-free legislation repeal. This Government has disempowered all the smoke-free advocacy that has taken years of hard work from hundreds of people. Aotearoa led the world in tobacco legislation and policies, which is all about saving lives and protecting our future generations. The Hashtags now plead for the Government to do what they must, do the right thing, and not replace the dollars for the health and wellbeing of our future.” Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just think it’s worth going back again to reiterate that we are talking about Part 1 and we’re talking about the range of repeals that remove the retail reduction, so the refocus on that is the target here. I would remind and reiterate that we are retaining the requirement to consider the impact on Māori in regulating a constituent, including to both users and non-users of smoked tobacco products, so we are continuing to ensure that that is addressed. I think that we are needing to kind of consider that when you talk about single cigarette sales etc., those are the unfortunate flags of the black market, which are imported as single cigarette quantities, and that’s what we’re hoping to ensure that we can control moving forward. We are going to be focusing on building on the great work that has been highlighted, and we will continue to do so as we move forward, as I’ve previously noted in the recommendations of the next steps.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. As it’s my first opportunity to take this call, I appreciate the opportunity, because we don’t have the benefit of the select committee process. I’ve been appreciating the depth of discussion and/or questioning that’s come from this side of the Chamber, and I’ve been equally frustrated by the lack of response that’s come from the Minister.

I would particularly like to ask the Minister in relation to clause 12, the repeal of nicotine limits. Clause 12 repeals section 57I of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. That section limited the content of nicotine in tobacco products to 0.8 milligrams. As the member over here mentioned, we know—the evidence is clear—that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. So what we’re seeing in this change is a reduction of the limits on nicotine in cigarettes, which is just beyond belief that anyone could consider doing such a thing. We know what nicotine does: it kills people.

Now, this is something that I think everyone in this committee knows about. I know, when I was a young person, way, way, way, way back in the 1970s, we had candy cigarettes, which encouraged people to think about smoking. With my friends, we often used to pinch cigarettes from—well, my friend used to pinch cigarettes from his parents, because they smoked packets a day and they didn’t notice them. Of course, we tried to smoke, but, fortunately, it didn’t take with me.

But my best friend’s mother and father both smoked. Their father died of cancer. It began on his lips and went further. That was a horrible death, but what was worse was his mother, who wanted to stay at home. She was looked after by their youngest daughter—also a friend of mine—and that was a really painful experience in our village, because she was in a great deal of pain and she wouldn’t take any medicine for it, and her last days were heard by people all around the village. She died a horrible death because of cancer, caused by smoking cigarettes.

So we’ve seen what can happen—we know this stuff. This is not new to anyone. It’s not new, and yet, here we are, removing any controls. So I’ve got a couple of questions, and I would like to come back later for some more. But I’ve got a couple of questions here for the Minister that I would really like an authentic and deep response to, rather than a once over, just fly past. What impact is the removal of nicotine limits expected to have on rates of quitting smoking? What other options did officials provide to her? And why did she choose this option? Has she received any data or evidence on the impacts that removing this nicotine limit will have on the addictiveness of cigarettes or the length of time people will spend smoking? I’ve got a very close relative who has smoked since he was a teenager. He’s now in his mid-60s and he keeps on trying to give up, and he can’t.

Clause 12 repeals section 57I, which provides limits on nicotine for smoked tobacco products. Did she receive any specific advice or modelling about the impact of repealing this clause on the uptake of smoking? And if so, what was the nature of this advice?

Now, I must say, I am an optimist. As an optimist, I frequently deal with disappointment, but I do not want the Minister to disappoint me. I would like some answers, please.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague Scott Willis for his contribution on a very important part of the 2022 amendment that is now proposed for repeal, which relates to denicotinisation of cigarettes. Denicotinisation takes that most addictive product known to man—nicotine—out of cigarettes, so that people can take control of the effect that this product has on them, and many, many people successfully quit when cigarettes are denicotinised.

The evidence presented at select committee in the hearings for the 2022 amendment on this were compelling. New Zealand is lucky to have one of the lead clinical trialists of denicotinised cigarettes at the University of Auckland, so compelling presentations were made on that. Being a man of science, one of the people who was most influenced by those presentations was the now health Minister, Dr Shane Reti, and he made a number of contributions in this House on the importance of the proposals around denicotinisation. In fact, he moved amendments that the bill should remove the retail components but focus on denicotinisation because it was so impactful. Indeed, there’s widespread support from other members of the Government, including, I believe, a Christchurch GP on the National backbench, who expressed support for that proposal on social media.

So I think understanding the Minister’s advice on denicotinisation is particularly important. In particular, I’d like to know what conversations she’s had with Dr Reti about denicotinisation, because I am aware of his comments on radio that he sees his role as not making the decisions on smoke-free but supporting the Minister—his Associate Minister—with advice. So I’m very interested to know about those conversations. What did Dr Reti say to the Minister about denicotinisation? Were any avenues for preserving denicotinisation in the Act explored between the two Ministers?

You’ll note that there is an amendment on the Table that brings back the denicotinisation proposals into the bill. I hope all members of the House—given the previously expressed support of the now health Minister Shane Reti for this initiative—will consider it. It would be very strange indeed if a party that supported that approach immediately before the election was now voting that approach down. That would be quite shameful and show a lack of respect for their health Minister, Dr Reti. So I’m very interested to hear about what advice Dr Reti has given the Minister on these proposals, including those about denicotinisation.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just think, to quickly, again, reiterate—and I’m sorry to harp on—but the whole purpose of this legislation is to repeal the reduced retailers and the denicotinisation and the removal of the ban on persons born after 1 January 2009, so we’re revisiting these components. I would like to comment on and reinforce that we fully understand the issues of harm and, therefore, we are going to continue to work on those initiatives, as I’ve repeatedly said. The denicotinisation is a tool. As we’ve referenced previously, those tools will be looked at as quit-smoking options, which is what we are going to be looking into as the next phase after this bill is replaced.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for the dinner break. We will resume again at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The House is resumed. Just before I start, once again I’ll remind members the way that the House has agreed to run the committee of the whole House is that if a member indicates that he or she has a series of questions, then the Chair will give that preference to exhaust two or three questions. It does require the Minister, of course, to be in a position to answer those questions one after the other. It’s not always possible, and members are welcome to go their five minutes. However, it is designed to ensure that as we go through the process, we are doing what we’re here to do: extract the answers from the Minister in the chair.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. There’s one question I have here: who wrote this bill? I want to refer to the second part of the amendment that I have tabled here. The second part refers to clause 12. Previous speakers have rightfully pointed to what I believe is probably close to the most harmful provision in this piece of legislation, and that is removing the limits on nicotine for smoked tobacco products. My amendment proposes to change the bill to put back in place a limit on nicotine.

I was Associate Minister of Health, and, indeed, I was the Minister at the time we took smoking out of bars. I’m proud of doing that, and I’m proud of the fact that there are no bars where smoking takes place now. That, I’m sure, has contributed to the reduction in smoking. I contest the Minister’s view that the number of outlets does not affect the uptake of tobacco.

Can I move forward—because I know I’ve had a speech on that particular issue. This is at the heart: in every area of alcohol, we have limits and we have different steps. In gambling, we have limits on the time that poker machines can return to zero. That is, that the cycle time affects the addiction of all of these things. The higher the nicotine level, the more addiction. As was said, nicotine is more addictive than heroin, so it is critical that we reinsert a maximum level of nicotine. Otherwise, we will have health and addiction problems.

Then a question I have of the Minister—as well as who wrote it—is: why is there no limit, given that we have limits in pretty much every other area of food consumption, of human consumption, and of anything and there should be one here?

The health issues have been well traversed, but there are economic issues here that play out in a way that people haven’t considered. In Farmers Weekly last week, there was a story on the value of soft power. In fact, what it said was “Exporters urged to go hard on soft power.” We are an exporting nation. The coalition Government makes a lot of noise about trying to double exports, they say—that’s the old hat approach—and grow the wealth of this country. What exporters are being told in a farming magazine is that they have to focus on soft power.

What is soft power? Well, the presenter of this to that thing said that New Zealand is “being perceived as a collectivist and progressive country that acts on behalf of the greater good when leadership is called for.” We know that with this retraction of the legislation—this progressive legislation that had been passed by the previous Government—already around the world, people are shocked at what we are doing. The question I have is: has the Minister done an assessment of the effect on our international reputation, à la soft power, from changing this legislation?

In fact, the provisions under clause 12—which my amendment refers to—remove any measurement, assessment, or limitation on the level of nicotine in tobacco. I’m sure that doesn’t occur in any country—other than the developing countries perhaps, but probably even there they would have a limit on it. That has been taken away.

There’s a picture in people’s minds “thinking that we have humanity, a collectivist approach, are creative and kind, values that are kind of lacking in the rest of the world at the moment.” We had, through a number of unfortunate incidents but strong leadership, built up a reputation for being progressive, for taking on board the values and the aspirations of humanity. This bill that will kill more people is a reversal of that direction.

The farmers and the other exporters who are thinking, “This is just about health, because I don’t smoke.”, this will affect them as well. Our ability to sell and our reputation at the international markets will be degraded by passing this legislation that will increase the number of people smoking and taking up tobacco and will have unlimited levels of nicotine and products that will drive addiction.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a series of questions. Just looking at one of them—well, a series that relates to reputational damage; the other one is consistency with the coalition agreement, and then just around the Treaty.

I wanted to pick up on a journalistic piece by Guyon Espiner from RNZ, who talked about Ministry of Health documents that were sent to the Associate Minister of Health, in which those papers talked about the risk to reputational damage that we could potentially face, particularly because of legislation that the UK and the US are pursuing. So I’m really interested, first, in—because I note that in the departmental disclosure statement, one of the other entities that was consulted—and I did ask about the Ministry of Social Development, education, and Whaikaha, particularly in reputational damage, which I haven’t asked yet.

I’m keen to understand if, in the external consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or any other entity, there had been feedback about the risk of reputational damage to New Zealand—or even trade impacts, for example—as a result of this piece of legislation. I’m particularly, as I’ve indicated in my previous contributions, keen to see if the Minister would be willing to table some of that advice or, for example, to table the papers that were obtained by RNZ. Again, normally we would have access to those papers as a result of select committee processes. While I don’t agree, I can accept that urgency works in the way that it does, in the sense of the time frames that we’re working with. But I don’t see the need for the Minister to lower the robustness of the evidence and information that we have available to carry on this debate. So I would invite the Minister to table those papers from Health New Zealand.

Now, I’m interested as well in picking up the consistency with other agreements in the coalition. The reason for that is that the reason that the Minister has given us, constantly, and the members of the Government side have alluded to, when we ask the Minister why is this bill going forward, is that it’s in the coalition agreement. But in the coalition agreement, there’s also stuff in relationship to using the best available data and evidence. The best available data and evidence that we have actually suggest that there will be harm that will come as a result of this bill, and so I’m keen to understand whether there has been any work done around making sure that this bill is actually compliant with the coalition agreement, because if this Government is taking this coalition agreement seriously, and it’s using it as an excuse to pass bills under legislation, I would hope that the bit about data and evidence isn’t just lip service and that actually robust work is being done with this piece of legislation, to ensure that it actually matches this.

In the article from RNZ, from Guyon Espiner, the Minister talked about—well, sent a statement, basically, just disagreeing with the—she said, “I do not accept what Health officials have said about our Treaty of Waitangi obligations, but it’s not appropriate to talk further about that while the claim is before the [Waitangi] Tribunal.” I mean, sure, she may not agree with that, but I’m keen to get a sense of the engagement she would have had in relationship to the Waitangi Tribunal. In that RNZ statement, she didn’t really speak in response to what the Health New Zealand documents showed, particularly in relationship to reputational damage and, more than anything, about the harm it would have—disproportionate harm that this legislation would have, according to Health New Zealand papers—in relationship to Te Whatu Ora papers around the harm to Māori women, which the piece on RNZ specifically alludes to.

So I’m asking the Minister that if she’s not going to engage in substance when put those questions by the media, I would hope that at least she would honour the feedback that she’s been given by enriching us in this debate about what her response is to those papers that raise concern around reputation damage. To surmise and collate, I’m keen to get a sense around whether reputational damage was raised in any of the other agencies that there was external consultation with, and, if so, whether she agrees with that, and just to illuminate us, as I asked previously, on other external consultation feedback that would have been given by other agencies.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It is my first call in this debate, so I’m grateful to have the opportunity to begin a line of questioning. The area I want to focus on is retail outlets, and, in particular, clause 9 of the bill, which repeals Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act. I want to learn from the Minister what advice she received around the dangers of repealing that subpart of the original Act.

I think most members will know that it is a fairly logical connection between the availability of a product and how much product will be used. It is quite a simple kind of connection to make. I’m wanting to find out from the Minister what advice she did receive around risks, in terms of repealing the number of retail outlets—in particular, whether any evidence was presented to her that a higher density of retail outlets would, in fact, lead to increased smoking rates; then, within that question, whether there was any advice to her about any distinctions between youth and adult smoking rates when there is a higher density of outlets.

As I say, as a person to whom this is not my area of expertise, there is a logical connection between more places to buy and more tobacco products being purchased. My question to the Minister is: what advice did she get? If she didn’t get advice on that question, does she have a concern that retaining the number of outlets that we do now is going to lead to a greater level of smoking, particularly among our young in our smoking rates? I’ve seen the Minister has been getting some advice, so I will carry on with one more question, and then perhaps come back with a couple more in order to fulfil your earlier ruling.

The other point is whether or not the Minister has received any advice on availability having an impact—is there a certain number of outlets, or a certain density of outlets that is a threshold when it comes to making a difference, because I can imagine that if you have to drive 500 metres, you’ll be all right and you’ll probably go and do that; if you have to drive 3 kilometres, you may well not be so inclined to do that. So my second question for the Minister is around—has she been given any advice on a particular threshold that would need to be reached for that type of approach to make a difference?

This is important, because this is the information that Opposition members would have received, and would have been seeking during a select committee process. The kinds of people who do research and studies into whether the density of outlets matters, or whether the distance between outlets, the number of outlets in a particular area matters; we would have had experts come into the select committee, and we’d actually be standing here right now, in a committee of the whole House part of the debate being able to assess that advice. So they are my first two questions. I will come back, but I’ll give the Minister the opportunity to answer those.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I appreciate that, Mr Chair. So I have asked a number of questions to the Minister, particularly about where this piece of legislation comes from. And that is a particularly pertinent point because, of course, this is occurring under urgency, and this is the only opportunity that we have for meaningful scrutiny of this legislation.

Now, the Minister, in response to my ongoing questioning on this point, has referred us successively to the coalition agreement. This is a point that is really important for us to have borne out here, because what we have is, effectively, a Government saying that the reason that they are doing something—under urgency, no less, and, therefore, bypassing typical parliamentary and public scrutiny—is because it is in the coalition agreement. Why is it in the coalition agreement? Well, because it’s in the coalition agreement. But why is it in the coalition agreement? Because it’s in the coalition agreement. That is, as I alluded to before, known as, logically, a tautology. Effectively, what the Government’s saying is the reason that this is here is, “Cos we said so.” In the Greens, and us here on the Opposition benches, we simply do not believe that is anywhere near good enough. Simply being in the position of Government does not give you a carte blanche right to do whatever it is that you would like off the back of that election result.

So some specific questions that I have again for the Minister, given that she has outlined that she’s not particularly interested in answering where that came from in the coalition agreement, are particularly about consultation. So what we have in this legislation, is clause 5, which repeals section 3A(1)(a)(i), which states that the purpose is to reduce disparities in smoking rates and illnesses between the New Zealand population and the Māori population. This is a really important point, because we know, based on the facts, the data, and evidence that this Government has told us that they ostensibly care about, the daily smoking rates for non-Māori are approximately 6 percent. It is around triple that for Māori at around 17 percent.

Therefore, are we to take it from the bill as tabled today and that amendment of the purpose clause, to remove any consideration or spotlight on those disparities between Māori or non-Māori, as a hint to what consultation the Minister and this Government may or may not undertake with affected communities when it comes to the potential hypothetical regulation that may, potentially, at some point, come out of a future Cabinet document, which we have no idea about, to replace this legislation.

That is my first really core point to the Minister: who will the Minister seek to engage with? And, in doing so, will she seek to uphold the partnership, as borne out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or is this clause 5 removal of section 3A(1)(a)(i) a hint that the Government is deprioritising Māori and, therefore, tangata whenua and the relationship within Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

My next question for the Minister in the chair—and I, again, would really appreciate some meaningful answers to this, because we haven’t so far really received much—is whether these concerns that she has outlined, which, you know, somehow are related to the prominence of the black market when it comes to tobacco, is an approach that she will take consistently, logically, and evidentially in Cabinet when it comes to all substances.

Because this is the really, really important point—and we had members of the Government benches heckling me before on this, because we all know, if we are to look at the data and evidence, which, again, this Government has promised us that we would do—that if you are to look at an approach that you can take to substances, you have a spectrum of regulatory approaches. At one end of the extreme, you have complete criminal prohibition. At the other end of the extreme, you have a complete legal free market, which is largely unregulated. At both ends of those extremes, you get the maximisation of harm, because whether it is players like criminal organisations or commercial organisations that are those in control of the supply chain, with that profit motive, you have the maximisation of harm. So to get away from those extremities, we need to get into a space of sensible regulation and do what we can to reduce that profit motive.

So far, I haven’t heard the advocacy for a consistent approach to substances, whether they be tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, or otherwise. And that is the second question that I have for the Minister: will she take and will New Zealand First advocate for a consistent approach to substances—that is, to remove the profit motive both from the commercial market and from criminal prohibition through sensible regulation? Because, logically, that would take us to the conclusion that New Zealand First will be advocating for repeal and replacement of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’ll just run through a few points. I can assure the member to my left that the bill was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, so I can’t take credit for that.

The number of outlets—I just wanted to clarify that I wasn’t saying that there is no impact on the number of outlets; I’m saying that we have achieved significant reductions in smoking with the current number of outlets. So I’m not sure where that position came from, but I can assure you that I wasn’t saying there is no impact.

And why there are no limits, I would reiterate that what we’re talking about here is repealing the denicotinisation—which, I’ve said before, we’re repealing the denicotinisation, we’re repealing the number of retailers, and we’re repealing the prohibition of those born after January 2009 to buy cigarettes.

Again, we’d go back to the position about reputation by national markets, and I can only observe that even from Action on Smoking and Health, in December 2023, they reported that New Zealand had one of the lowest smoking populations in the world and we had achieved unprecedented success. Again, I would reiterate that we’re seeking to build on that success, which is why we’re going down the path of repealing.

I think that answers, again, the question that was asked by the next member about reputational position. We have sought a range of advice and we will continue to seek advice, as I previously stated, to continue to drive the smoking rates down and reduce smoking harm. I can only acknowledge that I can accept that this answer isn’t being accepted, but it is a fact that it is part of our coalition agreement. It is in our 100-day plan, and that’s where the urgency has come from to drive this piece of legislation.

I can’t comment—and I don’t see it as relevant to comment—about what was or wasn’t said in a media outlet interview, as it doesn’t relate to the parts that we’re debating at the moment.

And the legislation passed reducing the retail outlets, which formed this legislation that we’re repealing—I’m sure there was extensive discussion about the thresholds and what would work and not work, which is where I assume the 600 retailers was achieved. That is what we’re repealing, and we’ll keep working on that.

We said repeatedly before about how we’re focused on achieving the outcomes and we will continue to visit the actions that will work, and we will consult extensively with smokers and what tools they need in order to quit smoking. That is the objective of this next stage.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about iwi Māori?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We are focused on exactly that: driving solutions that meet the target audience of those who are most affected, and that includes Māori and Pasifika, to drive the positive solutions that we are seeing already and build on them. That’s why we’re appealing the blanket legislation so that we can focus on targeted solutions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Grant Robertson—but I will challenge Mr Robertson to say that sharp questions don’t generally tend to go into four minutes. So if that was what you’re attempting to do, you might like to—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. Just seeking your guidance: I’d like to seek leave to request the Associate Minister of Health to table the advice that she just referred to in the previous answer. Is that something that would be possible to do within the process that we have available?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, the member can seek leave. The member seeks leave for the Minister to table the advice. Is there any objection? I’ve just taken advice that no other member can seek that. If the Minister was quoting from a document that she has with her, that can be tabled, but otherwise the member is not in a position to actually seek that leave.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Can I confirm, when she referred to that advice, whether she was reading from it? She talked about seeking a range of advice in relation to my question, so if she was reading it—I can’t see whether she was reading it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So, Minister, I’ll let you speak to this.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’ll seek leave to table this. It is a media article. It’s not advice; it’s a media release that was circulated by ASH. I’m happy to table that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. With respect to the Minister, she didn’t answer the question that I asked, so I will repeat it. I want to know whether she got advice around whether or not higher retail density has been associated with increasing smoking rates, particularly for adults and young people. Just stating that it’s been done is not actually an answer to the question—and just stating that you weren’t saying that. I want to know whether the Minister has been informed by advice, including by experts, on whether or not the thing that is being repealed under clause 9 of this bill actually is evidentially based to mean that it would help to lower smoking rates.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I think we know the answer.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, we do, Chlöe Swarbrick—we do know the answer. What I want to know is whether the Minister was informed by that advice in putting this in front of us now.

The second question, which, similarly, I don’t believe was answered sufficiently, was whether or not there is a threshold for the density of tobacco retailers that would have a particular impact on smoking rates. You know, it could be 50 percent, it could be 60, it could be 80, it could be 90. Is there a threshold that is reached where we have evidence that it leads to a decline in smoking rates? I would expect the Minister to have been informed by that advice in taking a decision to entirely remove that subpart from the Act, because that is what clause 9 of the bill does.

So I’m just repeating those questions because they were not answered. I want to move on then to another part of clause 9 and the repeal of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the overall Act, and that is the questions of whether or not there should be minimum entry requirements to enter a market. They can be things like security requirements, training for staff, those sorts of things. I want to ask the Minister if by removing the entirety of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act, what happens to the minimum requirements that have been in place, because, again, and I acknowledge I’m no expert in this area here, but the whole point of the parliamentary process is to be able to get evidence from experts. We were denied that without a select committee process. I have to say that my simplistic reading of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act is that it does get rid of the minimum requirements; it certainly gets rid of the new minimum requirements—as far as I can see—for involvement.

So that would be my additional question: what advice has the Minister had and is that, in fact, what she is doing with clause 9, and, if she did get advice on other options that could have been considered, what was that advice?

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come back to clause 12 that we looked at before, and I think it’s deeply ironic that today we have not just dealt one blow for Māori health but we’re aiming to do yet another at the same time as we have the rare disorders meeting in Parliament.

I was looking at an article that is in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, and in there there’s a paper entitled, “The Multidimensional Impacts of Inequities for Tāngata Whaikaha Māori (Indigenous Māori with Lived Experience of Disability) in Aotearoa, New Zealand”, and it says, “People with lived experience of disability have poorer health and socio-economic outcomes than people without it. However, within this population, certain social groups are more likely to experience poorer outcomes due to the impacts of multiple intersecting forms of oppression including colonisation, coloniality and racism.” And I have to look at this bill and wonder what parts meet the criteria of racism and I see quite a few, actually, because this will impact the people who are already the most disadvantaged. This requirement or this desire to remove the limit of nicotine will impact those who are most at risk now.

So I would like to know if the coalition Government has a commitment to investigate using regulatory powers to reduce the risk of additives in nicotine levels, what other policy options were explored on nicotine limits rather than removing them altogether? This is a really important question: have you considered other options? Or if not, perhaps the member over to my right—Damien O’Connor—who earlier proposed an amendment to reinstate the limit, perhaps this is a sensible way to go. Because if the Minister and if the Government have not thought about how they are going to reduce risk to our most vulnerable, how they are going to make sure that we can safeguard future generations, then they should take good advice when it’s available to them. They should be willing to accept that some things are done poorly.

I’m reminded of a book by George Orwell that said, “Ignorance is strength.” Well, boy, you guys are looking pretty strong at the moment. I really hope that you want to move out of a place of ignorance and come into the light and make a good decision and support nicotine restrictions and do good for our most vulnerable. Kia ora.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I would like to take up your offer to have some back and forth with the Minister on topics that relate to the area of the regulation of retail outlets.

Firstly, I’d like to ask the Minister if she considered keeping the approved retailer components of the Act without reducing the number of retail outlets, and, if not, why did she reject that approach?

Helen White: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m conscious that it does take two to tango. But Dr Ayesha Verrall.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): So, Mr Chair—

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Mr Chair, can I take a call? I’ll just go back around the higher retail density advice. There has been a range of advice received and that’s what we’ve worked through to achieve the repeal legislation that we’ve got before us. The threshold for entry into the market—there were no minimum requirements previously, before this legislation was put in place, to reduce the retailers. That’s why there are no minimum requirements remaining as we’re repealing that component of this legislation.

I will acknowledge the poorer health outcomes, and we are committed to smoke-free targets. This bill is repealing a process; it does not change the target.

Finally, in terms of the retail outlets question that was just asked, I’d just clarify that, again, we are repealing the minimum threshold. This is not an end position, as I’ve said repeatedly; we’re looking at a range of tools moving forward, to ensure that we are targeting the demographics that we know are most adversely affected and we will continue to work on those targets. As opposed to a blanket approach, we are focused on a targeted approach to achieve the end goal.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Yeah, thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps in the time I’m on my feet, if the way in which these back and forths are intended to work could be repeated, that would be very helpful, I think, to the type of interaction that the Standing Orders allow us to have here.

Look, the question was not “Why are you not reducing the number of outlets?”; the question to the Minister was “Did she consider retaining an approved retailer scheme?” Not necessarily reducing the number of outlets, but did she think that there could be any other benefits to having an approved retailer scheme? How did she come to the decision not only to remove the number of outlets but to remove the approved retailer scheme?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yeah, in the spirit of back and forth: as I said before, this isn’t an end position. We’re removing this legislation because we’re repealing the legislation that’s in there. As I said, it’s not an end position. We’re continuing to work on strategies that will achieve the smoke-free targets.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): In light of that, then I think it could be useful to have a discussion about the pros and cons of that regulatory approach, because an approved retailer scheme is similar to a licensing scheme. So I want to ask the Minister: does she think it’s right that tobacco retailers don’t need to be licensed to sell tobacco or approved to sell tobacco, and yet for the much less harmful product of alcohol, retailers of alcohol do have to be licensed? I’d like to understand what she thinks about that.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I’d like to take the lead of my colleague and ask you to answer this question and be able to just put a simple question to you. I am really concerned about the part of the bill where you get rid of any requirement to limit the amount of nicotine. This is a very, very addictive drug, and, for some reason, you’ve decided to remove that part of the Act which stops the nicotine being at high levels. I simply, for the life of me—good faith—honestly want to know why anyone would do that. The only reason I can see for doing it is to sell a highly addictive substance and to hook people on to something that is highly addictive. They can’t escape from it.

We’ve heard from some of the other speakers about that tonight, including National Party speakers, about how hard it is to kick such a habit. So why—why—are you doing that? I honestly would just love to know the answer.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’d just reiterate again about the tobacco retailers proposition and what’s been discussed. I will say yet again that we are looking at a range of options as we move forward to achieve the smoke-free targets. In terms of why we are taking the action to remove the denicotinisation aspect, that is what we have positioned in our coalition agreement, and that is what we’re delivering.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Could I just say to members that the debate has been going for two hours. A new member coming in and asking a question does not represent new information or a new thing. Just be aware—particularly members who are coming in later—that we are looking for new material. So those that have been here a little longer will probably know a little bit more about what’s been going on in the House.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Chair, well, thank you, and I would like again to take that opportunity to go back and forth over the course of my time on this. We’re talking about the approved retailer scheme in the Act, and what I want to understand is not that it’s being repealed, because it’s being repealed; what I want to understand is: why is it appropriate, in the Associate Minister of Health’s view—why is it risk proportionate that tobacco, that kills half the people that use it, does not need a retail premise to be licensed, but for a less harmful product like alcohol, it is appropriate that it be licensed?

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): I move that debate on this motion now close.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question will relate directly to clause 23 of this bill, the repeal of section 105 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. I want to use the Associate Minister of Health’s words, which were about “revisit, review, make sure the settings are right moving forward”. Those were the words of the Minister in a recent contribution not 20 minutes, maybe, perhaps 30 minutes ago. “Revisit, review” to make sure the settings are right, so that they can get the desired outcome into the future.

So directly to clause 23, the repeal of section 105, then. I can accept that the Government’s going to push forward with respect to the generation aspect of the smoke-free legislation that this Government passed. I can accept that. But given the Minister’s words around “revisit, review, make sure the settings are right”, good policy development tells me that a review must take place. So then my question to the Minister is: why wouldn’t there be a review? And not understanding the reckless behaviour that the review, in the original part of the bill, would actually be able to substantiate and explain to the Minister or any future Minister or a Government or anyone reading the particular review—the kind of reckless behaviour around retailers and the way that they sell to younger generations. I can accept that there’s a generational aspect here. Oh, it looked like the Minister was about—so if it’s all right, if she’s prepared to, then I’m prepared, Mr Chair, to have the back and forth you’ve indicated.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just go back to the retailer licensing and reconfirm that the repeal here is because the licensing framework that sat in here related to the reduced retailer numbers and that’s why it’s being repealed. In regard to the review aspect, this review aspect related specifically to the reduced retailers. What I’ve been talking about is ensuring that, through the statistics that we see and the measures that we’re trying to achieve, we’re reviewing that we’re doing the right thing to achieve those targets. This review related to the repeal within—the legislation that we’re repealing.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for confirming the need for good information, for strong review to be able to inform decision making moving forward. I have already mentioned that I accept that the Minister and this Government are looking to repeal this particular—through clause 23, the repeal of section 105 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act, and that relates directly to sections 40A and 40B in the legislation. I accept the generational matter, but this goes back to the point around—and my question of and understanding that, in the licensing of retailers, making sure that we understand the behaviour of retailers, not just in general wholesale of cigarette or tobacco products but, in fact, to a younger generation. And I know there’s an age being set here.

However, we want to understand (1) those who are reckless in the sale of tobacco products. We heard in the House, from members on the other side of the Chamber earlier today, that, you know, this is important that we get it right for retailers. I accept that. So, therefore, we need to understand who of the retailers are actually reckless, or who are those who are skirting around the laws here. And the only way to do that, I put to the Minister, is through a review. How can the Minister give me and the general public more confidence that the kind of review that she’s referring to—to ensure that she makes the right decisions moving forward? How can she give us confidence that there will be a review to make sure that those retailers, not simply through their licensing arrangements, aren’t flouting the laws here, despite there being a set age for those who can purchase tobacco products?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order. Mr Chair, I seek leave for the next call to be a five-minute call that consists of an exchange between Dr Ayesha Verrall and the Minister in the chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you very much for that. I think, notwithstanding the rather circular logic, where it feels like we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole and we’re being told that the changes are made because the changes are being made, I think it’s important that it’s clear for the record what the approved retailer scheme is, because it may be that not everyone in this committee, including those in positions of responsibility for this bill, understand it.

So let’s go over what the approved retailer scheme actually is. It is a scheme that is equivalent to a licensing scheme. It means that the Director-General of Health will use specified criteria to approve a retailer. Yes, in the bill that we passed in 2022, it included a markedly reduced number of outlets because it is clear that the number of outlets is correlated with increased numbers of people smoking, including young people smoking. But that is not all it does—that is not all the approved retailer scheme does. I would like the Minister to answer whether or not she has been given any advice to make this clear to her. Has anyone told her that the approved retailer scheme could operate at any level of retail outlets? She could make it 8,000, which is the upper estimate of what it is now.

I heard from contributions from some members on the other side that this bill is being passed out of concerns for small business. Well, in that case, those concerns could be met, and no one would go out of business if the approved retailer scheme was kept in place. The approved retailer scheme would allow for there to be specifications about the security in the store, and that would mean that concerns that the other side of the House purport to have about ram raids could be addressed.

The approved retailer scheme required that responsible people were the only people able to be an approved retailer, and that would enable enforcement. Once people had been shown to be selling to under-age people, they could be deemed no longer responsible persons, and then they would lose their licence. It would help greatly with enforcement because we would know where the approved retailers are. We currently have no idea where they are and, therefore, when our public health people go out to do the visits and controlled purchase operations where they send young people to see if people will sell to them when they’re too young, those operations can’t be as well-targeted as it would if there was an approved retailer scheme and all the retail outlets were known about.

So there are multiple things that the approved retailer scheme would be good for which have nothing to do with reducing the number of outlets. So my question to the Minister is whether this passed her by, or was she actually given advice on this, and, if so, why did she make the decision to drop the approved retailer scheme, no matter what her view on the number of retail outlets is?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I can assure the member that I have been fully cognisant of what was in this legislation, and what we’re repealing and the approval process for the retailers as it linked to an evaluation of suitability for retailers, it also linked to the number of retailers. I will say again, despite sounding a bit repetitive, that this is not an end position. We are repealing these three aspects of the legislation and will continue to work on initiatives to achieve our smoke-free targets. I would remind the House that despite having no idea where these retailers are or whether they’re compliant, we have achieved outstanding success in reducing smoking rates. So let’s retain perspective that these steps that we are repealing are not currently in place, and yet we have achieved the success we have.

NANCY LU (National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call, Mr Chair. I just note that this is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call, and I do want to bring in a couple of new matters. I just want to reiterate again that we haven’t had the opportunity to have that select committee process, and, as some members have so aptly pointed out, this is the opportunity that we would normally have to seek some further information from officials. So I’m not going to use my full call, but I do want to be able to ask some specific questions.

The first is I think my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall has actually put in place a very sensible amendment where it would insert new section 20OD which would prevent smoking in national parks. Now, this may seem to some members who live in urban areas—why would this be an important matter to raise? But in my area, which I know, Mr Chair, you know well, we have a number of national parks. We currently have significant fire restrictions, and I’d be interested to know if the Associate Minister of Health would consider making such an amendment, because we are at serious risk of a fire if there were to be somebody using a cigarette in close proximity to a national park. So I thought that was a very interesting amendment, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments.

But what I want to come back to is some comments that the Minister made in some of her responses, because they were very interesting to me. These are specific comments that the Minister has put forward in her responses, and I would like just to dig into them a little bit more. In an earlier response, the Minister said that the goal was to reduce smoking rates, which is why we are repealing this, and I can’t quite understand that, because, actually, the evidence that I’ve seen is that repealing this won’t lead to reducing smoking rates to the extent that we need to in order to achieve the goals. So I’m specifically interested in any advice that the Minister has seen to specifically look at reaching the goals that we need to reach under the legislation, that were put in place, may I remind members, by members of the National Party in the past. The logic doesn’t seem to apply to this. I can’t see the logic when the Minister said we want to reduce smoking rates, which is why we are repealing this.

The other matter—and my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall has tried to elicit answers from the Minister on this and has not actually had the answers about what advice has been received. We’ve heard the Minister’s arguments as to why she thinks this is a good idea, but we’re specifically asking around advice. The Minister has made comments that we’re not amending the target, just the process, but we have not had any information into what process that is. Sure, we can have a target, but we can’t reach that target without a mechanism or without a process. So, just, I’m responding specifically to these comments from the Minister, and my colleague who has tried to seek further information about the advice that the Minister has received in order for us to reach the target.

This is why I want to dig in further to some of the responses the Minister has made, and I will continue to seek the call until we have actually received those answers. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): As I think I’ve reiterated, I have received a range of advice, extensive advice, and I’d love to list it here.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s not the point of this stage. You get to do that in questions; you don’t get to do that in committee of the whole House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: OK. So when I talked about how this is the process, I’m talking about, specifically, we are repealing the systems that were put in place as part of the amendment that was passed, which is the denicotinisation, the reduced retailers, and the ban on young people buying cigarettes who were born from January 2009. Those are the systems we’re repealing, and that is the process that was being applied to achieve the smoke-free targets that were being propositioned. But as I’ve said repeatedly, this level that we were at in terms of our smoking targets is significantly higher than when that legislation was put in place. So we are committed to achieving the less than 5 percent smoke-free targets across all populations, and we will continue to drive those initiatives.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is—

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, point of order. In fact, I’ve just begun the process of voting, so the point of order—I’ll take the point of order.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m raising this point—and it’s relevant to exactly what’s just occurred—under Speaker’s ruling 68/1, I believe it is. It’s a ruling of Speaker Mallard—

Dan Bidois: Ha!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —around the closure motion. Is there a problem, Mr Bidois?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bidois, points of order are heard in silence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaker’s ruling 68/1, and also Speakers’ ruling 79/4, I believe it is—and this is partly a point of order to explain the interjection that it’s clear the Minister didn’t understand. There is a purpose to the change to the way that the committee of the whole House process is run—and, Mr Chair, I know this places you in a difficult position and I’m coming to the end part of my point of order in a moment. But to simply repeat a series of political lines in answer to a series of technical questions is, I believe, a breach of the Speakers’ rulings around the committee of the whole House stage.

I’ve listened to this debate upstairs, I came down, I’ve participated in it, and throughout the debate, questions have not been answered. So I know that you will make the final ruling that you will make, Mr Chair, but it places us in a very, very difficult position when the committee of the whole House process fails to work and when we’ve had urgency that takes the select committee process out. So I just ask you to consider those Speakers’ rulings that are relevant to the engagement of the Minister in the debate, and I invite you to consider that in any future actions you may be about to take.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. I will address the point of order—we’ll call it a point of order. It is that all those things you have brought up are legitimate, and that’s why we are still on this question at this stage. My decision will take all of those things into account. But it’s nice to have them articulately laid out, because I’m going to now put the question that the debate on this matter now be closed.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The tabled amendments to Part 1 from the Hon Rachel Brooking, Tangi Utikere, Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to Part 1 is out of order as outside the scope of the bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is debate on clauses 25 to 44, “Amendments to other enactments”, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I can feel the frustration from members of the Government that we are having to have this debate right now, but I’d remind them that they put us and our democracy in this position in the first place. I heard from members of the ACT Party, in particular, that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Casey Costello, doesn’t have to answer when we, as members of the Opposition, are addressing questions directly to her. As a matter of technicality, that may indeed be the case. But I’d say, with regards to our democracy and the very procedures that we come to expect of this place, that I would hope that we can have a meaningful back and forth. So, to that effect, the kind of takeaway I feel that New Zealanders can get from this debate tonight and from the contributions of the Minister and the governing parties is that the Government is saying, “Taihoa, slow down, on saving lives.” That’s the point of this legislation tonight.

So I just wanted to have that—a specific back and forth with the Minister, if that indeed will be indulged by the Minister. And we can have that meaningful back and forth, in lieu of the select committee and usual procedures, to have scrutiny over legislation. Because the Minister, in her responses to my questions in the last part, in Part 1, was stating that we’re not to take it as a hint as to the future consultation on the upcoming whatever Cabinet paper or future of smoke-free legislation looks like—that there was in that Part 1, as just confirmed by this committee, the removal of section 3A(a)(i) of the principal Act, which states the purpose “to reduce disparities in smoking rates and … illnesses” between the broader New Zealand population and Māori. Again, I’d remind those following along at home that this is particularly relevant because the disparities in smoking rates between non-Māori—for non-Māori, it’s around 6 percent, and for Māori, it continues to hover at around 17 percent.

So my question, which I implore the Minister to answer right now, if we’re to have that meaningful back and forth—because, again, for those following along at home, I will otherwise get back up and continue to prosecute this case. But my hope is that the Minister answers. She alluded before to the fact that she hopes that there will be more targeted interventions, particularly for Māori smoking rates. To that effect, so far, has the Minister met with any iwi Māori, hapu, kaupapa Māori health organisations on this legislation in front of us tonight? Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The honourable Chlöe Swarbrick—Chlöe Swarbrick.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I’ll take the honourable, Mr Chair! So what we’re seeing there is probably the quiet part said out loud, or, rather, not said at all, which is that the Government has not engaged with this Treaty partner when it comes to progressing this legislation in front of us tonight. Unfortunately, that is the situation that we’re left with. Not only is there no meaningful opportunity for public participation, as is convention of this place, but also the Minister is not meeting with the most directly impacted community when it comes to the passage of this legislation, under urgency, as the House sits until midnight tonight.

So let’s try a different tack then, because we’ve heard from the Minister in her commentary in the media and also in her contributions in the debate tonight that she intends to, in the hypothetical potential legislation to replace this—when it comes to smoke-free regulation, she will be focusing on vaping. So let’s dig in to precisely what that might look like. Because, again, we’re kind of seeing and hearing from the Government that their rationale for removing this legislation is that they intend to do something different, the details of which we have no information on whatsoever. So let’s get some of that scoping up, should the Minister be willing to engage.

Here I just think it’s important for folks following along at home who may be interested in this to refer back to today’s question time, where it appeared as though there were quite different views on what was occurring in this space from the Minister and from the Prime Minister—those being, obviously, two of the three coalition parties. I refer the Minister to this statement from 23 May 2023, obviously pre-election, from Christopher Luxon, who said then, “I think good on them,”—that is, Australia—“they’re trying to nip an issue in the bud early, this was the promise that actually it was the last bit of toolset we needed to get people to come off cigarettes and instead it’s ballooned and mushroomed into a massive addiction for young people. Let’s do it now rather than let this issue carry on for another 30 years and regret it down the road … It’s pretty wild … out there, you’ve got lots of stores, more stores than pharmacies, stores opposite schools [selling vapes] and the products aren’t supposed to be sold or marketing to people under the age of 18 and yet they’re clearly being consumed by lots of people under the age of 18.”

This is a salient point, because we have there an individual who is now the Prime Minister and the leader of one of the three governing parties saying that he intended to not take off the table, prior to the election, the potential for the complete outright banning of—that is, the criminal prohibition of—vaping, which the Minister is now holding out as a cessation tool but simultaneously saying in the media that she intends to regulate in a stricter manner. So my direct question to the Minister is: is it within the Government’s contemplation that they might entirely criminally prohibit vaping? Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Chlöe Swarbrick.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Again! Unfortunately, in lieu of any meaningful engagement or back and forth with the Minister—and we have to prosecute this case, because we don’t have any opportunity for proper scrutiny through a select committee process, which kind of makes a farce of this entire committee.

But here I’d refer the Minister to another statement from the National Party leader, Christopher Luxon, this time from 2 May 2023. This is a quote out of the New Zealand Herald, which said, and I quote, “Meanwhile, National Party leader Christopher Luxon says he would be open to ‘all things’ including a ban, stating the current settings for vaping products in New Zealand are ‘wrong’.”

This is the perplexing situation that we are in as a committee and a House of Representatives tonight. We are being asked to believe that the Government is going to replace this evidence-built legislation to regulate and reduce smoking in this country at a faster track than the previous status quo, which this Government is seeking to return us to, whilst also having no information about what that future might potentially look like, while the Government is simultaneously saying that they are going to crack down harder on the gangs and on those who operate in the criminal underworld—i.e., those who peddle in substances that are presently criminally prohibited under the likes of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. We have, on the other hand, an individual that is now the leader of our country in the form of the Prime Minister saying that it would not be off the table prior to the election that vapes might be entirely outlawed and criminally prohibited, we have a Minister who is saying that vapes are a critical tool in cessation, and crickets on what’s to come.

So, Mr Chair, I don’t know about you, but I just have to say that all of this just feels farcical. It feels ridiculous. It feels ludicrous.

Hon Mark Patterson: That’s not in the bill, Chlöe. It’s a different bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: And I would implore members of the Government, who right now are heckling about the fact that we are trying to debate this meaningfully under the urgency that they have imposed upon us, bypassing typical democratic processes, to look in the mirror. Because, guys, you’ve put us here. This is the unfortunate situation that we are in, where we are being asked to slow down on saving lives, with no information about what’s to come next and a Government that likes to pretend, at least in the text of its own coalition documents, so farcically and so ridiculously, and not worth the paper that it’s written on, that their decisions are based on data and evidence. I think my point has been made, including by the fact that Government members are completely unwilling to stand up and defend this.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I would love to comment, but at this point we’re debating Part 2 of this legislation repeal and there isn’t any vaping aspects within this. But I will confirm that, yes, we do see vaping as an important cessation tool. We think there’s a great opportunity to build on the success that vaping has achieved in cessation of smoking, and we will continue to engage with Māori as we progress those things that we believe will allow us to achieve our smoke-free targets.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I agree with the Minister that we’re on Part 2. It’s one of the very few things that I suspect I will agree with her on tonight.

Subpart 1 of Part 2 deals with the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. The particular part that I want to focus on is clause 26 of this bill, which amends the commencement dates in that 2022 piece of legislation. In a way, for me, this goes to the nub of the frustration that you’re hearing on this side of the Chamber, because what those provisions did do—or still currently do do until this part passes—is actually bring into force a series of initiatives that were part of Dr Verrall’s legislation that she brought in to allow the three big things we’ve been talking about: denicotinisation, retail outlet sales, and the age changes.

The specific commencement clause—clause 2(1)—brings a number of those sections into force on 1 January 2027. So I guess that’s my question for the Minister, because the Minister has made a significant amount tonight of the fact that some of these clauses weren’t in operation, and, of course, that’s absolutely true. That’s because we took the responsible action of rolling these out over a period of time to minimise disruption, to be able to support the changes—particularly around the age issues—so that they were done in line with the purposes that we had in putting them in place.

So where I want the Minister to respond to us on here is on what time line is now in place, because for all of this debate, I have heard the Minister say to us that this is not the end. Now, it’s completely ludicrous to repeal the legislation here and not have any idea what you’re going to do. I mean, I don’t think you could be more irresponsible than repealing it because you said you were going to repeal it—I don’t think I actually heard much about that in the election campaign. But anyway, one party said they were going to repeal it, and then that’s the reason to do it.

This is the opportunity, here in Part 2, for the Minister to stand up and tell us what’s actually going to happen and when—if I want to relate it to the commencement clause—it’s going to happen, because, again, all we’re doing here in this clause, as a Parliament, is repealing some dates for this particular legislation, and we’re left with nothing. We’re left with a void. We’re left with no progress.

We are, as many members have indicated, left with going backwards in terms of the number of people who will now suffer smoking-related illnesses or will take up smoking. So here’s the opportunity for the Minister to tell us, in repealing section 2(1)—and, I believe, it’s actually most of that section; section 2(1) to (3) of the 2022 Act—what is the Minister going to replace it with and when is the Minister going to do that, because otherwise we’re left with this void that shows the Government doesn’t actually have a plan at all and is simply doing this for political reasons, which I think is particularly dangerous when we’re dealing with tobacco.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just want to go back to the commencement dates challenge that you’ve talked about. This is where we’re repealing these steps that are being implemented—I think we’ve repeated that as to this is the reason. You’ve talked about not hearing it from across the House, but it was in both the ACT and New Zealand First coalitions with National, so clearly it was important enough to be in both our coalition agreements, and to suggest we’re left with no progress—I think I’ve reiterated a few times here that we have made enormous progress. I have given credit to this side of the House about the progress we’ve made, and that progress is continuing. There’s no suggestion that that progress is levelling off, and we will continue to focus on those achievements that the existing legislation has allowed us to achieve.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d like to have a back and forth with the Minister, or certainly refer to something that she has brought into the conversation around Part 2, where she explicitly said that she will consult with Māori around these particular provisions including the changes to age and also to the commencement date. In doing that, I’d like to just put on the record my dissatisfaction with the Minister’s answers to previous questions around this engagement, because we did—the Hon Peeni Henare asked about the sweeping provisions in Part 1 that got rid of obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and numerous members across this side of the House were interrogating what was going to replace that and there were no satisfactory answers. So my question, really, speaks to the other points that people have been trying to get and we’ve had no satisfactory answer from the Minister about her scale of ambition for the targets.

So if we look, for example, at a Radio New Zealand story that was on today, we are aware from that—under the Official Information Act—that the Minister received advice that “the smokefree laws would have made a big dent in the disparity of health outcomes between Māori and non-Māori.” and that by 2040, it would “reduce the gap in mortality rates for over 45-year-olds by 23 percent for females and … 10 percent for males.” Now, when the Minister was asked on radio about the Treaty analysis—which also speaks to her statement that she will consult under Part 2, and we haven’t heard any satisfactory explanation on what that consultation would look like—she said, “I do not accept what Health officials have said about our Treaty of Waitangi obligations, but it’s not appropriate to talk further about that while a claim is before the [Waitangi] Tribunal.”

Now, there’s two parts to my question to the Minister: one is she’s just made a bald statement to say that even though she’s given us an assurance in this House that she is going to consult appropriately on Part 2 with Māori, that she doesn’t think that there’s any problem with the Treaty but she hasn’t said why and, certainly, she didn’t say why in previous questions. So I’d really like to know from the Minister why she thinks so. I would also point out that there has been a careful debate earlier today in the repeal of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, where there was a question around the appropriateness or not of referring to the Waitangi Tribunal hearings and there was a decision made that it was appropriate, that sub judice laws did not apply. And so I would just remind the Minister of that because it’s not acceptable—the point is that she needs to be careful given that there’s a claim there.

We’ve heard nothing to reassure us that Māori will be consulted. The questions that I have are: when she says that they will be, who will be consulted, how will those people be selected, when will that consultation take place, and how can she reassure this House that the consultation will be appropriate to have the interests of Māori heard adequately given that there is now, in the repealed bill, as it stands, no other obligation on her to consult with Māori? So I get that the Minister might want to do this in good faith, I get that she may want to do that, but there is no legislative safeguard.

When I talk about scale of ambition, repeatedly the Minister has talked about the success to date. Does that mean that she is satisfied with the progress made? She has said—I think she said it publicly—that a third of those who have quit smoking over the last few years have been Māori. Does that mean that she is satisfied with that progress and does not have a scale of ambition to get all smokers off smoking? Is she satisfied with pushing out the date to meet the smoke-free targets or is she going to commit to the targets that were legislated? Because right now there’s a lot of confusion about what those targets actually are and whether there are protections for adequate consultation so that Māori, who represent the higher statistics—17 percent still smoking versus significantly lower for the rest of the population—they deserve to know what will happen about that consultation. Where are the legislative safeguards? How can we be sure that Part 2 is going to take into account their interests?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I’d like to ask about clause 35, which amends the regulations that were passed in 2021 and revokes subparts 2A, 2B, and 2C of those regulations. For my colleagues who haven’t yet had the opportunity to google those regulations, it does include the regulations that define the limits of the nicotine concentration in regulated tobacco products.

My question to the Minister is when we regulate the contents of food—and we regulate harmful products all the time, we regulate seatbelts, and we regulate helmets—what is it about nicotine that means she is comfortable passing a bill that doesn’t regulate the contents of tobacco or cigarettes? Why is this the one thing in our society that isn’t regulated, when, actually, it’s the most harmful product we have? Why is the product allowed to contain anything in it—and there’s no limits; well, it’s being revoked. Why is it that we’re revoking here regulations about the contents of this product—a product documented for over 70 years to do a huge amount of harm to people.

It seems to me that we have these conversations, and they go something like this: we ask you why, and you say, “Because I’m doing it.” I would really like to see if you could come up with a logical reason—a reason that starts with, “My view about this product is this, and that is why…”, and has some connection between the beginning and the end that makes sense. We don’t want to spend the entire evening in this circle going round and round, hearing more and more that the reason why something is being done is because it’s being done. This is absolutely pointless.

The contents of a cigarette can be harmful in multiple ways. Cigarettes contain many, many different chemicals, none of which are regulated without the context of these regulations. Cigarettes contain arsenic. Cigarettes contain tar. Anyone who’s spent any time in a pathology lab, as I did during my medical training, knows intimately what tar causes, because we’ve all had that experience where you attend a post-mortem with someone who smokes. They crack open the chest, and you see the results of a product whose constituents are totally unregulated. That’s what’s being done here at clause 35. You see tar filling out the lungs. You see what should be soft, pink, elastic lungs—capable of stretching, breathing, and taking in fresh air—have been scarred. They have bullae in them—that means they have big air bubbles in them so they can’t function. They lose their architecture, so they stop moving and they become stiff. People who have that condition say that they can’t breathe out properly, and so they end up feeling like they’re constantly at the top of their breath, unable to breathe out, constantly feeling like they’re hyperventilating. That is the condition that leads to emphysema, which, of course, is so, so harmful to so many people.

Minister, my question is why is this regulation that makes the contents of cigarettes safer being removed, when the fact is that this is one of the most harmful products that there possibly is. I used to be the Minister for Food Safety. There are more regulations on a sandwich than there are on the safety of a cigarette, and you really have to wonder why. Why are you privileging cigarettes, Minister? Why are these products that are the most harmful, having the least regulation on their constituents? It seems like there’s no logical answers in any of our conversations with the Minister. I’d really like to hear this time why it is that you think these products shouldn’t be regulated.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just want to go back to the questions regarding consulting with Māori. We’ve dealt with the Part 1 changes relating to the response to Treaty obligations, and that was clarified in that initial part. When I referred to continuing to work with Māori—and I think that’s a collective agreement across the objectives that we’re trying to achieve—we are wanting to ensure that the initiatives that we put in place are targeted to the groups that most need it, and we will continue to do that. The specific format of that will be developed further as we move forward with the recommendations we want to put in place.

The next part was around the discussions around clause 35. Those clauses relate to the repeal of the denicotinisation, and all of that relates to the actions that we’re doing to repeal the denicotinisation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Yeah, look, just a short contribution around some of these repeals in Part 2. Really, it’s about what the Minister’s done to address the lack of procedure due to urgency. We have heard her go around in smoke rings in terms of “We’re repealing it because we’re repealing it.” But this is about who she has talked to.

Now, prior to the election, I have no doubt that she talked to retailers and their association, and I suspect—and I would invite the Minister to stand up and say it’s not the case that she spoke to the tobacco industry either through lobbyists or directly; and, if she didn’t do that, stand up and say so. But since the election, how has she balanced that one-sided view? Has she spoken in person? Has she received an oral submission from Action on Smoking and Health? Has she received an oral submission from the Cancer Society? Has she received a submission from schools? My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick mentioned iwi and hapū, who are disproportionately affected by this. Has she received evidence about this reform in respect of women’s health?

So these reforms—particularly those ones in Part 2 which are rolling back the fundamental parts of the reforms that the prior Government put in place. So there’s two parts to my question. Can you rule out the fact that you essentially are doing what you were lobbied to do pre-election by the tobacco industry? Rule it out if you didn’t do it. Secondly, since then, what have you done to listen to the other side of the argument in terms of how you implement your election promises?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’m more than happy to respond to the member regarding my engagement with the retail sector, which I did have none in reference to that; I have not met with any lobbyists, tobacco lobbyists, or any tobacco organisations—and I provide that assurance repeatedly. I have met with Action on Smoking and Health on two occasions, and I have met just this last week with the Cancer Society, and I will continue to do so.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): My next question relates to clause 36. Clause 36 amends the regulations passed in 2021 that enabled product testing for tobacco. So we’re no longer talking about denicotinisation here. What we’re talking about is testing on whether or not the product is what it says it is, and it enables us to know how much of harmful constituents are in the cigarettes. I do want to know why it is that this section is being revoked.

It seems to me that there are a lot of products on the shelves that are far less harmful than cigarettes that the Government does choose to regulate. So, of course, mussels would be an example. Now, you might think mussels are harmless, but they’re filter-feeders and they can be full of viruses. So mussels that you eat in New Zealand have a product testing regime. And they get minced up at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in Porirua and cultured for viruses and other pathogens. But why is it that we’re revoking product testing regulations for tobacco—for cigarettes? That seems very strange when cigarettes are far more harmful than mussels. How can this be the case?

We must have product testing regimes for all sorts of things. Some members opposite may have had a career as a crash test dummy in the past—product testing for seatbelts. But it seems like that approach where we keep people safe, keep consumers safe by making sure that the products have in them what they say they have—an approach that the Government is removing just for tobacco. So why is that the case? I think we need to have some answers there, because it seems to me that all sorts of things could go wrong with cigarettes, and they get inhaled right into a very sensitive part of your body. It’s not like a skin cream or something. It just goes right into your internal organs, and then it could contain anything.

In fact, we know that sometimes products do get spiked with things. We saw that happen with vapes in the United States, and people went to the ICU because of this. So the way in which these products are used, it goes straight into an internal organ, it can be incredibly harmful, and yet it seems like the Minister sees fit to remove processes for checking that these products are safe. I think I’ve heard multiple times that Minister say in the House that she has an approach that is empathetic to smokers, and I do want to understand from her why is she putting smokers, then, in harm’s way, and taking away protections that would mean (a) that these products could be tested and safer from the perspective of consumers, but also would have allowed enforcement of the denicotinisation regime that’s in there. So I’m very interested to hear from the Minister on clause 36.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I can just provide assurance that clause 36 testing relates specifically to the testing for the low nicotine rates only.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. The aspects that I would like to touch on tonight with the Minister pertains to clause 29, which is about repealing the smoke-free generation. I’ve got two aspects which relate to this clause—which I hope, Madam Chair, you will give me the ability to ask both of them.

So it feels, frankly, rather out of it to stand in the Chamber tonight, in 2024, when we as humans have seemingly come so far in terms of our knowledge and understanding of what harms our people, to be then debating a bill that goes so far in the opposite direction that health professionals are describing it as being anti-health. But here we are, this Government’s 100-day plan, and this is what it’s delivering for Kiwis: greater access to tobacco companies to harm our people, greater access to delivering nicotine addiction to what was intended to be our smokefree generation, and higher nicotine levels to ensure that that addiction sticks. Because this is my first contribution to this bill, I would like it on the record, alongside my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, that I find this bill abhorrent.

I want to pick up with the Minister on clause 29, and it’s specifically about the repeal of the prohibition on sale, delivery, and supply of smoked tobacco products to the smoke-free generation. I can’t help but be amused by the opposition continually reiterating that the speakers on this side of the House are speaking so passionately. I’m amused by that in relation to this this particular clause, because it tells me that the very real, actual implications for the health of our people—particularly our young people—of this bill has not quite sunk in.

When more people smoke, more people die. That’s the reality, it’s the evidence, and it would be helpful if all of us in this House cared passionately about that and tried to prevent the harm rather than enable it. So I would love to hear the Minister share with us the advice she’s received on current modelling of how many more deaths per year to the end of the year 2030 will be caused by smoking if the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act is repealed.

I also want to touch on the fact that the cost is not simply an emotional and physical one of preventable loss of loved ones. It comes at the immense economic cost to the public health system. So, equally, I’d love to hear from the Minister: how much does smoking-related harm cost the health system each year, and what factors, if any, were considered, other than revenue, when she assessed that the smoke-free repeals were an urgent matter to be part of the Government’s 100-day plan?

Madam Chair, the other aspect that I want to touch on—and I hope you’ll allow me to finish this part—is that in any part of ill-thought legislation, which comes through this House so often, it’s the externalities which are overlooked. Now, for those members who may not be aware of externalities, it’s those costs to society that are overlooked in any economic activity. I would like to hear from the Minister her take on how the health of people and the environment overlap in what she’s seeking to do, or what her Government is seeking to do, I should say, in repealing the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 legislation as part of these clauses.

Now, I want to pick up on this because there’s a number of very serious environmental issues that come from the proliferation of cigarettes in the environment, and just one of those is that, actually, cigarettes make up one of the most common forms of litter worldwide, and, obviously, in New Zealand, it’s no different here. When they’re improperly disposed of, they can accumulate in urban areas, in parks, on our beaches—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Would the member like to call, to finish?

LAN PHAM: I would love to call again, Madam Chair. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, and just a reminder—because I’ve heard the other speakers talk about it today in committee stage—that there’s an opportunity for questions rather than filling the time. If you indicate that there’s further questions, members, we can take further questions, rather than actually fill the time with speeches.

LAN PHAM: Great. Should I continue, Madam Chair, or should I pause?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can continue, but what I would like you to do is to actually ask some questions of the Minister, rather than fill the time actually speaking.

LAN PHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. So what I’m really concerned about with these cigarette filters which are in the environment is that it’s those harmful chemical and toxins, it’s the heavy metals, and it’s the carcinogens. Now, why I want to give that context is because the question for the Minister is that there are other requirements in the bill that have reporting requirements to the Director-General of Health. So I want to know what advice the Minister has sought about the environmental impacts of cigarette filters being in the environment, and also if she is considering advice from the Department of Conservation, because wildlife has many impacts from these cigarette filters which end up in the environment—and also from the Ministry for the Environment. Thank you.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I’d like to speak to a tabled amendment on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. This proposed amendment relates to clause 29 on page 7. I seek for the Associate Minister of Health and for the committee to consider deleting clause 29, page 7, lines 1 and 2, and that relates to our smoke-free generation. I struggle to understand the benefit of removing the protections for the smoke-free generation. I asked the Minister questions related to this, in terms of what cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken by the Minister and her officials into opening up, really, exposure to the smoke-free generation. I build and I tautoko the sentiments of my colleague Lan Pham in trying to understand what analysis has been undertaken on potential health system costs for the repeal and in considering the smoke-free generation now being exposed to tobacco related harm.

Further, my last question for the Minister—and I hope we can get some authentic responses—in repealing clause 29 and considering the revenue that will be gained, the revenue from this tobacco excise as a consequence of the repeal, have you given any consideration to the casualties of this legislation and the repeal, that there might be some equity shown to our low socio-economic communities who will take the impact on the front line from the repeal of the smoke-free legislation, rather than just tax cuts for a particular ilk of friends and taxpayers of the Government?

So those are my questions, and I hope that I can engage in that conversation, because these are important matters as a mother and for the future of New Zealand. Kia ora.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just wanted to touch on the questions that came up before, just in relation to the testing concerns that were raised previously by the member. Existing testing requirements remain, as the concerns were raised.

In terms of the environmental impact that was questioned before, there were no restrictions on filters in the 2022 Act, so there has been no change in that area.

In terms of the smoke-free generation, I think we’ve reiterated previously that we are down to 19,000 young smokers, and that’s continuing to track down. I think we are achieving our smoke-free generation without the virtue of this legislation even being in place.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): My first point is actually one where I may just not be reading the papers right, but I cannot, for the life of me, find Part 6A, so I would like the Minister to look at clause 37. It says that it revokes Part 6A, which sets out the requirement for the approval as a smoked tobacco retailer, and if they can point me to where that is—it’s been quite a difficult one to track down.

I’d also like to ask the Minister to consider the unintended consequences of amending one part of a law that relates to two things—smoking and vaping. So I’d love to know what happens if you have created a regime that’s actually more liberal in the smoking area than it is in the vaping, and you get a sudden movement over into smoking, because it’s less regulated, and you get more people going into the smoking space, which would be absolutely terrible.

I take this matter extremely seriously, because I see it as one of the things that may be happening as a consequence of a rush and not looking at unintended consequences, not having the usual processes we have, the comments that we would get in the select committees, the overarching time to consider something like this in the structure of the bill, pulling out part of it, and leaving the other, and coming up with an unintended consequence.

I’m going to put this as gravely as I can, and I don’t think I’m being melodramatic. If we have a surge of people dying and an upsurge in smoking, is the Minister prepared to resign?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I just clarify for the member that Part 6A is in the legislation and it covers the requirements for approval as a smoked tobacco retailer, which is—yeah, it’s in the regulations.

Helen White: Part 6 is in the regulations?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you. Also in the regulations—and for the friends in the Chamber, they are great reading. You can just google “the amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 2021”, and there is ample material in there that is being revoked in this bill, and we have really got to do our diligence on it and go through all of it.

In clause 35, we see Subpart 2C is being revoked. Of course, friends will be well aware that that relates to the provisions around product information. Product information is incredibly important because it is the information that guides when harmful products are out on the market, and then sometimes something was wrong in their manufacture, “Oh, we accidentally made a cigarette that kills you.”, says British American Tobacco, “Oh, whoops.” They might find that they had constituents in there that weren’t meant to be in there. They might have experiences where a product had been made incorrectly, and therefore they would seek to recall that product. Product information is what you use to do a recall.

A lot of the questions that I’ve tried to get answers to tonight—and I notice my colleagues in the Greens do, as well—are related to the principle that you’d think would guide sensible regulation. Sensible regulation should be risk-proportionate. We’ve had questions about what the appropriate balance of regulations between tobacco and vaping is because regulation should be risk-proportionate. So it seems to me that this lack of provision around product information is bizarre, because with cigarettes, you breathe the smoke into your internal organs, and yet if you are selling a pottle of yoghurt, you need to have product recall information in there because it could give you an upset tummy. So where is the risk proportionality when it comes to removing product information provisions in regulations passed in 2021 from this bill, when, of course, we know that those regulations are incredibly important. Minister, this isn’t a matter of tobacco control; this is a matter of consumer protection. So I’m uncertain why it is, no matter what our different ideologies are about tobacco control, that you’ve chosen to remove that. I’d really like to have information on that.

I don’t believe my earlier question about product testing was actually answered, because, of course, nicotine is an element of the safety of the product. High nicotine, of course, can cause nausea and vomiting. There can be a very adverse reaction if the level of nicotine in tobacco is too high.

So in clause 35, whether it relates to my current question, which is about product information, or my earlier question about product testing, it seems like there is an unawareness of the actual implications of revoking these subparts, and it really leaves consumers in New Zealand incredibly exposed to unsafe products. I would like to hear from the Minister on that matter.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to address Part 2, clause 29 as well, which is repealing the smoke-free generation. I refer to my colleague Hūhana Lyndon’s request or amendment to get rid of that. But while we’re still talking about it, I also want to congratulate the Government for their campaign slogan to “get back on track”, because it was sort of, you know, a good slogan and it got them elected. I’d like to give them a gift in relation to that. I think your new slogan has got to be—because it’s such a good one—“Back on baccy”. I mean, “You can do this: back on baccy.” You could heckle us with it, because, really, that’s what you’re all about, isn’t it? “Back on baccy”. “Back on baccy—let’s kill a few more.” So, you know, go for it guys!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So now could we have a question for the Minister, please?

SCOTT WILLIS: You have a question. You have a question—my apologies, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, don’t apologise. I’m just trying to keep the committee on track.

SCOTT WILLIS: But the question I have for the Minister is: can she please explain the purpose of clause 23, which repeals section 105, which requires the ministry to conduct a review of smoke-free legislation and policy and prepare a report for the Minister no later than 2029?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Willis, we’re on Part 2 at the moment. Your question—

SCOTT WILLIS: This question is relating to Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please relate it to Part 2?

SCOTT WILLIS: My question is: why are they scrapping the review and how will doing so allow for effective oversight of our smoke-free targets?

Now, this is really, really important because it is the way we deliver evidence-based policy. We need to know what’s happening. Perhaps our colleagues opposite might want to, in addition to adopting “back on baccy”, adopt the other slogan they could throw at us, that “ignorance is strength”, because this is where they’re going. They really do not want to understand the implications of what they’re trying to do. So I am interested and I would like the Minister to address this. So, just to repeat, I am interested in: why are they scrapping the review of those changes, and how will doing so allow for effective oversight of our smoke-free targets?

This is really, really important because if we don’t understand what we’re doing, we can’t review, we can’t change, we can’t change course, we can’t correct course—we’re running blind. We are ignorant. We’re supporting ignorance. I understand that our colleagues opposite, disappointingly, might prefer ignorance, but we don’t. I’m listening to such a learned expression of questions that we’re just not getting any answer to from the Minister. This is really simple stuff. It should not be complicated. It’s not rocket science; it’s just basic policy. So could we please have an answer?

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on what is Part 2. I do have some questions for the Minister that I do hope she will provide an answer for the Chamber. I think that it is really important, because a reminder—this is a bill that is going through committee stage under urgency. We haven’t had an opportunity from the members of the community, who, undoubtedly, will have issues that they would like to have addressed. So I do hope the Minister does address them.

It does relate to clause 29, which a couple of colleagues have already touched on. It is the repeal of the sections 22 to 26, which is known as the “Repeal of the Smokefree Generation” clauses. I guess when you look at that, it doesn’t immediately become clear. My question to the Minister is around what specific advice or engagement she has had that relates to young people who would be involved, in terms of who would be affected as part of the potential smokefree generation that the Government seems to want to undo.

The reason I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this is because in contributions earlier in the day, leading up to this point on this bill, there were many reflections made about the select committee process that the parent bill had gone through, and the many, many organisations who submitted as part of that process. Now, naturally, when a piece of legislation is progressing through the House under urgency, with no select committee scrutiny opportunity, that opportunity to the community is gone. So I’m interested to hear what specific advice she has received that relates to those who would be impacted as part of a smoke-free generation, but also, what specific engagement she has had with those individuals, with those young people, as to what their views are around this. I think that’s particularly important, given that this is something that the coalition Government, in the lead-up to the election, didn’t campaign on. So it has come out of the blue for many people, including young people. I think that the Minister being able to provide that opportunity would be quite helpful.

The other point that I want to refer to is on Subpart 2. This relates to amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations 2021, specifically, clause 35. My questions are around subparts 2A and 2B that relate to Part 3. My question to the Minister: I did hear her answer around denicotinisation, and that was a response for what is regulation 61A, when it comes to the limits on constituents, or the products within the tobacco product, but I didn’t quite hear from the Minister whether she thought that there was an acceptable reason as to why, even though you set aside denicotinisation, there is still an opportunity to maintain that provision within the regulations. So, it’s not saying that just because denicotinisation is the aim, or the end goal, but wanting to hear from the Minister whether she is prepared to think a bit broader than that, and accept that there are situations where there might be constituent substances that are obviously up to no good, but whether she would resolve from that original position, in light of the information that has been provided to the Committee.

The other is in relation to Subpart 2B, and it is regulation 61B. There are three components within that regulation that relates to the product’s safety requirements. What’s very clear is that there is a process outlined for someone who has a complaint about a product to effectively register and work through. Now, the steps are actually quite clear. Not only are they quite clear, they are also quite detailed in the sense of what they would relate to.

So my question to Minister is whether she believes that it is appropriate to simply wipe that regulation in its entirety, and, if so, what does she say to the provision of some sort of process to ensure that there is product safety for those that want to raise some concerns? This regulation provides an opportunity for anyone who has an issue about the product safety requirements to effectively engage in a process. By removing that, I’m still not clear, and that’s why I’d like the Minister to respond, as to whether there is a separate process, or whether she is comfortable that the process that’s outlined here is just going to remain in place. Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tangi Utikere—oh, the honourable Minister. Perhaps we’ll give the Minister a chance, and I’ll come back.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just want to touch, first, on the fears about increased smoking as a result of vaping being tightened, and smoking. We’re not changing any other components of the smoking regulations that currently exist—we’re only making amendments to things that are not yet in place. So as we’ve seen a significant turn-round from smoking, I can’t see that there would be any logic to raise alarm about smoking increasing. I’d reiterate again the reference to clause 35 that relates specifically to the testing for the nicotine levels as part of the denicotinisation. All other existing testing programmes are remaining in place.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are still an outstanding couple of questions that relate to the level of engagement that the Minister has had with young people. So, I am hoping that she will pick up on that. That has given rise to a further question in my own mind around the nature of advice that the Minister has received, not just specifically around the repeal of the smoke-free generation, but in terms of removing those regulations as well, that relate to members of our Pasifika community.

As a part of the process of the Health Committee that led to this principal piece of legislation, we heard, as members of that committee, a lot of commentary, a lot of personal experience, from members of that particular community of interest. Again, without a select committee process, we don’t have that. So, I am interested in not just the thoughts of young people, but what specific advice has the Minister received in terms of engagement with our Pasifika community, given that Pacific members of this House will want to know that the views they might have in relation to these proposals have been considered. So I look forward, perhaps, to the Minister taking the opportunity to provide not just the response to young people, but to members of our Pasifika community as well.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this—my first chance. I’ve been very keen; I even moved chairs because I’ve taken on board—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve been very patient.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I have heard that a lot throughout my life, I must admit. But I’ve taken on board the feedback from the presiding officers that I should not sit in my allocated seat because I’m not tall enough to be seen—and I get that, so I moved.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good advice—I’m short too.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah—here we are.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just ask your question now.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I will.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you. I am here to ask a question around clause 36, and I don’t believe it’s been touched on. It’s under Subpart 2 of Part 2, “Amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations 2021” and it revolves around Subpart 4 of Part 3 of those regulations. The reason I want to ask a question about this is because it struck me that as someone who smoked myself and someone who has worked in three different petrol stations in my career—that might not seem relevant, but I’ll explain why. The point being that I have handled a lot of cigarette packets, and in doing so, I know that there are cigarette brands that clearly label on the sides the level of nicotine on the packets. So the point is that nicotine levels are on display already.

So forget the debate about whether nicotine should be regulated or reduced, because that’s not actually in this part. This is about the standard of testing, and if we have products—and I’m not going to say brand names, but we do have brands that sell a regular cigarette and a light cigarette. We have brands that have three different types of cigarettes. It might be blue, it might be red, or it might be green, each with different types of strength and each with different levels of nicotine.

In Subpart 4 of Part 3 of these regulations, it clearly outlines a way in which the testing for nicotine can be regulated so that people can have confidence in the information that’s provided. This bill proposes that this testing mechanism—which, again, doesn’t go into restriction; it’s just about testing how that would work—and the bill as proposed by the Minister wants to get rid of it.

Now, there’s one particular part here which I think is important. It states that the test for nicotine levels “must be independent from the manufacturer or importer of the smoke tobacco product”. I would say that across the board, in terms of regulations and particularly in terms of testing, so that the information available to the consumer is accurate and has integrity, it’s pretty important that it is not done by the manufacturer or the importer of that product. The regulation as it is currently written requires it to be independent. The bill repeals that. So if the House accepts that there are cigarette products already that outline the level of nicotine and that we have a regulation that is currently on the books that requires those producers to independently assess the testing method for that, the bill’s going to get rid of it.

So if the Minister is sincere—as she has said in numerous media interviews and in this House—that she wants to see the use of cigarettes to continue to reduce, surely a big part of that would be to have integrity in the testing methods that outline the level of nicotine. It’s a pretty simple requirement, I would think, and that’s actually only one small part. Subpart 4 of Part 3 of these regulations has one, two, three, four areas talking about products for sale or input: they must be tested, what the testing method is, how the review of the details of the test methodology, testing methods, and compliance—all of that, to me, makes absolute sense and, again, I don’t believe this has been raised. It’s certainly my first contribution and opportunity to talk about it, and I have many questions.

I heard, Madam Chair, you give advice to one of my colleagues over here that you would like an exchange. My concern about that, though, is that whilst this is my first chance to contribute to this debate, I have witnessed, both on TV and here in the Chamber—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If the member wants to seek another call, I’ll give you an opportunity to ask.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Keiran McAnulty, you can now ask those questions, but make it questions and not—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I would like, Madam Chair, the Minister to commit to an exchange, because on a number of occasions we’ve been encouraged by presiding officers to do that. But, equally, on a number of occasions I’ve seen members attempt it and the Minister not play ball. So I’m just touching on your advice to the colleague earlier, when you said that you’d like them not to fill the time, but if the Minister isn’t going to engage in an exchange, what option have we got?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is also—like my colleague—my first contribution on this part of the bill. I’m interested in finding out more about what is meant by clauses 39 and 40 and Schedule 1 and explaining my analysis of these clauses. I’d like to really come back to a statement that the Minister has made a number of times that it’s fine to do this repeal of the old legislation: nothing changes because nothing was in place. That’s my set up to the question—this idea that nothing was in place. Therefore, I’m asking why Schedule 1 is needed. Now, let me talk you through that.

Clause 39 says that Schedule 1 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations and Regulated Products Regulations 2021 is amended by two things. It revokes clause 7. Clause 7 relates to smoked tobacco products received on 21 September 2023, or subsequently. Then it says that Schedule 1 is also to have a new part inserted to that, and that new part is Schedule 1 of this bill. There’s a related amendment, in clause 40, to Schedule 8.

We go to Schedule 1 of this bill. It has some definitions about commencement, but then it’s also about the refund of the fee paid by an applicant to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer. What that says is that “This clause applies in respect of a fee paid before the commencement date”—the commencement date “means the date on which section 42 of the amendment Act comes into force.”, and the amendment Act is this bill that’s in front of us—“by an applicant to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer under regulation 82—regulation 82 is about fees and it sets out that there can be fees—“and Schedule 8”—Schedule 8 is the list of the fees: what they are in relation to the standard regulation format—“of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations”.

Then it says—and this is the interesting part; this is what my question is about and why this is needed, given the Minister’s previous compacts that nothing has happened yet—“The Director-General may refund the fee paid (inclusive of goods and services tax) in whole or in part, if the Director-General considers that it is fair and reasonable to do so in the circumstances.” That fee, which we find in Schedule 8 of the regulations, is $1,475.

I want to know if there has been any analysis or advice on how many of those fees have been paid, how many might have to be paid back, and, most importantly, how this all fits with the Minister’s point that nothing is really in play yet. There may be some simple explanations for that, but I would very much like to hear them.

Then, of course, it’s relevant as well to pause on clause 40, which is that Schedule 8 is amended. As I mentioned before, Schedule 8 of these regulations are the fees, where we find that $1,475 figure. It is “In Schedule 8, revoke the items relating to an applicant to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, an applicant for approval of a smoked tobacco product, and an applicant for temporary approval of a smoked tobacco product that cannot meet product requirements”. That is one of the applications that Schedule 1 of the bill refers to, but then there are some other bits in there, and I presume that they relate to matters that are not already in traction.

As I said, I’m interested if the Minister could please answer those questions regarding how the fees work, and I see she’s going to get to her feet, so I appreciate that. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Just to revisit the queries about clause 36, again, that testing related, as we’ve said before, specifically to the denicotinisation testing levels that was part of the evaluating. It doesn’t change any other testing that currently exists.

In relation to the queries about the refund of fees, this was to address the situation—pushing through this repeal, in terms of what we’re trying to achieve—that they had to acknowledge the fact that fees had been paid by retailers who had applied to be approved retailers under the legislation. They had paid their fees. I’m not sure of the exact numbers—in the proximity of about 400. There was no mechanism by which that money could be repaid. Therefore, this amendment related to the ability to be able to refund those fees that had been paid in the event this legislation goes through.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call the Hon Kieran McAnulty because I committed to give you a chance to ask your extra questions once the Minister had—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My next question is directly related to that response from the Minister, which, frankly, was totally inadequate because it is not appropriate—or at least adequate—for a Minister to stand up, ignore the question, and say that these regulations are for this reason, when the question was why not keep them to enable integrity in the system. I acknowledged in my question why they were there, but this entire subpart does not mention—I’m going to struggle here; you just roll off—denicotinisation is it? Nailed it. Right—denicotinisation—it doesn’t mention that. That’s in another part. I acknowledged that in my question. So I’m sorry, but that may have been a response but it definitely wasn’t an answer.

My next question to the Minister is—and I hope I get an answer not only to my first question but to this one—can she envisage, after reading all the advice that she’s referred to in the House, that someone might wish to wean themself off nicotine by going through the grades of cigarettes.

Now, we see that with vape products. I’m going through that journey myself at the moment. I started here, I’m here, and eventually, one day, I’m sure I’ll get there. But I’ve reduced my nicotine. You can do it through cigarettes, which is why I said what I did in my first contribution. Certain brands of cigarettes have different levels of nicotine—presumably to allow people, if they so choose, to reduce the nicotine in them.

Can the Minister envisage that that is something that they would do; if she can, why wouldn’t she keep this? Her answer was that this was supposed to be about denicotinisation. That doesn’t stand when this entire subpart doesn’t mention that once. This could stay in there and not undermine the intent of this bill. This could stay in here and give people that wish to reduce their nicotine intake—which the Minister has said is her objective—confidence that the information on the side of the packet is actually accurate.

Now, in my first contribution, I referred specifically to regulation 63B(b). Now I want to refer to regulation 63D(2). We’re talking about how “a manufacturer of smoked tobacco products must test a representative range of samples and account for any variance.” So my first question is: what’s wrong with that? Why would we not want manufacturers to take every best possible effort to ensure that the information they have on the packet is accurate?

Now, I anticipate the Minister may say, well, that information is now irrelevant and has been for some time because for a long time cigarette packages couldn’t be displayed in retail outlets. I accept that. As I said, I’ve spent many years working in petrol stations. I know how it works. But this information is available online. People that take giving up smoking seriously actually look for this information. I don’t accept the initial response, but I’ve got two questions there in addition to my first question. Hopefully, the Minister could see that this is a genuine query, and, hopefully, the committee gets a genuine response.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Camilla Belich, and I want this to be really—we’ve been on a couple of original tracks in the last couple of speeches; over the course of the night, some other speeches have got really repetitive, so I’m looking for new questions, specific questions.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair—point taken. What I did want to mainly focus on in my contribution, which I don’t believe has been covered to date, is Schedule 2, which inserts a new form 5 into the—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right. I was interested in that too, actually, yeah.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, well, there’s a lot we can say about form 5. This is a really complex bill. This is a complex piece of legislation. It is not a simple repeal bill. It is a repeal bill of an amendment bill that has also been previously amended subsequent to its initial passing from the 1990 bill. So it’s hard to make sense of this bill, actually, and the bit that is most difficult is the part that we’re on at the moment, which is—and I can see you smiling, because I know that you’re all trying to be making sense of this bill, and I am as well. I was looking at doing amendments last night, and it is complex. I think it’s a shame, actually, that this wasn’t subject to select committee, because I doubt very much, outside of the people in this Chamber, where people are very interested in this, specifically Part 2, whether anyone actually understands exactly what this bill does.

I won’t be able to cover all of Part 2, but I did want to just go over, before I get on to form 5, some of the different enactments that this amends. So it doesn’t only amend the principal Act; it also amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act. It also amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Regulations 2023.

The one that I wanted to focus on was clause 41(2), which inserts new form 5. Now, when I first saw this, I thought they—and when I say “they”, I mean the Government, or the Associate Minister of Health—must be intending to replace an existing form 5 with a new form 5. However, when I looked up the regulations, I saw that the forms that are in the existing regulations actually only go up to form 4. So form 5—and I’d be interested if the Minister has any more information on this—is actually a brand new form that inserts, very surprisingly, additional regulatory requirements on tobacco retailers. I assume, from reading the small amount of information that is in the bill in relation to form 5—and requires the businesses to actually provide a number of pieces of information in relation to the tobacco products that they sell annually. So it’s an annual return. The previous forms I think are of a similar nature, but this is not a replacement; it’s actually, as I see it, a new form—but happy to be corrected by the Minister. I see she’s getting some advice there, and I’d be interested to know that.

So it’s quite a difficult form to understand. The main thing that I wasn’t aware of—and, actually, if we go back to the primary clause in 41(2), we can see that there is a replacement, also, in forms 3 and 4, to replace “UPC” with “EAN/UPC.” Now, I didn’t know what that was. I’m different to my colleague Mr McAnulty: I’ve never been a smoker. I’ve never smoked a cigarette; I don’t know anything about them. I had to describe, when a cigarette came up in conversation, to my children, what it was—you know, a cylindrical tube that you might’ve seen with a tiny fire on it that people smoke, that have smoke around them. You know, that is the reality of the new generation. It could be that everyone had no idea what a cigarette was, and the simple idea of them is just bizarre to the next generation. I think that was my colleague Ayesha Verrall’s intention, to really have a new generation that felt that way about cigarette smoking, because there’s really nothing good about it.

So I’m interested. I looked up UPC and EAN/UPC, I have to admit, it was while I was in the Chamber; I haven’t had a lot of time to look at it. I believe it’s barcodes. But I asked the Minister: what is the difference between a UPC and an EAN/ UPC? Why has it been amended in forms 3 and 4, and, then, why have we inserted a new form 5? And why does the Minister require additional information annually from businesses that sell tobacco products, in form 5, or have I misunderstood that? And is form 5 some other thing that isn’t an additional requirement that businesses need? So I’m interested in the Minister’s response.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just want to confirm that all of the regulations that were quoted regarding the testing of nicotine levels—all of those regulations relate to the product approval process around the denicotinisation or low nicotine limits, just to clarify that that’s why it can’t be left in, because it relates specifically to the regulations for that.

Clarifying the last member’s question about Schedule 2, the new form actually has nothing to do with the tobacco products. It was a correction of a misconsequence of the original legislation, and it was about vaping reporting. It was just amending the form requirements, and that’s why that’s been inserted in there.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Steve Abel, but I’m going to be very vigilant. We have had some good questions in the last couple of calls, but I’m going to be very vigilant about where we’re going because we’ve had quite a bit of time on this part.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I specifically want to ask the Minister, under Subpart 2, “Amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations”, about clause 35. There’s already been some speakers point out the problem of taking away requirements on the testing, but I specifically want to talk about removal of Subpart 2C, which “sets out information that the manufacturer or importer must provide with an application for approval for sale, import, or manufacture of a smoked tobacco product.”

The question relates to—surely, I want to have clarity from the Minister—what is the reason for removing a clause that gives clarity on the importation or manufacture, and to what extent will that affect the monitoring and our understanding of what importers and manufacturers are doing in this country in terms of tobacco?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Abel, I understand from the Minister that she’s answered that particular question. There’s quite a number of interchanges in the Chamber tonight, where people are moving in and out of the Chamber, so I would suggest, perhaps, you might want to look to a previous answer.

STEVE ABEL: I have another question—[Interruption] I have another question. There’s another question, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, Mr Abel has still got the call at the moment.

Hon Member: Sorry, mate.

STEVE ABEL: No, it’s fine. So it’s related to a specific point that was asked already of the Minister but has not yet been answered, which is as to the impact and the regulation of the impact of the waste tobacco product—my colleague Lan Pham asked about this—which primarily manifests in terms of the filters, which are plastic and, in their hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, end up in the environment. Most of them end up getting washed down drains when people stub out their cigarettes on the ground, and a lot of them end up in our marine environment and end up being consumed by marine life and fish, and so forth. This is actually a major environmental problem—a major source of plastic pollution in the environment. I’d like to ask the Minister, in terms of that question, what her response is.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): As I’ve previously stated, there was no filters restriction on the current legislation. That’s not relevant to this amendment that we’re seeking. There’s nothing in there currently, and we’re not undoing anything that’s in there.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to propose a new clause 25 via a tabled amendment. As I do this, I just remind this committee and the Minister that we’re speaking here about a product that kills half the people who use it. Anybody listening to this debate at home would have heard me speak about the realities of funerals, because when people die from a product, there needs to be a funeral. So the amendment that I’m proposing is around compensation for victims.

When I look at the wording, “compensation” is a bit of a difficult word to use, because there is nothing that can compensate for a loss of life or for the health implications or for the loss of time that family members have when somebody’s life is cut short, or they are sick or ill or unwell or just not present because they’re smoking.

So compensation’s not an ideal word, but it’s the word that I landed on, and then the word “victims”. The victims of smoking, they are victims of many things. They are victims of tobacco companies. They are victims of the misinformation of those companies. They are victims of advertising, of marketing. They are victims of insidious marketing through films—that has happened decades ago, for some of the people who still currently smoke, where there were pictures of people smoking on films—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I just inform the member that that amendment was part of Part 1, and so if the member has any questions on Part 2—

INGRID LEARY: Madam Chair, if I may, the proposed amendment inserts clause 24 and a new part 5, Subpart 8, and we have not, as I understand it, come to that part. So I have not had the opportunity to speak to this, or for the Minister to consider this suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, it is Part 1.

INGRID LEARY: Point of order, Madam Chair. May I just ask for an explanation on that, because my understanding is that this goes into a new Part 5, Subpart 8, which is not in Part 1, so I’m not quite clear on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’re talking about “Amendments to principal Act.”

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair. I think the issue is that this is a new section that’s been introduced by the member in her amendment. The primary Act finishes at clause 24. This is inserting a new clause 25. The existing clause 25 is in Part 2, and, therefore, the member didn’t speak about the amendment in the previous part and intended to speak at the appropriate time in Part 2. I appreciate that it’s difficult for members obviously not as expert as some of the Clerks in where their correct place is, but I just—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I’ve just taken some advice. To the member, regardless of how the amendment was worded, if it relates to the principal Act, it relates to Part 1, and that’s the advice that I’ve received, so yeah.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to that point of order, just to clarify, I accept that if that’s your ruling that the member can’t speak on it. However, the member, perhaps, was waiting for the appropriate time, because clause 25 is in Part 2 of the Act, and so it may be—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So it is my ruling that it does relate to the principal Act.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

tabled amendment to delete clause 29 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Part 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, members, we have to take a vote on Schedule 1 where there’s no debate. The question is Schedule 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now we are up to Schedule 2, no debate. The question is Schedule 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clause 1 to 3: “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d really like to ask the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello just about the title, Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022; just the rationale for saying “Regulated Products”, because everything that I’ve heard in the House tonight would suggest that there is a great deal of un-regulation. We’ve heard contributions from members about the difference between alcohol products and nicotine products; we’ve heard about the lack of regulation relating to consumer safety concerns; and, basically, the tone of the debate has actually been a sense of a deregulation of the market—or, certainly, of what was going to happen under the principal Act.

So I’m really curious as to the words “Regulated Products”. I’m wondering if the Minister shares my concern that that is, I would say, a misleading word in the context of this bill because the effect of the bill is not really to regulate; the effect of the bill is to broaden the scope of the way the sector is able to work—certainly what was going to come into effect when the principal Act came into effect. So that’s my first question.

My second question is around the words “Smokefree Environments”, because the suggestion is that this bill somehow contributes to making environments smoke-free or more smoke-free, and, again, all the evidence would suggest that the opposite is true; that we’ve, for example, seen tabled amendments that would say perhaps there could be carve-outs to some of the provisions for national parks. We’ve heard about environmental concerns in the environment of what happens with tobacco stubbed-out cigarettes; we’ve heard about the fact that there may not be a new generation of smoke-free New Zealanders. So the question is: is the word “Smokefree” correct and also “Smokefree Environments”?

So that, for me, makes, actually, the whole title of this bill really problematic because it seems to me that it does the opposite of what has been said that it’s supposed to be doing in the House. That, combined with the purpose, also gives a bit of a misleading impression of what is going to be achieved by this bill, because anybody who just picked this up or read it or perhaps wasn’t a lawyer might think, “Great, this is something that is going to help us to get to our smoke-free targets more quickly.” But all of the evidence that we have heard—and the evidence has come from this side of the House, because I have not heard any evidence from the Minister tonight; I have only heard circular arguments, as have my colleagues, which is why we are continuing this interrogation to say, “What is her scale of ambition?”

Why does the title seem to belie what the impact—the true impact—of this legislation is? It does raise the question of whether this bill and the Minister’s statements around it about wanting to reduce smoking at a fast pace are actually sincere because the only evidence that we’ve heard for her to say that she’s intending to reach smoke-free targets is the fact that the track record has already been good. We haven’t heard anything about advancing or accelerating or getting to a whole new generation of smoke-free New Zealanders.

So those two questions for the Minister: why are the words “Regulated Products” even in the title; and why are the words “Smokefree Environments”? Bearing in mind that nothing that she has said has reassured us that this is going to make anything free of smoke and/or protect our environment from smoke and from the residue of what happens when people smoke, which is cigarette butts going into the environment—things that certainly don’t make for a smoke-free environment. So those are my two questions to the Minister, please.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Just to reassure the member: it’s the title of the existing Act, and the bill will not change the title of the existing Act.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you. I’d like to take an opportunity in this portion of the debate to speak to my colleague Rachel Boyack’s amendment to the title. I think it’s a very astute one. Her amendment is: after clause 1, where it says “Products”, to insert “Increasing Health Expenditure” to the title of this bill, because that is exactly what this bill will do.

We know very well from the detailed research that was done when the 2022 Act was brought in that the underlying bill, the bill that’s being repealed, would have saved $5.25 billion in health expenditure over the period studied. I had the privilege of being the Minister of Health and I am aware that many of the members in this House would have campaigned on the pressures that our health system face, and they are considerable—$5.25 billion would go an awful long way in our health system. Also, it’s not only important for saving our health system money to be able to take care of people but it is very important to the workers in our health system, because they want to see that the resources are being used to their absolute maximum possibility.

If I just put into context some of the way in which funds are spent in the health system: spending on general practice is approximately $2 billion a year. So $5.25 billion goes an awful way—of course, general practice is partly privately funded as well—to delivering more care for people. When we increased operations that were done in public hospitals, those sorts of commitments were in the hundreds of millions. So taking $5.25 billion out of the health system, making that unavailable to fund our workers in our hospitals, our workers in the community, the resources and consumables that we need—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the title and commencement piece is a very narrow debate around the title specifically, and a potential new alternative. Speakers’ ruling 130/2 is clear that any amendment must be a serious or objective description of the bill, rather than an attempt to criticise its contents. The last two minutes have been nothing but a criticism of the contents of the bill, as put forward by this member in her contribution so far.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: To the point of order, Madam Chair. Of course, the financial implications—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just one moment. Yeah, so one of the things that we’ve done throughout these urgency sessions is said that because there’s no select committee, we’ve allowed a bit more debate and a bit more scope. But I also would like the member to just bring it back more closely to the title, without expanding too much on that topic. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the generosity of the ruling. So the amendment that my colleague Rachel Boyack is proposing is that the title is amended to say “Increasing Health Expenditure”. I think it’s important because legislation should do what it says on the tin. The bill that is being repealed was the subject of a long period of study. We were advised that it would save $5 billion of health expenditure; it is now being repealed.

It seems to me that the people at home have the right to understand in plain English what is being done. One of the major consequences on a health system that is cash-strapped is that this bill will increase health expenditure. So why shouldn’t it say that? That is the impact. The Minister has told us it’s not going to have any impact on the number of smokers, but we know—and, in fact, the finance Minister was in the media confirming—that it’s going to have massive financial impacts so important that they’ll be able to save her reckless tax cuts.

So I think there is a lot to commend this amendment made by my friend Rachel Boyack, because indeed this bill will increase health expenditure.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Kieran McAnulty—just to prove that I can see you over there.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I appreciate that a lot. I intend to speak to an amendment in my name, including in clause 1, after “Products”, inserting “(Removing Restrictions)”, because that is actually what it’s doing, among other things. As we all know, those of us who have been here a while, when there is an amendment bill, it’s quite common to have in brackets the intent of the bill included. It is very clear—it’s an indisputable fact; it’s not even a political point—that this bill removes restrictions that are currently in place. I propose this not making any commentary on that; I just simply feel that it is entirely appropriate that the title reflects the contents.

Now, what do I mean by “removing restrictions”? One example, of course, is that the Act as it stands, that this bill is amending, restricts the level of nicotine in tobacco products. Now, if the bill’s title did include “removing restrictions”, that would be appropriate. What about the limit on the age of people able to purchase cigarettes in the Act that this bill is proposing to amend? The Act has restrictions. It says that people of a certain age cannot purchase cigarettes, moving forward; this bill here removes the restriction that is in the Act. There are many examples where this bill removes a restriction that is currently in place in the Act, and simply including “(Removing Restrictions)” after “Products” is an appropriate proposal for the title.

It’s very clear that there has been a detailed debate on this bill. Not many detailed responses in the committee of the whole House stage, but nevertheless, the Minister has made it clear that it is her intention to continue to see the reduction in tobacco use. We dispute that, obviously, because what the bill is doing is removing restrictions that would have achieved that. Nevertheless, the Minister also hasn’t disputed the fact that those restrictions are being removed. So I think that this amendment would be an appropriate change to the title.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): This is going to be a very rare occasion where I disagree with my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty—who’s distracted, which is a good thing because he didn’t hear me say that—because, while I think his amendment to clause 1 is a good amendment, I think I’ve got a better one. So the tabled amendment in my name—that is here—is also to clause 1. Rather than after the word “Products”—to insert Mr McAnulty’s idea—I am suggesting including the words “Raising Tax Revenue”.

I am serious about this, because, again, a bill should describe the purpose of the bill in its title. The former Minister Mr McAnulty went to some of the operational activities of the bill, but not the purpose of the bill. We are absolutely clear, on this side of the Chamber, what the purpose of the bill is, because the Government’s told us. The Government has told us—in the form of the finance Minister, Nicola Willis—that this legislation will raise revenue for the Government. I don’t have it in front of me, but I believe it was an interview on—today of all days to even mention this—Newshub’s Newshub Nation show in November when the then about-to-be Minister of Finance was asked about what she would be doing to make up for the revenue that was lost from the foreign-buyer ban no longer being available to fund the Government’s tax cuts. She said, “Well, we have to bear in mind the amount of revenue that the Government was going to forego as a result of the changes that Dr Verrall brought through in the smoke-free legislation.” So that’s why I think a more appropriate title for this bill is my amendment to insert the words “Raising Tax Revenue”.

Now, it has become clearer to members in this House exactly how much tax revenue that is, which is another justification for why we should change the title—and that is in the form of an Official Information Act request that my colleague Barbara Edmonds tabled in the House today. That was information from the Treasury, which actually quantified exactly how much money the Treasury thought would be raised in additional tax revenue from the amendments that are in this piece of legislation. That is an estimate of around about $500 million a year, or $1.5 billion because it rises up over the forecast period.

Now, that’s a significant amount of money. It’s a significant amount of money that would otherwise not have been in the Government’s coffers. I might add, in square brackets, “not enough to make up for the foreign-buyer ban disappearing”. So the numbers still don’t add up, but it does indeed raise tax revenue, as I say in the title of my bill.

While I say that, I’m fully aware that the costs to New Zealand are, of course, much, much higher in terms of lives lost and in terms of the damage that it will do to New Zealand’s health system. But I do believe inserting in clause 1, after the word “Products”, the words “Raising Tax Revenue” would actually make the title of this bill representative of the real purpose of it.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Whilst I’ve just listened to my colleague Grant Robertson give what I thought was an excellent suggestion for the title of this bill—nothing against my colleague Kieran McAnulty’s also very excellent suggestion, and my colleague Rachel Boyack’s excellent suggestion as well, I wonder if Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello would consider—I don’t have a tabled amendment, so I’m just putting this out there for her to consider. We’ve talked about the fact that the bill should do what it says on the tin: it should describe the intent of the bill. Whilst I agree with Hon Grant Robertson that the purpose of the bill clearly is to raise revenue—and I won’t repeat all of the reasons that he gave for that and all of the evidence that he provided to show that that is very true indeed—I was interested with what my colleague Kieran McAnulty said about the more operational nature of it. I wondered if the Minister was interested in looking at outcomes, because I’ve often heard that the Government is all about outcome—measuring outcomes, striving for outcomes; all sorts of things to do with outcomes. And I wondered if we could perhaps consider the “Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Extending Smokefree Targets to 2061)”. Because that’s an outcome; that is what is actually going to be achieved. Again, like I said, I didn’t have the foresight to table an amendment, but I’m asking the Minister, now, whether that’s something she would like to consider.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought that I was going to miss out on my opportunity, and I do have a number of new points to raise in relation to, actually, all three of the operative parts of these clauses that we’re debating at the moment: the title, commencement, and, indeed, the amendment of the principal Act. I might do it in reverse order for a change. So in terms of clause 3: clause 3 states, it appears, quite simply, that the Act amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990. Well, we know that this is true. The first part of the bill does amend that principal Act. However, half of the bill is focused on amendments to other enactments and regulations. So I want to ask the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello whether she would consider a more accurate description, in clause 3, which actually reflects the contents of the bill.

You’ll be aware of the debates that we had in relation to Part 1 of the bill and Part 2 of the bill. Part 2 of the bill has the schedules, it has the new forms—it’s a substantive part. It’s not reflected in clause 3, although, of course, except that it’s a principal Act, but it doesn’t only amend that section.

Tim van de Molen: No—that’s why it’s “Principal Act”, not “All Acts”.

CAMILLA BELICH: So that’s my first point. Second point—I do understand what the principal Act says.

Tim van de Molen: Ah, well, it doesn’t sound it like from the member’s contribution.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, I’m happy to have a debate with you on that. So it does say “Principal Act”, but then, underneath the title, clause 3 “Principal Act” states, “This Act amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990.” Well, it does, but that’s not the only thing it does. Half of the Act—

Tim van de Molen: Correct—that’s why it’s the “principal” Act.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, I just responded to that point, in fact, that it says “Principal Act”—anyway, I seem to not be able to get through to my colleague, unfortunately. So that is my first question.

The second question that I have is in relation to commencement, and I actually have an amendment in my name on this point. So my amendment, with respect to my colleague Tracey McLellan’s amendment, is probably a bit more of a compromise, and I wondered if the Minister wanted to consider it—and that is, to amend clause 2 to replace “on the day [of] Royal assent” with “1 January 2027”. That is because we haven’t had a select committee process, and a number of the things that are being repealed in the Act are not yet enforced.

If we were to draw it out until 2027, we would actually see whether the things that are proposed to be amended in the primary piece of legislation—what they actually do. It would give us a much better time frame to consult. As I’ve said, this is a complex piece of legislation, and it repeals a number of things that are not currently in force, which makes commenting on them quite difficult because they don’t appear in the primary piece of legislation until they’re in force, which is quite difficult for members and also for the public when looking at it. So I wondered if the Minister would consider that much smaller extension of time, compared with my colleague Tracey McLellan.

This is another point in relation to Royal assent. I favour certainty when it comes to legislation. I think the principles of legislative drafting mean that we should have certainty in relation to the effect. The day of Royal assent is very difficult to ascertain when you’re reading back on a piece of legislation, because it’s sometimes difficult to know, without reading the exact movements and passage of legislation through the office of the Governor-General, exactly when Royal assent took place. So there are, in my view, many advantages with having a specific date. The date I proposed under my amendment, D, is in the future.

Another alternative open to the Minister would be to, in fact, put another date which was even closer to today, or the day of Royal assent, to provide that certainty. So two points there, really. The first is an extension of time, which may allow for better lawmaking and allow for more commentary around the impact of the bill, and the second point is more certainty around the Royal assent.

So I haven’t even got to my third point around the title, but I do think it’s important to reflect that this isn’t really a smoke-free environments bill; this is actually about increasing, or de-regulating, the smoking market.

Because we’ve had so many Acts—and I’ve mentioned that, in the complexity of the repeal that we’re looking at—that have constantly made steps towards a more smoke-free country, I think it inconsistent that this uses that word.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): A very short contribution from me because I do think it’s important that the title reflect what this bill actually does. And I think the clearest, most succinct way to put that would be to call this bill the “Smokefree Halt Initiatives Tobacco Bill”, so if you think about that, I think those four words very clearly tell us what this bill is. It’s halting initiatives. It’s not going forward; it’s going backwards. “Smokefree Halt Initiatives Tobacco Bill”—four words say it all.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I do want to make some remarks relating to the commencement of this bill because I studied, with some interest, the coalition agreement, and I note that from the outset there was a plan to have this repeal done by March. And as the House has learnt tonight, I don’t doubt that’s because parts of the provisions on the reduction of retail outlets would have started to come into force.

I do want to make clear this evening my view that there was another option open to this Government that would have met their policy objectives and been consistent with good lawmaking, allowed the people of New Zealand to submit to a select committee process, and allowed proper scrutiny of the bill. That relates to the point that the policy objectives of the Minister could have been met while retaining the approved retailer section. That would mean that tobacco would be no more—in fact, still less—regulated than products like alcohol, that is licensed. And those retailers would have standards to meet in terms of whether the person was a responsible person or not. It would be easier to enforce all of those policies. Elements of the policy could stay, and the Minister could choose to have as many retail outlets as she wanted and remove the limits that our previous Government had put in place. All of that could be achieved and you wouldn’t need to rush the bill, because all you could do would have the approved retailer programme stay in place and not have the same limit.

So my comment in relation to the commencement of this bill is that it could have been different. We could have achieved the Minister’s policy objectives with a proper process. We could have had time to study it as a select committee. The Minister herself could have been better prepared for the questions—quite reasonable questions about the operation of this bill—that she has been unable to answer. Instead, we’ve had a process with a highly technical bill where there is an underlying Act, an amendment to that Act, and then an amendment to that amendment. We’ve had a process where we have had to understand that Act on the fly—and I’m grateful to all the colleagues in the House who have pitched in on that effort tonight. I’ve found the contributions of my colleagues extremely illuminating in that respect, often more illuminating than those comments coming from the Minister.

So my disappointment is about the fact that we’re doing this under urgency, that this is one of a programme of bills done under urgency, that such important policy for the lives and health of New Zealanders is being done under urgency, and it could have been different. We could have done a process not different to what we went through.

You know, the ironic thing is that we went through proper process to give retailers the time to have their say. We gave industry the chance to have their say. It all seems incredibly asymmetrical, really, that we on the left, in seeking to achieve progressive health policies, have given those forces that have sought to undermine the health of New Zealanders an opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, when they get the opportunity to have laws that favour them made, there is no opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have proper input to their laws.

And so the commencement of this bill could have been delayed considerably, the Minister’s policy objectives would still be met, and we would have a chance to properly go through the legislative process.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): [Facing Rachel Boyack] Rachel Brooking.

Rachel Boyack: Which Rachel?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rachel Brooking. There was a 50:50 chance.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just going to take a tiny moment to deviate from the title of this bill and note that I was on campus recently in the beautiful electorate of Dunedin, and some students came up to me and said, “Is the House full of Rachels? Is every MP called Rachel?” But there’s only been two, and both are Rachel Bs—both in the Labour Party.

But I want to talk about the title and respond to the Minister’s response—and I thank her for that response—to my colleague, also from the great city and environment of Dunedin, Ingrid Leary, where she made a contribution, the first contribution on these clauses, on the title and commencement, and made some suggestions around the name.

Then the Minister responded and said, “Well, I can’t”—I apologise for not being word-perfect with my summary, but basically: “It has to be called the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act because”—inferring here—“it’s related to the primary legislation, so it can only be called that name in reference to the primary legislation.” When, of course, we know that there are many examples where that is not the case, and that amendment Acts can, in fact, include things like brackets with other words. We heard Mr McAnulty—he touched on this topic as well.

But I just want to go to Part 1 of this very bill, where of course the bill itself amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products—bracket—Smoked Tobacco—bracket—Amendment Act 2022. There’s another one just like that about vaping, which I don’t happen to have in front of me. But that is a perfectly normal drafting technique: to use brackets to explain the type of amendment that you are doing.

We’ve heard many speeches on different suggestions on what should be included in those brackets—very good ones relating to finances and also timing. My one is also related to timing in that I’m suggesting that it should be that the Act is the “Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Not Meeting 2025 Target) Amendment Act 2024”. I’m suggesting this because we’ve heard through the policy debates that we’ve had in the House today—and, of course, that we had in the House in 2022—that the point of the legislation that has been repealed was to make us achieve those targets and that the impact of this repeal will be that those targets will not be met. So that is my suggestion.

Also, I would like to speak briefly in support of my colleague Camilla Belich’s suggestion of the commencement being at a later date. I think she suggested 1 January 2027. That would seem an appropriate date for this legislation to go through a proper process. Thank you, Mr Chair.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair—proud to be one of the members of the “Rachel B caucus”. Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call. I have two amendments on the Table tonight, and my colleague the former Minister of Health, my good friend Dr Ayesha Verrall, has already spoken to one of those amendments in detail, so I won’t take up time doing that. I’ll speak to the particular amendment I have about the commencement date. Now, we’ve had a bit of debate on our side of the Chamber about what could be the best amendment to the title. I’m going to bring in a little bit of debate about what could be the best date, in terms of the commencement date, because we have got a few ideas here, and so I’ll just put forward my argument. I’m proposing that we replace the words “the day after Royal assent.” in clause 2 with the words “1 June 2025”. Now, I’ve picked this date for a very specific reason, and the reason is that on 31 May 2025, Winston Peters will stop being the Deputy Prime Minister. One of the reasons I thought that this could be a good date is that perhaps that might be the day that the tail stops wagging the dog. As a dog lover and a dog owner and the spokesperson for animal welfare, that’s probably a bit unfair on dogs.

But the reason I thought that would be a good idea was that perhaps, at that point, the influence, I guess, of New Zealand First in putting forward a policy here that wasn’t campaigned on by the National Party, I don’t believe—in fact, the National Party thought two of the parts of this bill that are being repealed were good things, things they supported—the undue influence, where we’ve got a very small representation in the House having a very large influence over a piece of legislation that is going to have an enormous impact on the population of New Zealand. Perhaps we might actually get a rethink from the National Party at that point. Perhaps that might be the day when we finally hear from the Government that they will no longer just respond to everything that the Rt Hon Winston Peters asks them to do, that he says, “Jump.” and they say, “How high?”, because it seems like they’ve said, “Jump.” and, you know, Mr Luxon has said, “How high?”

So my hope is that things might change in this House on that date. Things might change. Although, I mean, I believe the ACT Party possibly may also try to make sure this one survives the change of Deputy Prime Minister. But I was just thinking to myself, you know, let’s live in hope—you know, let’s keep hope alive that on that date things might change just a wee bit. So I specifically picked out 1 June 2025 for a very specific reason. I thought maybe that might be the point in this coalition, this very interesting three-headed coalition, where one head kind of gets removed and another one rises. Maybe, I don’t know—I know that, you know, we’ve been talking a bit about Mr Seymour’s very interesting Canadian accent lately—he might have a change of heart about that. Maybe he might have a change of heart about this when he becomes Deputy Prime Minister. So it’s this particular date that I’ve set this date for.

But just coming back to my other amendment, I just wanted to briefly mention around the increased expenditure. The reason why I’ve put that specific amendment on the Table tonight is that there are so many cost pressures on our health system, and we know from the evidence and we’ve seen from the evidence that repealing this bill will put more pressure on our health system. We already have struggling wait-lists. We already have struggling GP practices. We have nurses that need to be paid more. We have health practitioners that need to be paid more. We have a hospital to build in Nelson—a hospital to build in Nelson.

Ingrid Leary: And Dunedin.

RACHEL BOYACK: Well, Dunedin’s on the way and, you know, doing very well, but Nelson, you know, I want to make sure. And Whangārei needs to be built. So I’d quite like that money to stay in the health system, not being used unnecessarily. I’d quite like that money to be used to build my hospital.

Hon Grant Robertson: Your hospital?

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, it will be my hospital, Mr Robertson. That, I think, is a much better use of Government expenditure in health, which is why I’ve put that particular amendment up tonight. This bill will increase the pressure on the health system in terms of expenditure, so I think we need to be very accurate with the title in terms of the impact it will have on the New Zealand health system. Thank you, Mr Chair.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, I’m just going to remind people that the relevance, repetition, and participation of the Minister are three of the factors that are taken into account.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair; I appreciate it. I’m wishing to speak to the title of the bill, and accuracy is an important component of the title. For context, like many people in this Chamber, I have a personal context here in that both my parents were smokers and, raised in the 1970s and the 1980s, people smoked in all environments. People smoked in my house, in every room in the house, and it was a very smoky world. Escaping cigarette smoke was something that people didn’t even really consider. I remember being driven to school at five years old in the white Austin Nomad and standing on the bench seat in the back because there were no seatbelts, and my mother smoking as she drove the car. That was perfectly normal. That was the reality.

What has happened in the ensuing decades is that the culture has changed through an understanding of the harm caused by smoking and then an intervention at the regulatory, legislative level to restrict access to tobacco products. The most obvious instance of that was when we forbid there to be smoking in bars and clubs and pubs and so forth. And that has thereby restricted, through concerted regulatory and legislative effort, the smokiness of our environments.

Now, the benefits of that are far-reaching. My own father suffered arteriosclerosis. Both of my parents died of cancer, and the effect of him—

Tim Costley: Point of order. Sir, you gave us a very, I thought, astute and clear direction on the focus of this debate. We’re not hearing anything on the title or commencement, and I’d just ask for your guidance.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, that is a matter for the Chair. I also could have added the fact that there hasn’t been a select committee is also a factor in how much space is given from the Chair as well, but that is a matter for the Chair.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. The advantage of us reducing the smokiness of our environments has been a marked decrease in the health burden of the country, not just the personal health burden of those of us who have lost relatives to the effects of smoking but on the actual monetary cost of taking care of people because of the effects of smoking. My father had angioplasties, he had bypasses, he spent 10 years suffering from cancer before the end of his life, and the cost to the public health service was extensive.

So my proposal, because I think it is an accurate reflection of what this amendment bill actually does, in all authentic honesty: it does not make a smoke-free environment; it makes, in a practical sense, a smokier environment for our society, and a less regulated products environment. This is a reduction in the regulatory framework that protects the wider community from the impacts of tobacco and nicotine, and this will mean smokier environments. It takes us away from the trajectory that we have had basic agreement on across this House over some years now of the advantages in reducing the smokiness of our environments, and we’re going away from smoke-free environments to smokier environments. It’s a back-to-the-past piece of legislation, and that is what I seriously propose to the Minister that this should be correctly called, if there is going to be honesty as to what this amendment bill does. The impact on our society, on our people, on the health of people will be utterly detrimental. It does not serve the interests of our society and our country, and certainly not people’s health. That is what I propose.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this. Before I do, I just want to signal that my friend and colleague the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti intends to speak in regards to the Waitangi Tribunal case there, which is a point that has yet to be made in relation to the commencement date. But the reason I felt compelled to stand and make a contribution is because on two occasions it has been suggested that the amendment in my name is not as effective a proposal to amend the title as that which is in Tracey McLellan’s name, but also Grant Robertson’s. And I have to concede, in regards to the amendment in the Hon Grant Robertson’s name, I agree. I agree, so I encourage the committee not to vote for my amendment and let the record show that when it doesn’t pass, that’s because I’ve asked it not to! But the amendment that I’m speaking in favour of is the Hon Grant Robertson’s proposal that after “Products” in clause 1, “(Raising Tax Revenue)” be included.

The reason I’m speaking in favour of this, as opposed to my proposal, is because upon reflection—which if we take a step back and take into account the point of a committee of the whole House stage, it is to reflect on proposals made by members and consider the validity of them.

Rachel Boyack: What about my one?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No, I didn’t like yours. And so the original proposal that I put forward, proposing that “Removals of Restrictions” was accurate, but after listening to the contribution of the Hon Grant Robertson, I actually agree that his is more accurate. Because we have a situation here that the finance Minister herself has conceded, that the National Party’s support for this—keeping in mind that they did not campaign on this and, in fact, as a proportion of the current Government the vote share in favour of this is actually quite small, but the finance Minister has said, herself, that the reason they support it is because it will assist her in paying for tax cuts.

Now, if that is the case, it’s important that the title reflects the National Party’s motivation for supporting this New Zealand First proposal. Now, if the Minister disagrees with this amendment, she only needs to stand up and speak. I don’t believe, apart from the opening remarks, that she has actually contributed to this debate on title and commencement, and it would be useful for the committee if she did because we have had some proposals to change the title, such as this one. We’ve had some proposals to change the commencement date, and, as I’ve indicated, the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti has a contribution to make in regards to that. All of them valid, but how do we know where we stand if the Minister doesn’t contribute?

So I would implore the committee to consider not my amendment, but that in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson, to reflect the true nature—

Hon Grant Robertson: He’s a better man than me.

Hon Members: Aw!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: They’re so surprised because this is what happens when you actually get on with your mates.

Hon Member: Not used to it over there.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Not used to it over there; bickering, yelling, arguing, carrying on.

Hon Member: We’re just not used to seeing it over there!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, I see what he did there. He said what I said and threw it at us. I haven’t heard that since I was at school when I was six. So thank you for reminding me of back then: “I know you are, but what am I?” Just remember that one, keep that one up your sleeve.

It is true, when you consider the make-up of this Government—three parties, one of which is considerably larger than the other two, and the National Party did not campaign on this; they only support it because New Zealand First want it. New Zealand First, as my colleague Rachel Boyack said, is “the tail wagging the dog”. Let’s reflect the actual motivation of the Government as to why they’re supporting it, and that’s why I speak in favour of the Hon Grant Robertson’s amendment.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, otirā tēnā anō koutou katoa. Ahakoa te pōuri rawa atu o te ngākau, kei te kōrero mātou i runga i tēnei kaupapa whakahē, whakaiti, patu i te oranga hauora o ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa. Ehara ko ngā Māori anake.

Ko tēnei te wāhanga tuarua i tēnei rā tonu kei te kōrero mātou mō tētahi take e whakaiti ana i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Ko te āhua nei, ko te whakaaro o tēnei Kāwanatanga hei aha te whakaaro Māori, hei aha te mana Māori, hei aha te oranga Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, indeed greetings to you all. Despite the deep sadness of my heart, we are speaking about this action that condemns, that insults, that attacks the health and wellbeing of all people of New Zealand. Not just the Māori.]

This is the second section today where we are talking about an issue that denigrates the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal. It appears that the opinion of this Government is don’t bother with Māori perspectives, don’t bother with mana Māori, and Māori health doesn’t matter.]

I’m saddened to be here on a day where two times in one day we are discussing items which have not been heard by the Waitangi Tribunal though there are claims before them—in particular, a claim by a group such Te Rōpū Tupeka Kore o Aotearoa, which holds so much authority in this kaupapa in Aotearoa, is not being given the chance to be heard. Kei te hārapa haere tēnei hoiho. Parahutihuti ana te haere o tēnei hoiho. [This horse is galloping away. This horse is really flying.]

Why is this important kaupapa being rushed? Don’t get me wrong, the word “urgency”—the irony is not wasted on me. The sad part is that the urgency on this side of the House is the urgency to save lives and to prevent us going back and making mistakes that we know we’ve already lived. I have several questions, but number one: why, once again, is this process being rushed and Te Rōpū Tupeka’s claim before the Waitangi Tribunal not given the opportunity to be heard before this bill is passed? And tuarua, why not wait for that determination? Kei hea rā te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i tēnei rā? [Where is the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal today?]

It’s sad—you know, already, the precedent is being set by this Government that the tribunal is a “nice-to-have” but when we feel like it. He whakaiti tērā. He whakaiti i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, he whakaiti i te mana Māori, he whakaiti i te hauora o ngā tāngata katoa. [That is an insult. It is an insult to the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal, it is an insult to Māori authority, it is an insult to the wellbeing of all people.] 

When I talk about urgency and the desire not to take a giant leap backwards, let’s be clear that it’s not just for Māori. Although there’s been a lot of kōrero about how Māori feature highly in the negative statistics, as do Pasifika, it’s not just Māori; we all know that tobacco is harmful to everybody in this beautiful country of ours. Thank you for the reminder, Mr Chair.

Ko taku pātai—what is the rush? And why can we not wait until this has been heard by Taraipiunara o Waitangi? Tēnā koe, Mr Chair.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I haven’t had an opportunity to take a call on what is a discrete—

Hon Member: You don’t need one.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, members opposite might suggest that we don’t need one over here—that was the interjection that was made by the member opposite. I know that they haven’t been here that long, but this is how it works, particularly when it comes to urgency. And how it also works is usually, as Chairs have consistently indicated this evening, Ministers in the chair tend to take calls to address the issues that have been raised by members. We have only had one contribution from the Minister at the start. There have been plenty of other opportunities. Mr Chair, I want to acknowledge you and the direction and guidance that you have given to this committee, in that repetition is one aspect, but also the role in which the Minister is taking in terms of responding to the issues—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What role?

TANGI UTIKERE: Exactly. What role? Because currently there is none. Until the Minister seeks a call, it is likely that members opposite will continue to raise the issues because they have not been answered, they have not been addressed. If that is the courtesy with which the Minister wishes to treat this process, then that is one of disdain.

So the issue that I wish to raise for the Minister—and I do hope that the Minister does take a call on this, because many of us here are actually none the wiser as to what her position is right now on many issues. We have had a number of members of this House who have raised views or points of view around what some potential amendments to the title might be. What we have heard from the Minister to date is there is, perhaps, no need. Well, we don’t know, because she hasn’t clarified that.

But her suggestion is that the title of the bill is simply as it is because it’s amending the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. So what we have on the Table at the moment, Minister, are a number of suggestions that are in brackets, which is not an uncommon approach, actually, when it comes to the names of bills. Because, for the benefit of those at home tuning in at 10.30, long night, all by themselves—they’ve gone silent over there because maybe they’re listening. They’re actually learning something over there, for once. But the point of putting definitions or descriptors, adjectives, into brackets is so that some people could take a very cursory look and understand what the actual intent of this amendment or this change is. So we have yet to hear from the Minister what her views are. It’s very simple. I mean, she can rule them out; she can rule them in. At the moment, she is choosing not to take a particular position on any of the amendments that members of this House have put—

Tim Costley: Well, let’s vote on them, then.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, there we have it. So we hear from members over there, “Let’s just vote on it.” Well, the fact that members opposite have put this House into urgency—and I’m sure that members opposite would quite like to actually just go straight to the vote. Well, let’s give a lesson on 101, and that is this is the House of Representatives, where we are here to represent the numerous number of people that are not having an opportunity on this very bill because it is not subject to the scrutiny of a select committee process. Members over there might wish to be arrogant and ignorant of the process, but over here, we are standing up for the rights of individuals, for the rights of communities for whom this piece of legislation will have a significant impact.

Now, while members opposite and the Minister may want to just sit there and not take this seriously, that is an absolute abomination—a disgrace. It is unfortunate, it is unsatisfactory—all of these sorts of adjectives. We could put them in a bracket. We’d like to hear what the Minister would like to say about that. But, I tell you what, she probably won’t take a call because she has failed to do so since many of these issues have been raised.

So, Minister, if you are serious about this piece of legislation, then you owe it to this committee to address the issues that we have raised as members of this Parliament on behalf of the very communities that have not actually had an opportunity to have their voices heard. Many members of this House have talked already today about the fact that the committee is in urgency. If there is ever a time when Ministers or members of the Government need to place on record what their perspective is on these matters, it’s now—it is now.

Now, I implore the Minister to take just one call to respond to the issues that we have raised opposite, because failure to do so is simply indicating, “Well, we don’t care about what other people think about things. We just believe that we should just go from A to B without any consideration for the impact that this will have on communities.” So, Minister, I invite you to take a call to address the numerous questions that have been put to you, which is the whole purpose of this committee of the whole House stage. I implore you to do exactly that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Given the fact that that member is the chief whip, I’ll treat that as a very long point of order. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just wish to address the discussion around title and commencement. I can assure you I did not state that we could not change the title. I was merely clarifying that we had not made any change to the title in this bill, and this title had not been changed when the regulations and legislation was changed to insert denicotinisation and the reduced retailers and the abolition of those who could purchase cigarettes who were born from January 2009. So we haven’t amended it, it wasn’t amended previously, and that’s why we haven’t looked at making an amendment at this point.

I acknowledge the comments regarding the commencement date. I would emphasise the fact that this coalition agreement was not only between National and New Zealand First but it was also between National and ACT, and that was consistent across both parties around this amendment.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The tabled amendments to clause 1 in the names of the Hon Grant Robertson and Rachel Boyack are out of order as not an objective description of the bill.

The question is that—[Interruption] Votes are heard in silence. The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Personal vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that—if that was a serious call for a personal vote, the member is well aware that the only time that there is any doubt about the vote, that that will be called. I am in no doubt about the vote.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

There has been quite a lot of emotion and debate around this bill. That is understandable; smoking is an emotive subject. People have spoken of their personal experience with family members dying from effects of smoking tobacco. I sympathise, and I’ve lived the experiences. Smokers, their families, communities, and our health system all benefit from a reduction in smoking. I want to see a reduction in smoking, this Government wants it, and members opposite want it. What we disagree about is how.

I want to set out some facts for people listening to this debate. As I said, this is an emotive subject on which we feel passionately, and there have been some emotional statements, so it is important that we are very clear about what this bill and this Government is doing. There are three key facts. Firstly, this bill does not change a single regulation around smoking, around the sale and use of smoked tobacco products, that is in place today. Labour had plans to cut the number of retailers, introduce a low nicotine limit, and ban sales to all those born after 1 January 2009, but they were plans. One of those things was to happen later this year, one was to happen next year, and one was to happen in 2027. I reiterate: those changes are not yet in place. This bill reverses those plans and maintains the regulatory regime that is in place now and that was in place throughout Labour’s term. We are not stopping anything that is currently helping to drive smoking rates down.

Secondly, New Zealand’s smoking rates are falling rapidly. New Zealanders are quitting smoking. That is great news. In the last three years, 229,000 people have stopped smoking, and more than a third of those who quit were Māori. I mention the three figures because Labour’s plans and all the modelling that they keep talking about were based on figures from 2019 to 2020. Back then, the smoking rate was 11.9 percent, and the youth smoking rate was 10.3. The latest New Zealand Health Survey figures show an overall smoking rate of 6.8 and a youth smoking rate of 3 percent. When that survey started in 2011 to 2012, there were 119,000 young smokers. Last year, there was 19,000.

What that means, and the third point I want to make, is that smoking rates are falling because what we are doing is something that works. The regime that this bill keeps in place has seen smoking rates reduce, and we’re going to build on it. Our commitment is to provide smokers a range of tools, like vaping, that will help them to quit smoking. We will ensure the continued provision of effective stop-smoking services and supporting marketing campaigns, and we will ensure initiatives are targeted at those who need it the most. This will include Māori and Pacific peoples, who have higher smoking rates. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I repeat that tonight we have really passed through the looking glass to a world of unreality. For me personally, the most unreal thing about this debate is that as someone who came to this Parliament as an epidemiologist, to be told on multiple occasions that my request for facts, my demands to have a debate based on the actual policy, that the desire to have statistics and modelling actually answered are emotional contributions.

I could not have been more of a scientist when I brought together the three items that were in the 2022 bill that that is being repealed tonight. To remind the House what those are, we used the evidence from multiple scientific studies, multiple clinical trials to denicotinise cigarettes, because this is one of the most effective tools for helping people quit, and yet we are told that these interventions are not effective enough and that there are other effective alternatives.

It was our colleague Dr Reti who told us during the debate on the 2022 bill that this was so outstandingly effective that it should be brought in on its own. The bill included a well-studied initiative to reduce the number of retail outlets, because we know the number and density of retail outlets promote youth smoking and they undermine people’s ability to quit. And we brought in a smoke-free generation, a truly ambitious piece of law that would mean that the people who are young today, born after 2009, would never be able to legally purchase tobacco—

Hon Grant Robertson: Even Rishi Sunak liked that.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —and that all the harms we heard about tobacco would not be part of their future lives. As my colleague Grant Robertson is adding, this is not radical law; in fact, the Conservatives in the United Kingdom plan to bring this in. We used evidence in bringing that together.

We brought up modelling, and that modelling was done by international experts in modelling. It told us not only that the smoke-free goal wouldn’t be reached until 2061 without our Act; it also told us that it would take away a third of the life expectancy gap for wāhine Māori. On a day where we have done such harm to the ambitions and aspirations of Māori health, and have been told that that Government over there is focused on Māori health outcomes, the single thing that could be done to improve Māori health outcomes, they’re not going to do it. This would be the most powerful thing, and they’re not going to do it.

We’ve asked about Treaty obligations, because that is a factual element of how we should set law, and we haven’t had adequate answers on that. We’ve asked about the health consequences of this bill, and we’ve not had adequate engagement. We’ve had, “Yeah, there are problems, but these things wouldn’t be effective.” We’ve not had adequate answers on the financial costs of this bill. Instead, because there are no financial consequences of this bill, because there’s been no regulatory impact statement, we don’t know if the Government has been properly advised on the impacts of this bill on the health system, but I know from the advice that I got that it’s likely to cost the health system $5 billion.

We have seen multiple contributions to the previous Act from people up and down the country. Thousands of people came to the Health Committee and told us about the misery that tobacco causes in their lives. My colleague Tangi Utikere took some of those hearings throughout the country and really took the time to engage and learn from our community. And that opportunity, the opportunity to comment on the laws that we have to live by, was denied to the community, because this bill resulted from a dirty deal that’s been run through under urgency.

We’ve had a Minister in the chair tonight who has not really been able to answer questions but has just referred that the reason for the policy is the policy. It has been extremely frustrating. So if the Minister wants to describe that frustration as emotional, then perhaps she could take some responsibility for it by being able to give some proper answers.

The questions that we have about this whole policy area and the influence of tobacco lobbyists on this policy have not been adequately answered. We’ve been transacting with the Minister at question time, for multiple weeks, the issue of how a mystery document seeking tax breaks for the tobacco industry turned up in her office, and there’s been no good enough answer.

This stinks—it stinks. All of you need to think about the harm you are doing to our communities. All of the Government needs to think about that. I know Dr Reti is thinking about that, because I can see him over there. What’s he doing all the way over there? He’s been so quiet. I can barely see him in the distance. He’s sitting very far from the rest of his colleagues. I wonder what Dr Reti thinks. He hasn’t taken a call on this bill. Well, I just wonder if it’s shame.

Hon Grant Robertson: I think it will be.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yeah, I think it will be, because he’s a man who’s taken an oath to uphold health, and look what’s being done, which reminds me of all the people who support this initiative. It’s worth reminding ourselves who they are. The 45,000 New Zealanders who signed Hāpai te Hauora’s petition—we’re not listening to them tonight, are we? The more than 60 percent of New Zealanders who support the bill in its original form; they don’t support your repeal—we’re not thinking about them tonight at all. We’re not thinking about the hundreds of medical and health organisations that signed an open letter to the Prime Minister condemning the move to repeal this bill. The action that the Government is taking is deeply unpopular. It is unpopular because everyone in the country knows it’s wrong.

I want to finish my speech on a more positive note. I want to tell my colleagues that it’s been such an honour to work with them on smoke-free. I want to thank the people from cancer societies up and down the country who work tirelessly for smoke-free. I’ve had amazing meetings with cancer societies—those in South Canterbury and Palmerston North more recently are just some that stand out in my mind.

I want to remind all of the colleagues I met at marae up and down the country, including my friend from Te Pāti Māori on Manukau Marae, who have been activists for this cause for a long time. I want to thank all the health charities like the Stroke Foundation and diabetes groups who have worked for smoke-free for so, so long.

I want to thank the researchers, including those that have contributed so much to the debate about this bill and to the original piece of work that we passed. I want to acknowledge those, including those at the Public Health Communication Centre, who have put out evidence showing how so many of the arguments from that side of the House match up exactly with statements from the tobacco industry.

I want to particularly thank Health Coalition Aotearoa for their tireless work for this cause, their bringing together of activists and experts in this area; the health unions Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who organised rallies that we had up and down the country opposing the step this Government is taking; and the activists who have worked on this for a long time. There are too many to name, but they include Hone Harawira, Shane Bradbrook, Anaru Waa, Skye Kimura, and many others I have met up and down the country. On the weekend, I went to Hastings and met with Vape-Free Kids, and they’ve been in the gallery tonight. Minister, they still want a meeting with you.

I want to thank the medical students who have also campaigned on this issue and, in particular, the many, many young people who the Government has ignored tonight because of a politically convenient transaction. You are the people this Government has failed by bringing this Act through. You are the people who deserve a better go. You are the people who should be free from smoke. You should be free from corporate interests trying to steal your healthcare away from you. You should know that you could grow up in a community where if you had a disability or a chronic medical condition, you’d be more likely to get treatment for it, because we would have saved $5 billion of health costs if this bill hadn’t been repealed.

Those young people deserve a better future, not just the track that we’re already on. They deserve a new smoke-free generation. I know that all our collaborators and colleagues and allies inside the House and outside it will continue to work for that future. In particular, I am so proud to say that we will support a citizens initiated referendum to overturn this terrible move.

Debate interrupted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to determine the business for this Thursday.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you. I move, That the business for Thursday, 29 February be as follows: general business, including oral questions; a general debate; and members’ orders of the day Nos 1, 4, and 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just wanted to start my contribution, actually, firstly, by acknowledging the former Minister who had just resumed her seat: the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. When she was in that hot seat of being the health Minister, we did a lot of work on this legislation, and I think the former Minister will be the first to admit that the concerns that the Greens came to her with were about the potential for criminal prohibition and the potential of criminalising, particularly, young people with some of the moves under the headline of “the smoke-free generation”. What the former Minister did was engage wholesale and fulsomely with us to make sure that we addressed all of those potential concerns of criminalisation. That enabled us to get to a place where the Greens were comfortable with supporting evidence-based harm interventions to reduce substance harm in this country. So I just wanted to acknowledge, first and foremost off the bat, that what we had here was not only world leading in terms of its ability to reduce smoking harm but also that it modelled a way to move forward without entailing criminal prohibition.

Turning to the bill in front of us today. There’s been not too much ability to meaningfully canvass the content of it. The reason for that, of course, is that the Government introduced it today, and we started debating it at around 3 or 3.30 p.m. It’s now just getting to 11 p.m., and in the blink of an eye, in nine to 10 hours of debating time in this Chamber, the Government has pushed through, under urgency, world-leading, evidence-based, harm-minimisation legislation for one of the most deadly substances that we know of—a substance that will kill 50 percent of its consumers. “Why?” is the fundamental question. Why is this on the House’s agenda and why is it necessary to go through under urgency without due public scrutiny and the typical convention of this House?

Why? Well, so far we’ve been led round in circles by the Minister, who’s told us in the many back and forths that we attempted to have in the committee of the whole House that the reason this is happening is because of the coalition agreement between the New Zealand First Party and the National Party to form this Government. Well, why is it in that coalition agreement? Well, because it’s in the coalition agreement. Well, why is it in the coalition agreement? It’s because it’s in the coalition agreement. You can see the frustration in that tautology.

Hon Members: The coalition agreement!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I guess I just wanted to say to members of the Government and the governing parties who are heckling me at the minute that I get that this is a game for you guys, at this point. I get that it’s kind of, you know, “We’ll back our team and we’ll rally behind because this is the thing that we’re doing.” But these are people’s lives. Thirteen New Zealanders die every single day from consuming tobacco—

Hon Simeon Brown: We’ve got good policies.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —the Hon Simeon Brown—and they are going to continue to die at a faster rate than they would have otherwise had it not been for this repeal legislation, which your Government is pushing through under urgency tonight, because, Madam Speaker—noting that the Speaker’s just changed—we are confronted with, effectively, the kind of underlying principle or logic here of “Why save more lives? Why move faster? Why have any aspiration to apply the evidence and to move in a direction that would put us at the forefront of the world when it comes to actually meaningfully addressing these issues?”

I think some really salient points have been made, including by my colleague Steve Abel in his final contribution in the committee of the whole House on the title and commencement clauses, where he made the point about how, back in the day, we used to live in far smokier environments. I’d just actually invite members across this House to think about the fact that, only a few decades ago, this Chamber was one of those smoky environments where it was the case that members of Parliament and officers of Parliament and the Speaker could light up their cigarette and do so entirely legally. Because it was recognised that smoking and cigarettes were harmful, we moved towards an environment which was less and less smoky and, actually, fun fact, it wasn’t until 2016—2016—that the entire premises of Parliament finally became entirely smoke-free, including our lawn. That is very recent history and entirely indicative of the reality, as this place bares out time and again, that everything is impossible until it becomes possible, and all it takes in order to get to that place which, once upon a time, was fathomed impossible, is evidence and a little bit of backbone and courage to make it happen.

So not only are we left in this kind of haze as to why the Government’s progressing this through, because the only entities that we saw advocating for the repeal of this smoke-free generation legislation throughout the past year or so were New Zealand First and the tobacco industry, but who benefits? Who benefits from the passage of this law? Well, it’s not the more New Zealanders who are going to be addicted for longer only filling up this Government’s coffers by an approximate $500 million per annum as a result of increased excise in tobacco tax; it’s going to be the tobacco industry. Sure, actually, we could potentially reflect on that point that that half a billion dollars is going to add, in the short term, to the Government’s revenue and therefore make them able to pay for the tax cuts that they promised throughout the election campaign. But to contextualise that in the long run, outside of the three-yearly cycle, we know that this is going to cost us billions of dollars, and therefore it sits in entire contravention to the National Party’s proposals of social investment.

There’s actually no cost-benefit analysis that sits alongside this legislation, I might add, which again leaves us with the question of why this is occurring under the urgency. We heard, again, similarly circular logic from the Minister, to the effect that she was conflating the point that this was simply a part of the coalition agreement, with no information or understanding of where that came from provided to the House—but that was conflated with why this, for some reason, had to be introduced under urgency and couldn’t have a select committee process. Then, we were kind of ushered towards this hypothetical of what might exist into the future, without any meaningful detail as to what that might be or contain.

So we’ve kind of heard all of these weird arguments, which, on the one side, have said that this thing isn’t in effect yet, so therefore it’s not important, but yet we have a piece of repealing legislation that is being pushed through under urgency in order to repeal that thing which apparently is also not going to be effective but is also going to be far too effective. If you’re not following, Madam Speaker, that’s because there is no consistency and there is no rhyme nor reason nor logic to what it is that we have heard from the Government. I think that is perhaps why every single thing that we have heard from the Minister in arguing for this legislation tonight and throughout this afternoon has come from a defensive proposition. It has not been arguing for an aspirational future. It has not been arguing for evidence or where we should be moving to a vision of a healthier Aotearoa New Zealand; in fact, it has been defending a return to the status quo—back on track; or “back on baccie”, as my Green colleague said earlier.

I just really wanted to also drill into that point of the use of urgency, because I think it is a really important and salient one here, and one that has been a point of contention throughout the last few days. We’ve heard, time and again, from members of the Government that the reason that they feel entitled to push this and other legislation through under urgency is because they won an election—they won an election and they formed a Government, so therefore absolutely everything that they want to do, albeit that potentially only coming from one of the three coalition parties, is somehow able to be pushed through without any of the usual convention associated with the parliamentary process. So that kind of begs the question of whether they believe that authoritarian rule is “all g” simply because every three years we have a general election. Again, it simply begs the question of what kind of conventions of Parliament they are going to be upholding if all it takes to undermine those processes and those conventions is the fact that they were able to cobble together a Government subsequent to that election.

That then prompts another point, which is the point that—

Hon Scott Simpson: Remember 2017?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —they are pushing this under urgency, because, frankly, the Hon Scott Simpson, I think they’re embarrassed. That’s why the Hon Dr Shane Reti is sat in the corner up there—

Hon Scott Simpson: Remember 2017, the “coalition of the losers”? Remember that?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and not on the front bench, as he should be. That is why, the Hon Scott Simpson, this has been allocated to New Zealand First and not being led by the National Party. They want New Zealanders to forget. They are ripping off the band-aid really, really quickly in the hopes that this is swept under the rug amongst all of the other heinous things that they are doing under urgency and super-quickly with hopes that, into the future, New Zealanders forget it.

The final thing that I think is just really important to put forward to New Zealanders out there who have been following along at home, probably quite devastated, as many who have communicated with us in the Chamber are tonight, is that they need to remember not to leave politics to the politicians, because that’s what happens when you leave it to politicians and lobbyists. We oppose this legislation.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. If only you could ban misery. We haven’t heard the Opposition give an intelligent reckoning with a second and third order of facts of prohibition of cigarettes on an emerging black market. I recommend this bill to the House.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to rise on this third reading. Look, we want to be really clear: we want to continue to bring smoking down in New Zealand. We’ve seen it drop significantly over the past 12 years, from around 16 percent down to 8.6 percent last year, to 6.8 percent this year. On the way we’re going, we will reach our goal of having the average under 5 percent by 2025. This Government is committed to that goal. I’d like to note that Action for Smokefree 2025 has said that the progress we’re making is unprecedented.

We want to build on what has worked. We are not going to take the punitive regulatory approach that the Opposition would like us to do; we’re going to build on what has worked—what has continued to drive down smoking rates.

Look, no regulations or programmes that were in place before the election have been stopped. That is the reality. We’re supporting a package of initiatives to make sure we ensure a smoke-free goal of 2025. I support this bill.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. If the House would endure, I have decided to spend our five minutes—actually, four minutes and 52 seconds—on sharing and amplifying the voices of those who would have had the opportunity to have been heard had there been a process that wasn’t so urgent.

So I would like to share some of those voices that were part of the 45,000 submissions that came through to us, and make sure that those who are a part of this petition—those who are out there hoping that the politicians would hear and see them—that we indeed use this platform to use our sphere of influence to bring their voices to the House. I feel very sad that they didn’t get the opportunity, young and old. So, through you, e te Pīka:

“I’m a public health student in Aotearoa. Presumably this is a dead rat New Zealand First and ACT have made National swallow. I expect the action points from the regulations 2021 to be retained somehow, seeing this public pressure.” That was their hope.

“I am a student and I see this as a step backwards. We have a duty of care and responsibility to consider and protect future generations. Let’s not fail them.”

“Halt this disgraceful and wholly cynical move to dismantle an important aspect of public health policy. Because it makes sense: we know smoking kills people and especially those who are most vulnerable. We are an advanced society. We are better than this cheap behaviour.”

“My three moko will be part of the generation who will never smoke. They will live longer and have healthier lives than my generation. This Government intends sacrificing my mokos to make money. Not on my watch.”

“This is retrograde and doesn’t even make any rational economic sense. Alarming for Government posing as so-called competent managers of the economy.”

“Smoking killed my mother at an early age. It is utterly cynical to use addiction as a way of funding tax cuts.”

“A bad decision will destroy New Zealand generations. Please, please don’t do it. This is not what people voted for. It is an unbelievable abuse of power.”

“Because our Government is a cooked, colonised organisation”—their words; not mine—“who only care for money and pleasing the investors, they are greedy and live in the clouds and are clueless as to how this law change will kill future generations and make the poor poorer. It is sick and selfish, what they want to do. Support the smoke-free legislation.”

“This coalition Government has already shown its true colours. Money is more important than the health and wellbeing of our whānau.”

“To share my disgust with the new Government whose first act in power was to shame Aotearoa in the eyes of the progressive world—we made the front page of the BBC online news page.”

“My mum recently died from lung cancer. I don’t want a tax cut at the expense of our population’s health and our world-leading smoke-free plan. The Government are evil people for thinking this was ever an option. Disgusting behaviour from National, ACT, New Zealand First.”

“Us bottom feeders do not need a few cents’ tax cut, but we do need the tobacco industry to disappear from our shores. People over profit, always.”

“What possible reason is there to roll back legislation that stops tobacco companies damaging the people’s health for their own profit? Wouldn’t you be put in jail if you knowingly sold a product that kills people? Can’t believe this petition is even necessary. Embarrassed by the new Government.”

“Absolutely disgusting move to willingly allow people to die by the thousands from a problem that’s already been solved, because this is all about money and the new Government are disgusting and need to be held accountable. The inequity of the decision and the lack of evidence-led decision-making on this issue is shameful.”

“This Government is prioritising tax revenue over human health and it is shameful, because smoking kills, is horribly addictive, and is the number one risk factor in sudden infant death syndrome in babies.”

“Absolutely disgusting move to willingly allow people to die by the thousands from a problem”—again—“that’s already been solved”—sorry. “Watching a loved one escape nicotine addiction looked like trying to escape quicksand. I don’t want my kids having to do that in the future, just to get the rich richer. It is outrageous to put taxes ahead of health.” Kia ora rā. We stand in opposition to this disgusting bill.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. The disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, and now the repeal of our smoke-free legislation, within hours of each other, shows we have a Government that doesn’t care for the existing health disparities between Māori and non-Māori, and those impacted most in low socio-economic communities.

I think about taking from the poor and giving to the rich, because, as we open the floodgates for more tobacco in our communities, it is te iwi Māori and those of low socio-economic backgrounds that will be most impacted. This bill, this legislation, in my mind, is pōhauhau—it is absurd. It makes me pukuriri—makes me angry. It’s just downright pōhēhē—it’s wrong. It’s wrong because we hear from the Government all night that they’re trying to build on the gains that have been made through the generations, because, yes, we have seen reductions. But can I go to the Action on Smoking and Health Year 10 Smokefree Snapshot survey and point out to the Minister that there are unacceptable gaps still between Māori and non-Māori in 14-year-olds who smoke. The Māori stats are 6.2 percent of year 10s across the country; for non-Māori, it is 2 percent. That is a huge gap, still. Of those young people surveyed, 25 percent of them are wāhine Māori. These are taitamariki; these are our future. They are the buffer; they’re the inheritors of this change. It is a dramatic change for our country because we have come so far. The smoke-free generation is now gone. It is in the ashtray.

As a mother of the smoke-free generation, I worry about the future of our young people. I wanted to address the Minister of Māori Development, the Hon Tama Potaka, because we share children of the same age, and appeal to him. For Māori development, we need our engine room to be strong and healthy and thriving. But tobacco impacts te iwi Māori more than any other population in New Zealand; 5,000 people die of smoking-related illnesses, te nuinga ko te iwi Māori [the majority of whom are Māori people].

What engagement has been done with te iwi Māori on the proposal to repeal the smoke-free legislation? Well, there’s been none, because there was never a campaign on it. There’s been none, because there’s been no hui. There will be none, because we’re in urgency, and New Zealanders and te iwi Māori are shut out of the process. So we stand as a small voice to advocate for those who have no voice in this House.

I think about iwi accountability. While I have the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health, as Ngātiwai uri, in the House, I’d like to raise the fact that our iwi has invited both Ministers to meet with our people on the marae and talk about their plans to improve Māori health outcomes. E te Minita the Hon Shane Reti and Minita the Hon Casey Costello: Ngātiwai Trust Board posted today reiterating the invitation from 14 December 2023. Nau mai, hoki mai ki te kāinga. [Welcome home.]

Because in te iwi Māori, accountability isn’t every three years when there’s an electoral cycle; in te iwi Māori, it happens every day. In te iwi Māori, it happens on your marae, and, in te iwi Māori, it’s in your direct messages as they harass you to say more—when my 80-year-old auntie’s messaging me saying, “Kōtiro, you’re not saying enough. This is outrageous. Get up!” and I say, “Oh, auntie, there’s a tikanga. I can’t just get up any time. It’s not the marae.” But that’s the passion that’s coming from our kāinga and the worry that our people have for now and into the future as we see the smoke-free generation go down the toilet, into the ashtray, and out into the harbour.

May I invite this Government to consider presenting their plan quickly because the people of New Zealand need to know tomorrow—what is the plan?—not in six months’ time. You’re repealing this now and yet you didn’t need to. Put it through the Health Committee—we’re all here listening, we just had our chair speak—and let the people of New Zealand in for once. Kia ora tātou.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. We have traversed the area multiple times today that, before this previous amendment came into power, we had already reduced smoking rates to a point where we have reached or nearly reached our smoke-free targets, which is less than 5 percent.

We will continue to support initiatives to provide people with practical tools and support to help them quit. You can choose to smoke; you don’t choose to be a victim of crime. This bill changes the process, not the goal, and there are better ways to reduce harm. Prohibition approaches do not have the greatest track record. Therefore, I recommend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation this evening. It is a dark day in this Parliament today. We started with the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, and, at that time, I did a passionate speech, a well-prepared speech, because I spend a lot of time with health practitioners, people that are in my ear telling me to do better. I started that speech talking about my marae in the valley of Moawhango, and the Rangitīkei—the person that is talking over my speech at the moment that represents that rohe—and, like Hūhana Lyndon, I appeal to the Minister for Māori Development tonight. And what I didn’t say today is that in this room we have whanaunga connections. We share a tipuna, the Minister for Māori Development and I, in Mōkai Pātea and across to Te Pāti Māori with Takutai Natasha Kemp.

And what I said this morning is that when I go back to my marae in Moawhango, I hope that I can say that I have done better by my service in this House. Māori members of Parliament are held to an additional threshold to everyone else in this Parliament. Yes, we all serve our communities, yes, we serve our constituents, but, at the end of the day, we go back to our marae and we explain to our people. At the start of today, we explained that we’ll be going back to our marae to say that we’ve lost the fight today to take seven years off their life, and, under this one, that we go backwards on addressing health inequities and particularly the rates of smoking for Māori.

The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022 would have reduced tobacco outlets from 6,000—6,000—to 600, denicotinised tobacco, and created a smoke-free generation—a smoke-free generation. But what is important is listening to the voices that we usually hear in this House. And I am saddened that up here in the gallery, just like in the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, people aren’t here hearing the debates ā-kanohi—in person—feeling the wairua of this discussion, because it’s shameful. It is disgraceful—

Cameron Brewer: You had your chance.

SHANAN HALBERT: —and it is an assault on Māori, Cameron Brewer. These two pieces of legislation impact our people, impact our rangatahi, and impact our tamariki, because, like many, I have grown up intergenerationally with smokers.

The person just before who said it’s a choice to smoke: after generation after generation after generation, do you really think that our rangatahi have a choice not to smoke? Today, you choose not to protect them. You should hang your heads in shame, because not everyone’s on track—not everyone’s on track. If you read Hāpai te Hauora’s comments on this particular kaupapa, Māori will not reach the 5 percent target for a smoke-free 2025. Modelling shows that unless we act with urgency, Māori will be left behind and not reach this goal till 2040.

The smoking rates for Māori remain alarmingly high at 17.1 percent, compared to our non-Māori counterparts at 6.1 percent. Māori continue to face substantial barriers to quitting smoking. Low-income communities have four times more tobacco retailers situated in their communities, hooking more whānau into addiction.

Now, that word “urgency” is important, but not in terms of urgency in this House. It is a failure on our democracy, tonight, that we haven’t taken the time to allow the critical voices of Māori to participate in this debate. Just as importantly, we have not allowed the voices, the expertise, and the evidence from health practitioners to come and contribute to this debate, to hold the Government to account—just like this side of the House is tonight. It is an embarrassment that you have chosen to ram through such legislation through this House in urgency, not allowing those voices to have a say. Not just have a say—but because these are such sensitive kaupapa that affect our indigenous people, therefore they affect everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The question has to be asked: who’s moving who? Who is the boss in this Government? Because Luxon, our Prime Minister, says that he’s serious about the outcomes for Māori, but here we see the first health policy from this Government and all it promotes for Māori is death—is death. That is the reality of what we are talking about tonight.

I am passionate about this topic because, at the start of the year—my whānau are impacted by decisions such as these. It is a difficult journey for any family that has to go through a cancer scare, a cancer diagnosis of those loved ones close to you. And when you sit in that doctor’s room and hear that information come through, you sit and think about “What could have I done?”—what could have I done? So tonight, colleagues, members of Parliament, my whanaunga the Minister of Māori Development, the Minister of Health—a health practitioner that signed up, as a doctor, to do no harm to others; to do no harm to others. To my colleagues on this side of the House who have stood all day, shoulder to shoulder to fight these shocking pieces of legislation—

Hon Scott Simpson: Most of them weren’t here.

SHANAN HALBERT: I’ve been here all day.

Hon Scott Simpson: Most of them haven’t been.

SHANAN HALBERT: The assault—

Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Madam Speaker. There was an interjection suggesting that members were not here. That’s against parliamentary rules.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There was nobody named in that interjection. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll continue. In my one-minute 30 that I have left, I ask: who’s the boss? Who’s actually making the decisions? How do people come into this Parliament with such motivation that they didn’t campaign on? But, yes, each of you have to go back to your communities and explain what happened, because I know that the whānau in Maraenui do not support this piece of legislation, that they will be impacted the most; that the people in Rongowhakaata down to Tairāwhiti, they will be impacted by this piece of legislation. The people in Massey, one of the most deprived parts of Auckland’s North Shore—they do not support this legislation. And so, each of you, I look at you and ask you to dig deep, because, while this is a political environment, we have an obligation to serve, to do better, to care for our whānau, and to ensure that we protect generations to come. The arrogance that I have seen from that side of the House, in such a sensitive kaupapa this evening, is disgraceful.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): We want to make it clear this Government is still committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal. Just because we use a different approach doesn’t mean that we can’t achieve the same outcome. Our policy is to help people quit smoking and to stop young people from starting smoking and vaping. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I am disgusted that that previous speaker, Carlos Cheung, on this important kaupapa, gave 12 seconds of his care, his life, and his attention to this incredibly important matter. It is not too late for members of the Government to do the right thing, and that is to do the right thing in principle, with a moral compass, and to do the right thing by their constituents, who overwhelmingly do not want this repeal. I can tell you that the latest data from the Health Coalition Aotearoa is 53,000 signatures, not 45,000. Today, there has been a groundswell of signatures from people imploring their MPs, imploring their Government MPs, to do the right thing. It is not too late, as I said previously. They can cross the floor tonight. They can treat this with their conscience and do the right thing and make history and restore faith in our democratic system.

This is a very, very sad day for New Zealand democracy. We have lost the Māori Health Authority under urgency. We are losing this battle. We have got moments to go in which these MPs can do the right thing. We have lost a major news organisation. These are the checks and balances on unfettered power, and what we have seen has been wholly inadequate in the way that this Government has treated this bill. I would like to say that the sniggering and sneering and treating with contempt and the joking kind of approach that we have seen from members opposite says so much about the fact of what they think about this kaupapa and how they feel about the fact that 8,000 lives are at stake—8,000 lives that could’ve been saved. They will have blood on their hands.

What was so appalling tonight was the committee of the whole House stage. We tried to get answers out of the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello, and, to her credit, she is not the one doing the sniggering. She is sitting there, but she did not answer our questions. She went round and round in circles. We asked her about the rationale. We asked her what was so prescient to make this a bill that had to go through urgency and that needed to happen with very scant evidence, if no evidence, because we could not get any evidence of the evidence. We got no answers from her. There was a reference to a coalition agreement; it was a tautology. It was just useless. We are seeing the removal of the smoke-free generation in one fell swoop.

When people put amendments forward to say, “What about just changing the number of retail outlets? Let’s just compromise a little bit.”, this Government was not having a bar of it; the Minister was not having a bar of it. Denicotinisation, that very difficult word that we struggle with—that would’ve made a huge difference, even if we didn’t go the whole hog. The Minister was not prepared to budge on it, and there were no reasons given as to why she was so firmly positioned supporting the tobacco lobbies with this bill.

There were questions about regulation, about normal consumer protections that apply to every other retail sector. We didn’t get any answers. The way this has been done, it has been—pardon the pun—smoke and mirrors. There was no campaign on this. There was no select committee. There has been a shameful abuse of urgency, in my view, and there haven’t really been adequate interviews in the media, the fourth estate, which is one of the last checks and balances—the Minister has refused to engage with them. Then we find out today in question time, oh, there’s going to be revenue gained, revenue that will help to pay for tax cuts.

The members opposite have some time to cross the floor. In the meantime, as they ponder that, whether they will do the right thing, I promise New Zealanders that we on this side of the House will continue to remind them every single week of this shameful piece of legislation, right up till the election. May I implore through you, Madam Speaker, to those outside watching this: do not forget this moment. Do not forget that this Government has thrown our children under the bus, our smoke-free generation. When it comes time to the election, whether that is in 18 months or whether that is in three years, this should be what makes you cast your vote. Don’t you ever forget, because they have blood on their hands.

Todd Stephenson: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That is unparliamentary language. “Blood on their hands” infers that the members of the Government are actually murdering people and that should be a withdraw and apologise.

Shanan Halbert: Speaking to the point of order?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I never actually called the point of order.

Todd Stephenson: Oh well, I’m going to say it again, then. Point of order, Madam Speaker?

Shanan Halbert: Just checking: are you calling the point of order?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I just want to use one of these last closing calls from the National Party to pay tribute to Dame Tariana Turia and the work that she did 14 years ago with the Smokefree 2025 initiative, and the work that she did with Bill English and John Key in that fifth National Government on Smokefree 2025 to halve smoking rates—and we’ve done better than that—the two pieces of landmark legislation in 2011 and 2014 under the National Government. In fact, on 18 October in the New Zealand Herald: “Dame Tariana Turia believes more can be accomplished for Māori health under National”. That was the headline. So I want to pay tribute to Dame Tariana and the work that she did and to tell her that we will reinforce that work, we will reinvigorate that work, we will recharge that work, and we will relaunch that work. We are committed to Smokefree 2025, and we’re on track. I commend the bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—thank you. It’s not a pleasure, but it is something that I have to do in so far as talking in this third reading of this bill. It’s not a pleasure, because it’s a really sad day. I think that Cameron Brewer’s contribution that he just made possibly sounded a little bit different in his head, because I’m not entirely sure that anybody he referenced in that contribution would be thinking the same things as he just regaled us with.

The Minister has repeatedly said that this isn’t the end position. She wants to see a stop to smoking—sounds good. And further, she is continuing the continuation of her work on strategies that will reach a smoke-free target. Yet throughout this process, she hasn’t been able to give anyone any confidence whatsoever that she has a single idea, let alone a good idea, that will actually work. She had the audacity earlier to say it’s an emotional issue. It’s not an emotional issue; it’s a deadly issue.

Frankly, with the poor judgment that’s been shown to date throughout this debate, which has only taken one day, when it should have gone through a proper process rather than urgency, there has been a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals. A complete lack of understanding of what evidence is, of what empirical evidence is, of what the modelling shows, and all of the work that numerous experts have done in this domain over many years. Does the Minister really think that anyone now trusts her to come up with some magic solutions that no one’s thought of before? Because she’s just hiffed out the universally acknowledged gold standard, and it’s been chucked in the bin in this unceremonious, unruly, ridiculous way in urgency tonight.

When I think about the harm that this causes, it really does make me feel a little bit livid. This change can’t be justified from any health perspective at all. There is no health perspective in this debate. There is no logic or health logic in anything that’s going on in this House tonight. We will see more people suffer, we will see more people be sick, and, therefore, more people clogging up our hospitals with the healthcare costs that are associated with that down the line, with the people that then miss out on the treatments that they need because of that, not to mention the associated costs of just people not being at work—the productivity costs.

The harms that tobacco does in our communities are clear. And the evidence—actual evidence—shows us that the smoke-free legislation that we introduced in 2022 that’s been hiffed out tonight would have saved about 8,000, and that is nothing to sniff at, is it? That’s 8,000 human beings who would be alive if this Government had the fortitude to carry on with a piece of legislation that was delivered to them on a plate, apart from the fact that they have to pander to the tobacco lobby to repeal it. It would have extended Māori life expectancy and it would have saved about $5 billion in healthcare costs, and that’s a real shame.

It’s a particular shame because, when we consider the impetus for this, the reality is that the Government’s simply turning a blind eye to that damage. They’re turning a blind eye and they’re resolutely ignoring everything that’s gone on tonight because they need to fund tax cuts. It’s an indictment on this Government’s priorities that we’re literally here repealing smoke-free laws to fund tax cuts that are disproportionately favourable to our most wealthy.

Now, many people have said, and let me reiterate, the National Party did not campaign on this repeal at the election. New Zealanders, I think, have been quite shocked. I know I’ve certainly run into people who have had some buyers’ remorse. They’ve been shocked by the plans to scrap this legislation, and it’s been described as a dirty deal done behind closed doors. Other people on the other side have interjected to say it’s a coalition arrangement—it’s a coalition agreement. The Minister herself even expanded that to say it wasn’t just the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement; it was the National-ACT coalition agreement as well, as if that somehow made it better. As I said: dirty deal done behind closed doors.

National has cherry-picked details to misrepresent and deliberately mislead the public, and you could see this happening as they tippytoed up to this issue before they dropped the bomb. They said things like there would be only one store in Northland retailing tobacco, when there would actually be 35. They were sowing the seeds of all that misinformation just to prepare the public for this.

Two more points. The other main impetus cited for the scrapping is the black market. We’ve talked about it earlier on tonight. Historically, we know—we know—there is little evidence that these measures significantly increase illicit tobacco trade in New Zealand or anywhere else in the world. I think it’s a real shame when things like that are brought into the debate and used to scare people. It’s the bogeyman, isn’t it? The black market! It doesn’t exist. Past tobacco control measures, despite claims from the tobacco industry—

Tim Costley: What?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: It does exist on the websites of the tobacco industries. It does exist in the minds of some economists who are very motivated to do that. But it hasn’t been shown to empirically exist in any meaningful way to warrant this scrapping.

The other thing that is the impetus behind this, which does not balance out 8,000 lives lost and does not balance out $5 billion wasted, is that the data used to justify this wasn’t accurate because it was as current as 2019. Again, that’s another example of a Minister who doesn’t understand statistics completely misunderstanding the use of whole numbers versus trends, modelling, and all the other expertise that go into making those accounts.

The public response is something that I want to finish my contribution on. Health professionals and groups all across the country, I think, have been quite loud and quite clear when they have said that they don’t want to see this repeal. We absolutely, on this side of the House, are completely united when we share those concerns, and we worry about those vocalisations about these health groups, because we know that they’re the experts. We know that they know what they’re talking about.

Polling commissioned by Health Coalition Aotearoa showed that 67 percent of New Zealanders supported our smoke-free legislation. Hundreds of health groups have signed open letters opposing this repeal. We saw rallies and demonstrations organised throughout the country in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, organised by the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and organised by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, where we literally saw health professionals—mainly health professionals—carrying posters of “Dr Shane Cigareti”. They had health posters showing Hamish Campbell, sitting over there, and Dr Vanessa Weenink. They were holding posters because they were so shocked that people from the medical professions would be part of this.

I want to reiterate my colleague Ingrid Leary’s plea prior: it is not too late. You can cross the House, and you can do the right thing. I know that you’ve been under pressure. I know that the people who work in health, in particular, have been under a huge amount of pressure. But it’s not too late.

Actually, speaking of the Hon Dr Reti, he can’t escape and he can’t run from his responsibilities for this decision. Just because the first thing he did was to callously delegate this to a brand new Minister, who is clearly out of her depth, who clearly does not understand the legislation, does not take away from the part that he’s played in turning this legislation backwards. He campaigned on a health system being in crisis, and the first thing he does is actually repeal a piece of legislation that would properly do something to address that.

This repeal helps nobody but the tobacco industry, and that has been said on numerous occasions, even with some warning about not going too far. I don’t know if we can go too far with this. This repeal helps nobody but the tobacco industry. In fact, the Government’s talking points have literally been cribbed from their websites. You could make a table. We have made a table: what the Government’s saying; what they’re saying on their website—it’s deplorable.

Yet we also have the mystery of that document—that mysterious document proposing tax cuts, written by goodness knows who—magically appearing in the Minister’s office, which she passed on to officials. All of that adds up to the fact that this stinks. It’s a sad day. I feel embarrassed for all of the people on that side of the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I’m not sure what kind of world we’re living in these days. It seems to be that we’re now in the ultimate nanny State. That’s what they want. They believe that the Government can just legislate and all the problems will go away. There’s no responsibility on the individual! There’s no personal responsibility! “We’ll just rule it out and turn on the blinkers. There’s no black market”—clearly wasn’t listening to her colleagues being emphatic the other day, where Customs said the biggest issue they have on the black market is tobacco. They’re asking for consistency and they want to have a smoke-free generation, but the Green Party also want to introduce new drugs to smoke.

I’ll tell you what I believe in. It’s not just in mucking around with supply. It’s about killing the demand. It’s about giving people the tools to actually tackle this. That’s how we’ll do it. That’s what we’re focused on. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that it’s 10 to midnight and we’ve just finished that item of business, I wondered: could I move that the House rise rather than to start the next item on the Order Paper—which the Minister would find himself cut off in the middle of his speech?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Are you seeking leave?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I’m seeking leave for the House to rise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll put the leave. Is everybody in agreement?

Hon Members: No.

Bills

Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I move, That the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Madam Speaker, it’s getting a bit late here at Parliament and I know the other side are very keen to go home, but it’s a great day for Aucklanders. We are repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax and kicking off the parliamentary process to get rid of Labour’s Auckland regional fuel tax.

The bill will remove Labour’s regressive 11.5c per litre Auckland regional fuel tax, which has been adding a significant cost to Aucklanders over the past few years, adding pain at the petrol pump but failing to deliver the infrastructure that this tax promised to Aucklanders. This legislation to remove this tax is a key priority in the coalition Government’s 100-day plan, and I want to start by acknowledging my National Party colleagues and my ACT and New Zealand First Party colleagues for supporting this bill through the House.

Aucklanders voted for change at the last election, last year; 57.8 percent of Aucklanders voted for the coalition Government. So when members opposite will get up shortly, maybe in another part of this debate, and try and claim that they have some sort of moral mandate on what Aucklanders think—well, Aucklanders voted for change, they voted for the parties in this Government, and we were elected on the promise of axing the Auckland regional fuel tax. And it might sound radical, but we are delivering on this promise. We campaigned on it, we promised it, people voted for it, and now we are delivering it.

There are a number of reasons why the coalition Government is progressing with this bill. Firstly, fuel costs are a significant cost to taxpayers, to households, and this bill will provide relief for households and Aucklanders who have been facing a high cost of living. For example, for those who drive a Toyota Corolla, around $5.75 per tank; for those who drive a Toyota Hilux, around $9.20 per tank—this will make a significant difference.

Members opposite, who, when they put this legislation into Parliament, said this tax was going to deliver major infrastructure projects for Auckland, was going to deliver Mill Road down through South Auckland—a major new highway to unlock the south of Auckland—well, their project’s been cancelled more times than it’s been started by that Government. They said they were going to deliver other major infrastructure projects across Auckland, but what have they delivered? Well, I’ll read some of the projects on the list.

Speed bumps—speed bumps. So you’ve got 11.5c per litre additional fuel tax being charged on Aucklanders, and what do they get? A speed bump to slow them down. And not only a speed bump, but Auckland Transport have become perfectionists at building the most expensive speed bumps. The most expensive speed bumps in the world, in fact: close to $500,000. That’s right, close to $500,000 for a speed bump in Auckland. What a significant waste of money. That is not what Aucklanders want to see.

But also red light cameras: so we’re having a fuel tax, meant to pay for to improve infrastructure, now being used to, basically, put red light cameras in place. And, look, red light cameras have their place, but I’m not sure if that’s what Aucklanders thought they were signing up for when they were told 11.5c per litre extra was what they were going to pay.

And let’s add another one to the list: slowing speed limits down. You’re paying more for your fuel, to get a slower speed limit to get around Auckland. I don’t think that was what Aucklanders thought they were signing up for when the Auckland regional fuel tax was put in place.

There are many good reasons to get rid of this tax. Now, there is also another good reason to get rid of this tax. The reality is this tax hasn’t even been able to be spent. There is over $300 million—over $300 million—sitting in a bank account, unspent. That is over two years’ worth of Auckland regional fuel tax revenues—two years of Auckland regional fuel tax revenue which has not even been spent. There is a failure to even deliver against the speed bump targets that Auckland Transport and Auckland Council sought to set.

And so we don’t think it’s right to continue to tax Aucklanders, when they’re not getting the delivery on the infrastructure that Aucklanders need. We think that they’re not even managing to deliver against that tax with hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent revenues. So this legislation will repeal the Auckland regional tax fuel tax. It won’t just repeal it for Auckland; we are disestablishing the regional fuel tax legislation, which will mean that there will not be the ability under legislation for any regional fuel tax to be put in place in other regions as well. We think that is the right approach, rather than this rinky-dink approach that has been employed by the last Government and has failed to deliver whilst increasing taxes for Aucklanders.

The question will be asked—and I know members opposite have been asking a range of questions—in regard to the remaining funds. I know Aucklanders will want to be clear as to what is happening—$340 million, and we’re proposing that this fuel tax will end on 1 July this year, which could mean there will be additional revenue raised between now and then. That date is intentional: it aligns with the Auckland Council’s annual budget plan, in terms of the fact that we don’t want to end the tax partway through their budget year. So that will mean there will be further revenues collected between now and then. This legislation means that those revenues will be ring-fenced to some priority projects that are under way in Auckland and have been identified in conversations with Auckland mayor Wayne Brown.

There are three particular categories. The first one is the City Rail Link trains and stabling, and that will mean that the continuation of that investment will support the City Rail Link. Let’s talk about the City Rail Link for a second. It was started by the last National Government. It will be delivered under the coalition Government in 2026—unlike light rail, or “light fail”, as I call it: $228 million and not one metre of track laid after six years, spinning the wheels on the ghost train in Auckland and not getting anywhere. So that’s the first project.

The second one is the Eastern Busway in Reeves Road and a flyover which will help connect the eastern suburbs into the rail network. The third one will be some local roading improvements, including the important Glenvar Road and East Coast Road intersection upgrade, and also Lake Road in the great electorate of the North Shore.

So that is what this legislation does. This Government is committed to delivering on our promises. We were elected on a mandate, we’re now delivering on our promises, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

Members, the Government has indicated that it does not wish to progress business further tonight. This debate is therefore interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12 midnight (Wednesday)