Wednesday, 20 March 2024

WEDNESDAY, 20 MARCH 2024

WEDNESDAY, 20 MARCH 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/PrayerS

Karakia/PrayerS

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

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Te Pāti Māori requesting that the House remove GST from all food sales in Aotearoa, and note that 19,864 people have signed a petition to this effect.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: 2022-23 annual report for the New Zealand Productivity Commission.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of the Public Service Commission.

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. The IMF has recently been in New Zealand to conduct its annual review of the economy. It released a concluding statement today that describes its preliminary findings. Consistent with other forecasters, the IMF expects growth to remain slow in 2024, before picking up in 2025. It’s the lagged impact: the legacy of the last Government of monetary policy tightening, suppressing domestic demand. As a result of this slowing in demand, the IMF expects inflation to come back into the Reserve Bank’s 1 percent to 3 percent target range in the third quarter of 2024.

SPEAKER: Joseph Mooney.

Joseph Mooney: [Looks at phone] My apologies, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: What’s that, sorry?

Joseph Mooney: What other—[Interruption] Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Hang on a moment.

Joseph Mooney: What other reports has the Minister seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, thank you to the member. He’s allowed to ask me any question he likes about the IMF report, because I have a lot of comments to make about it. One of the things the IMF report comments on is New Zealand’s fiscal position, saying that the Government is running a structural fiscal deficit with a spending-to-GDP ratio higher this year following Budget 2023’s sizeable operating and capital allowances. The IMF also says that, in recent years, debt has increased more rapidly in New Zealand than in many other advanced economies, and that New Zealand’s debt will continue its upward trajectory if there is no decisive consolidation. Members will recall that I have consistently been saying the same thing about New Zealand’s deficit and debt in this House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I understand there’s a little bit of a pantomime that goes on when it comes to Government questions. But a member getting out of their seat to go and ask a Minister what question they’re allowed to ask in the middle of trying to ask a question somewhat makes a mockery of the Parliament’s process.

SPEAKER: Firstly, you’ve probably lost the point of order on the opening statement with regards to “pantomime”—sympathetic as one might be to that suggestion. But it’s also not possible, even with your considerable amount of skill, to have lip-read what was actually being said when someone had their back to you. So a point is made.

Hon David Seymour: How do these levels of debt fit within wider time frames over several decades or even as long as the Deputy Prime Minister’s lifetime?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I outlined to this House yesterday, New Zealand’s debt levels are now at a level that we haven’t seen since the late 80s, mid-1990s.

Joseph Mooney: What are the IMF’s policy prescriptions that she’s seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF says that the Government’s fiscal strategy should signal a strong commitment to consolidation, and it says that Budget 2024 should adopt a tight fiscal stance to help reduce inflation. More broadly, the IMF’s statement says that policies to boost housing supply are urgently needed and that changes in zoning can be effective. I’m sure my colleague the Minister of Housing clearly agrees wholeheartedly. The IMF also goes on to say that reforms are needed to revive New Zealand’s slow productivity growth.

Joseph Mooney: How is the Government planning on addressing New Zealand’s productivity challenges?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last Friday, I set out the Government’s growth strategy in a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber. The strategy has five pillars: building infrastructure for growth and resilience; lifting educational achievement and skills; strengthening trade and investment; promoting innovation, science, and technology; and improving regulation. The Government cannot do this alone; it requires businesses to pitch in as well, and feedback is that business welcomes the chance to work with a Government intent on removing obstacles rather than tying them up in regulation and red tape.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. 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, I do, and in particular I stand by this Government’s action to restore responsibilities by Kāinga Ora tenants to respect their home and their neighbours if they want to remain in their State house. The status quo is not fair on neighbours faced with disruptive or abusive behaviour and nor is it fair on taxpayers, who foot the bill for that house, to fail to uphold the standards expected of that rent. And I have to say, I agree with that member when he said that he didn’t do enough on unruly tenants in six years, and that’s quite obvious, because there are 335 serious complaints every month over the last three months and, in particular, there are three evicted tenants in the last year. So I make no apologies for being tough on making sure we make sure Kāinga Ora tenants are meeting their obligations.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to change the criteria for access to disability support entitlements, and was the Cabinet consulted on that decision?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say on that is that there has been no change to the disability services support budget from the budget that was set in your last Government. What there has been is a tightening up of the criteria of the modifications and equipment budget to make sure that disabled people are getting the direct support that they need.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was actually, “Who made the decision?” The Prime Minister has just indicated that there has been a decision made to change the criteria. I asked him who made that and whether Cabinet was consulted on it.

SPEAKER: OK, well, ask it again. We’ll pretend it hasn’t happened, and you can get another answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to change the criteria for access to disability support entitlements, and was the Cabinet consulted?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The ministry made the decision to tighten up the criteria for modifications and equipment, which is a piece of the total disability services budget.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Minister for Disability Issues seek additional funding to meet the shortfall in disability support funding before reducing the entitlement criteria?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I want to be clear with that member about is that this Government is maintaining the total budget that the member’s Government signed off in May last year. The total budget for disability services has remained unchanged. That is an area of pressure, and that is something that we’re considering for our Budget with respect to how we can better support front-line services.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question that was asked. It was actually a very straight question. You indicated yesterday that, if I ask straight questions, you’ll have more sympathy. The question was very straight and simple: did the Minister for Disability Issues seek additional funding to meet the shortfall in disability support funding before reducing the entitlement criteria?

SPEAKER: Yes, but the answer that came—I did listen to your question, and I listened to the answer—was that the Government is working a different process, I suppose you might say, with regards to a more comprehensive, I think the term was, full budget approach, which I think does answer the question. It certainly addresses the question, which, as you know, is all that has to happen.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It cannot possibly address the question, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, it cannot possibly be addressing the question. The Prime Minister has indicated that the overall budget hasn’t changed. The question of whether the Minister had asked for more money hasn’t been addressed at all.

SPEAKER: Well, look—OK. The Prime Minister can have another crack at it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, the total budget for disability support services remained unchanged from that member’s previous Government commitment in the Budget last year—one. Number two: what I’d say to you is we’ve got a Budget process going between now and when the Budget is delayed, and there’s an understanding that yes, we need better support for some front-line services. That will be considered as part of a normal Budget process, which the member will well understand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Minister for Disability Issues ask for more funding to meet the shortfall?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And as I’ve explained to that member, we’re in the middle of a Budget process where we are working through the needs of the Budget for May. That is part of that process. We are cognisant of the need for better front-line services support in a number of areas, and we’re working hard to deliver that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the estimated funding shortfall for disability support entitlements in the current financial year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that is a discussion for the Budget process, which is up and running right now.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the estimated annual cost of reinstating interest deductibility for landlords once that policy is fully implemented?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’m very proud about that policy is making sure that it delivers for the renters of New Zealand. The Labour Party used to care about renters in New Zealand, but they lifted rents up $170 per week—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister doesn’t know, he can say he doesn’t know, but to simply not answer the question and then attack the Opposition, when the question is a very straight one—there was no assertion in it; it was simply a straight question as to what the cost of a Government policy which has been announced is.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The total cost is $2.9 billion over four years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why can Cabinet agree on tax cuts for landlords prior to the Budget, as announced on 10 March and as indicated in the statement that he’s just made, but not on boosting disability support funding and instead cutting entitlements for the families who receive them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely with that last part of that statement. What I’m saying to the member very clearly is that this Government is working to the budget that that member and his Government put in place last year. That is the total budget that we’re working for. We have a new Budget coming at the end of May, and we are considering a range of needs and a range of front-line services.

Question No. 3—Health

3. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to deliver better cancer services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In our first few months, we have made progress in both the cancer diagnostic and cancer management spaces. These announcements have been backed up by the introduction of an ambitious faster cancer treatment target. That target aims for 90 percent of patients to receive cancer management within 31 days of a decision to treat. This will help ensure the delivery of timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic cancer services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Just last week, the Prime Minister and I were at the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau. This is a great example of taking health services directly into communities and is expected to reach up to 6,000 women a year. These mobile units will have an important role to play in our recently announced age extension for breast cancer screening, which was announced as part of our 100-day plan.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why is it so important to improve access to diagnostic cancer services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Improving access to diagnostic services will save lives. That is why it is so important to us. The extension of breast cancer screening means that around 120,000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. We know that catching more cancers early means better treatment outcomes. I’m informed an additional 22 lives could be saved every year on the current uptake and 65 with full uptake.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic technology across New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I thank the member for his question—I’m sure that, as a representative for the South Island, this answer will be of particular interest to him. The Government recently announced that Health New Zealand has approved funding for an updated set of criteria that will allow for about 1,000 more publicly funded PET/CT scans per year in the South Island. For example, this will remove geographic variation that previously meant people in the South Island would have to travel to the North Island to access publicly funded PET/CT scans.

Question No. 4—Energy

4. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Energy: What actions, if any, has he taken to establish a fuel security plan?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy): Apologies, Mr Speaker, there’s a frog in my throat. The coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party commits to the establishment of a fuel security plan to safeguard transport, logistics, and emergency services from any domestic or international disruption. The Government is moving quickly to establish such a plan, with a study into NZ fuel requirements planned to begin this later, including an investigation into the reestablishment of the Marsden Point refinery, shamefully closed down.

Andy Foster: What fuels does the Minister see are critical for our fuel security in the coming decades?

Hon SHANE JONES: We share a desire that Kiwis should be free of reliance on fossil fuels in the near future. That stuff, however, belongs in an Enid Blyton storybook. New Zealand will continue to need gas to keep our economy functioning. Sadly, from time to time, Indonesian coal will be relied upon to keep the lights on. This is a stark reminder to the people who sit under a rock, not appreciating the genuine complexity of energy resilience.

Andy Foster: What recent causes of fuel insecurity in New Zealand is the Minister aware of?

Hon SHANE JONES: I am aware that, despite the willingness of the executive and directors of the Marsden Point refinery to seek an accommodation with the last Government, the last Government watched the demise and death of the Marsden Point oil refinery—an awful blow to Northland, and a wicked act undermining the resilience of New Zealand. But not only has it put fuel security at risk, it has endangered cardon dioxide supplies for beer and food. It was also, we should remember, the majority producer of jet fuel. In fact, all shipping fuel and more than half of our diesel came a lot more confidently and reliably to New Zealand as a consequence of that refinery. And the people who closed it down thought that they were doing the right thing via climate change—they have worsened the resilience of our nation.

Andy Foster: As a result of that closure, what actions is the Minister taking to review the opportunities that there are around Marsden Point?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I have said, we are investigating the reestablishment of Marsden Point refinery. Sadly, we are left to gather the—

Scott Willis: Sadly, we are left with you!

Hon SHANE JONES: —results of an awful decision, made over the last two years, and it’s driven—sir—by a mixture of wokeism, a mixture of naivety, and an unwillingness to accept that without gas, without fuel, the nation will collapse. With New Zealand First in charge of such an initiative, our resilience will prosper.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—

SPEAKER: Yeah, hang on. No, I haven’t called you yet. Just before we go on, I suppose—I was going to use the word “poetic”, but it’s not really poetic; it’s interesting and colourful, but not particularly helpful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There are Parliaments that actually admire the exquisite use of the English language—we did, formerly, until a recent time. So might I just say that is important to us.

SPEAKER: Can I just say, could you speak into your microphone, because I couldn’t hear you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll say it loudly. There was a time when Parliaments, and ours was one of them, would admire the exquisite use of the English language. If some members of Parliament can’t understand that, then that’s their problem. That’s my point.

SPEAKER: Well, hang on. Speaking to the point of order—

Rawiri Waititi: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: —my point simply was—

Rawiri Waititi: I get knocked down.

SPEAKER: My point simply was that—do you want to hear or not? My point simply was that the Standing Orders, which you didn’t refer to, do require that Ministers answer within a number of criteria that are laid down in the Standing Orders. Some of that language stepped well outside that, and I’m simply pointing that out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How long, without pipeline supply and in the event of a tanker disruption, would this country be, in terms of days, before we reached an absolute and total crisis?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m advised it is between 17 and 21 days. The situation is grossly worsened by the closure of our refinery, reflective of the shallow thinking behind that decision maker.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement from yesterday’s question time asking whether New Zealanders can see $123 billion worth of value generated for the $123 billion worth of Government debt racked up since 2017.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her commitment to not cut front-line public services; if so, how does she reconcile that with the Police Association’s comments today that the indefinite freeze on hiring non-sworn officers is already causing backlogs and delays, and that this policy would take police officers off the street?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. That is an operational matter for the police.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis that “obviously we will need to increase health funding at a minimum at the rate of inflation.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In a rare breaking out of bilateral consensus across the House, National, in its fiscal plan, had the same quantum of cost pressure funding for health as the Labour Party, and I agree that that was a good amount.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she commit to increasing funding for Whaikaha to maintain crucial front-line services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she see as a greater priority for her Budget allowance: respite care for Debbie, the parent of two adults who have disabilities in my electorate of Mana, who has been a caregiver for 36 years and a sole caregiver for 30 years, or meeting the $800 million blowout in the cost of tax cuts for landlords?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the assertion at the back of that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why are Government’s coffers an open pit for landlords but not for disabled communities?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I reject that entirely, and I would note and caution the member that the ministry for disability services is operating on the appropriation that the previous Labour Government gave it.

Question No. 6—Agriculture

6. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the Primary sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Last Thursday, I declared drought conditions for the top of the South, as a medium-scale adverse event, to give farmers certainty. Conditions on the ground across Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts are extremely dry and likely to get worse in the coming months. On Monday, I visited the region to meet with farmers and growers, and was told that day-to-day conditions on the ground are extremely tough and they are particularly concerned about access to stock or feed and water. This declaration unlocks further support for farmers and growers, including tax and Ministry of Social Development support, and is on top of the $20,000 that the Minister for Rural Communities, the Hon Mark Patterson, and I made available to the Top Of The South Rural Support Trust last month.

Miles Anderson: How is the Minister supporting dry conditions elsewhere in New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, whilst the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd is indicating that no other region is yet in a meteorological drought, I’m aware that many regions have had extended periods of very dry conditions. For farmers, this comes on top of financial pressures arising from input-cost increases, increased rate rises, and reduced incomes associated with low commodity prices. Therefore, I’ve instructed officials to update me daily on conditions around the country. I’m particularly concerned about the Canterbury and Otago regions, as I am hearing that, for some farmers, they’re already at 100 percent supplementary feed levels. Unless conditions improve considerably in the coming days, I expect to make further announcements.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the Government supporting farm productivity levels?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, last week, I announced a partnership which will help New Zealand’s pastoral farmers save $332 million per year in productivity losses, by eliminating the significant impact of facial eczema. Facial eczema affects farm productivity levels by reducing growth rates, fertility, and production, and can cause animal welfare concerns. This programme will provide farmers with practical tools and solutions so they can get on with the job of providing the safe, high-quality food that New Zealand is so well known for. The Government is co-funding this $20 million project with Beef + Lamb New Zealand to ensure New Zealand’s farmers remain world best.

Tim van de Molen: What else has he announced to support New Zealand farmers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we’re investing in a further seven catchment groups across the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, and the Wairarapa to ensure farmers and growers have the on-the-ground resources they need to achieve better environmental outcomes. Catchment groups led by farmers and community members do significant work across the country to sustainably achieve common goals, improve farm practices, and to share best-practice information. It’s vital we support local farmers’ efforts to improve land management practice and water quality measures, and the coalition Government’s investment of $3.3 million will deliver better outcomes for rural New Zealand.

Question No. 7—Police

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will there be a freeze on hiring non-sworn police staff, including those who answer 111 calls and prepare police files for court, as reported today by the New Zealand Herald?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s an operational matter for the commissioner in terms of where he deploys his personnel.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with police advice released under the Official Information Act regarding police employees that these corporate functions will be an important and necessary enabler to support the Government’s priority of recruiting an additional 500 new front-line police over the next two years; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, that is an operational matter and a matter for the Commissioner of Police.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, what I can guarantee the public of New Zealand is that they have got a Government that is serious about reducing violent crime. And, in the last six years, we have seen a massive increase in violent retail crime and violent crime relating to gangs, and you have a Government and a Minister that are actually committed to getting on top of that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I asked a pretty straight question, Mr Speaker. I asked whether he’ll commit that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch. You’ve been very clear, Mr Speaker, in the past that that’s not an opportunity to attack the previous Government. I think the people of New Zealand deserve a clear answer on a matter of such high importance.

SPEAKER: Well, it is a matter of high importance, and the Minister started by saying what he would guarantee. If you read the Standing Orders—

Hon Ginny Andersen: So that’s a no.

SPEAKER: Well, you can take it whatever way you like, but the Standing Orders make it clear the question must be addressed, and I think it was.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Based on the ruling that you have just made, if we asked the Minister how much something costs, he could simply put his hand up and say, “Well, I can tell you how much something else costs.”, and that would be addressing the question. It would make question time into a complete and utter farce. Addressing the question means you actually address the question; you don’t get to ask a different question of yourself and then answer that one instead.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a very interesting point of order, and it’s been taken once before in this House by a member who asked the Speaker at the time: if he asked someone the price of something and he got the answer back that was just, “Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb”, would that be addressing the question? The Speaker said yes, and it’s quite clear in here. So it’s nothing new. In this case, I’m saying that the member addressed the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. So are you ruling that the word “rhubarb” is a sufficient answer to any question that is being asked? Because that’s, effectively, what you’ve just ruled.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not. But a previous Speaker did offer that view to the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As you’ve made a ruling that requires those that are making points of order—

SPEAKER: No. Hang on a minute; be careful. I have not made a ruling. I’ve just said—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Excuse me, sir—

SPEAKER: I’ve just said—so you know, so it will help you with your point of order. I’ve just said that, if the Speaker considers a question is addressed, it’s addressed.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes, sir. I’m referring to a previous ruling.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If I’m given the opportunity, I’ll be able to clarify it.

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The ruling I’m referring to, sir, is that where you’ve asked members to indicate the Speakers’ rulings or Standing Orders that they are referring to in points of order. It’s a point that you made to the Rt Hon Winston Peters—or referred to earlier—and you yourself in that ruling have referred to the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. I don’t expect you to have them on hand straight away, but it would be useful for the House if you could refer to those that you are ruling on.

SPEAKER: Good. Well, the Clerk has very helpfully helped me out by referring to Standing Order 396(1). Any further questions?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Yes, we have a further question. Will he guarantee that uniformed officers will not be pulled off the front line into support-staff work as a result of this freeze on police employees?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, what I will guarantee is this Government is going to support our police with legislation that will allow them to go out and police gangs properly so they don’t take over rural provincial towns like they did under the previous Government, and they get on top of the violent retail crime, which grew at over 500 percent under the previous six years of the Labour Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that “The police need to get a sense that there’s some strong political leadership and some strong political leadership coming within their own organisation to actually back them and allow them to get out there and do their job at the moment”, and if so, will he finally show some leadership and actually give the police the support and the pay that they deserve?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Of late, this House would appear to observers, particularly experienced observers, as rather absurd. You’ve got a question to Mark Mitchell: “Does he agree with Mark Mitchell?” Is that the best we can do in this Parliament in 2024?

SPEAKER: I think the more interesting part of that would be the way it’s answered, given that the member finished her question with what, effectively, was an opinion about the Minister’s performance.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do agree with Mark Mitchell, and the fact of the matter is our police had six years of weak political leadership, where they didn’t back them. Their job became more dangerous, and this Government has come in saying that we will back them. We will give them the powers that they need to get out there and do their job. So, yes, they do have much stronger political backing, without a doubt.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements and policies?

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister name one action his Government has undertaken since coming to office that has directly reduced the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have removed the Auckland regional fuel tax. We have actually ensured that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is focused on reducing inflation. There are many things that we are doing to actually grow this economy, reduce the cost of living, and lower inflation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister telling us that petrol or fuel is now cheaper in Auckland than it was prior to him coming to office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it will be from 1 July. But what I’d say to that member is what has been exciting to see and good to see is that fresh fruit and vegetables are down 9.3 percent. That’s a step in the right direction. We are determined to lower the level of inflation, to lower the cost of living, so we can get interest rates down, so we can get this country growing again, and, importantly, so we can keep people in employment. It’s that simple.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Who will benefit the most from his Government’s proposed tax cuts: landlords and high-income earners, or lower-income New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, you’ll have to wait till the Budget. But we are very clear: we are going to deliver tax relief for low and middle income workers. Those are the people that the people of the Labour Party and the Green Party used to care about. We care deeply about middle and low income workers because they are waking up each day, giving it a go, doing everything right, paying their taxes, and they deserve a break after 14 years.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice of the Climate Change Commission that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) should be seen as a means to meet emissions reduction targets, not a revenue-gathering tool, and if so, why is he still planning to raid the Climate Emergency Response Fund to pay for tax breaks for the rich?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We believe very strongly that the ETS scheme is the way in which we bend our curve on emissions, period.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We’ve got one more from Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Prime—[Interruption] The co-Deputy Prime Minister may take a seat.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on, wait on. Wait for silence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How does the Prime Minister reconcile one of his Government Ministers, just this question time, talking about urgent measures necessary to support farmers impacted by climate change, and, on the other hand, his Government’s commitment to pour oil and gas on the climate crisis fire by re-opening exploration?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government is committed to delivering on our climate goals and commitments, period. What we’re doing very clearly is we want to double the amount of renewable electricity in this country. How are we doing that? We’ve actually got fast-track consenting provisions in place to get renewable energy projects built faster. That’s a good thing for emissions, and I look forward to the Green Party’s support on that. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has he, in the interest of the Greens and Labour Party, and in the cost of living, reduced the cost of lemons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m sure that was part of the 9.3 percent decline in fresh fruit and vegetables.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and policies?

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

Rawiri Waititi: How many Māori will be evicted from their homes as a result of this Government’s recently announced Kāinga Ora (KO) policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we actually hope there’ll be very few evictions from KO properties, but we make no apologies for actually evicting tenants who are abusing their neighbours with threatening and abusive behaviour. We think that’s fair: we think it’s fair for those people that are on the wait-list that are desperate to get a State house, and we think it’s fair for the neighbours that are enduring those abusive tenants.

Rawiri Waititi: How many of the 25,000 people on the social housing list are Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: A significant number, and they deserve their shot at a State house, as well. That’s why we are very clear that we will deprioritise abusive KO tenants, and we will give those people on the State house wait-list a shot at getting a home.

Rawiri Waititi: What wraparound support is his Government providing to Kāinga Ora tenants to keep them in their homes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there are wraparound supports, but what I would say to you very clearly is we are standing up very, very strongly to say that KO tenants who actually abuse their neighbours and are threatening, do not pay their rent, do not get on a rent repayment plan—that is unacceptable. We need to give people who are on that wait-list a shot at a State house. We need to respect the neighbours that are in those communities, who are actually doing it tough and being abused daily.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you made a ruling around acronyms. Again, we’ve heard an acronym today. The other thing is that the question was quite clear: what wraparound support is the Government providing—not whether there is any—in those Kāinga Ora homes?

SPEAKER: Yeah, the first point is that it was in regards to acronyms in primary questions. But I would appreciate the House refraining from using those and using the whole term—fair point. The point about the nature of the question—I’m sure the Prime Minister would want to say a little bit more on the matter.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, there is a range of support services, and particularly in our community housing providers, there’s even higher levels of pastoral care and support that’s going to those vulnerable tenants that are in those properties as well. We’ll continue to support community housing providers, Kāinga Ora houses, and we’re going to make sure that people get the wraparound support. But we are going to call time on tenants that are actually abusing their neighbours, because others deserve a shot. We believe strongly in rights and responsibilities. You can’t just take the rights of being a Kiwi without actually having the responsibilities to each other and to the country.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his Government doing to ensure that Māori who are evicted from Kāinga Ora housing as a result of his Government’s policies do not end up homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m sorry, but today, there are children waking up in scungy motel rooms. Today, there are children waking up on living room floors of friends’ and families’ houses. Those families are desperate to get a State house, and they deserve their go at that. They deserve their shot at that, and we are not going to tolerate badly behaving, unruly, disruptive, threatening tenants—period. [Government members applaud]

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you! Does he agree with 60 percent of New Zealanders that the cost of living is the biggest issue facing the country, and, if so, what immediate actions will he take to address the cost of living crisis for lower-income whānau?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely—that is the number one issue in this country for everyday New Zealanders. It is that they are struggling with the cost of living crisis, and the reason is very simple: the previous administration—the previous Labour Government—increased Government spending by 84 percent. It lifted domestic inflation, it raised interest rates, it supressed economic growth, and it has created rising unemployment. That is the story of economics, and that’s why we’re tackling the root cause of it: getting inflation down below 3 percent, so we can lower the cost of living, keep people in employment, and keep people in their homes.

Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government support my bill to remove GST from food and provide immediate relief for whānau who are struggling to put kai on the table, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, because it would be administratively complex. But what I look forward to is Te Pāti Māori’s support for our programme to actually give low and middle income working New Zealanders tax relief at the Budget. I look forward to his support because that’s the best way in which we keep money in the pockets of low and middle income workers—Māori or non-Māori—so they can navigate the cost of living and spend their money as they see fit.

Question No. 10—Disability Issues

10. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, particularly my statement that no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What actions prior to 18 March did she take to seek additional funding for Whaikaha since she first found out about the forecast overspend in December last year?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The situation that Whaikaha are dealing with is a funding envelope that was given to them by the previous Government—the Labour Government—and then a situation where they had no regulations, no rules, and no settings around the individual funding flexibility. They have been trying to deal with that, and we have been working with them to deal with that since they alerted me in December. [Interruption]

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’m about to just suggest that, when a Minister is giving an answer on something as serious as this, the House does listen, as opposed to the barrage that was sort of coming out at that time. Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question itself was really clear, asking the Minister what actions she’s taken. In response, we got a description from her perspective of the issues, but that wasn’t the question. Therefore, it didn’t address what was required.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I could rule on that, but I couldn’t hear it, largely. I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear the answer. So perhaps the Minister could answer the question one more time.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I addressed it by advising that we have been working on this since December. We have been looking at what settings, what regulations, need to be put in place around the flexible, individualised funding.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about what actions she took to get additional funding.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, you can’t expect the answer, or anticipate the answer, is going to be given as you want it. That certainly did address the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. During that answer, you raised some concern that Opposition members were making too much noise during the answer. I think this highlights the challenge that we’re getting into, where Ministers don’t address questions that are being asked and don’t make an attempt to actually get to the question that’s being asked. There is going to be more disturbance, and the ruling that you made earlier that suggests that Ministers don’t, in fact, need to answer questions—

SPEAKER: No, I didn’t say that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —or make an attempt to answer questions is actually going to make that problem worse.

SPEAKER: No, that’s not quite—that’s not a reasonable interpretation of what I said, and, look, I haven’t asked the House to be quiet, other than for people asking questions, up until today. This is a pretty serious matter, as I understand it, and so the answers are important. Now, whether or not they’re addressed to the satisfaction of the questioner is quite a different analysis to the one that I have to make. But there are further supplementaries.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Yes. Why didn’t she go to Cabinet to ask for additional funding for Whaikaha?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There is a Budget process that is in place, but the most prudent thing was for us first of all to get discipline and settings in place for the funding that was already there, which was not put in place by the previous Government. As the Minister of Finance has said in her answer, there will be more funding for the disabled sector, but it is absolutely imperative that we get the settings, the policies, the regulations, and the rules in place for the funding as it is now, before anything additional has to be done.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Prime Minister correct that these changes were made by the ministry, and, if so, was she consulted prior to the changes being announced and implemented?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It was a decision by the ministry, but, yes, I was consulted.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she accept that parents and carers require respite to enable them to have the capacity to care for a disabled person?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We absolutely accept that there does need to be support for our disabled community, and so no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: When will she apologise to our disability communities for the callous accusations she made about parents and carers; the changes themselves, that will significantly affect the wellbeing of carers; and the appalling way in which they were communicated?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I regret enormously that the disabled sector is having to work through what Whaikaha are having to deal with, which is the mess that was left by the previous Government in setting up a ministry without the right settings and rules in place for them to be able to administer their funding.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “Our collective failure to build enough houses has trapped people in poverty, it has increased inequality, it has made us poorer rather than wealthier”, and, if so, will he commit to delivering enough new public homes through Kāinga Ora to clear the wait-list?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): To the first part of the question: yes, I agree with my statement. To the second part of the question: no decisions have been made around that. We have Kāinga Ora under review right now. The question also assumes that the way to clear the social housing wait-list—which I note went up 500 percent in the last six years—is to build Kāinga Ora public homes. That is not the case. We need to think about how we can grow the community housing sector, and also we need to think about how we get rent affordability better under control, because the ultimate driver of how people end up on the wait-list is when they can’t afford the private rental market. So we reject the assumption that the only way to house people in need is to build more public homes. Actually, we need more houses across the supply continuum, from market housing to affordable rentals through to Kāinga Ora, but also the community housing sector. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. It’s your own member who’s just trying to ask a question.

Tamatha Paul: What advice, if any, has he received on the impact of increased public housing supply on overall housing supply and affordability?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, building more public housing obviously increases the supply of houses—that is self-evident. So, in the sense that I have received advice around that self-evident proposition, I have received that. But, as the member knows, we have a comprehensive programme of work under way across the drivers of housing supply, going out at the edge of our cities and going up, sorting out the infrastructure funding and financing constraints, and making sure we incentivise councils to believe in housing growth. We’ve also got a programme of work around improvements to the rental market to make sure that we get more landlords entering the market to put downward pressure on rents. And we have a whole programme of work, which I’m leading with Minister Potaka, around social housing, and, of course, sorting out the squalid mess that is emergency housing.

Tamatha Paul: What advice, if any, has he seen on how a net decrease of public housing places over the past 40 years has impacted rental affordability at the same time as total households renting have more than doubled?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, well, there’s quite a lot in that question. It is true that a failure to build enough houses has ultimately made rents more unaffordable—that is why our failure to build enough houses over the last six years saw rents increase by $170 per week under the previous Government. The ultimate answer to New Zealand’s housing challenges are to build more houses. The way to do that is to free up land inside our cities; make sure councils zone enough land; we create abundant development opportunities and make sure that we build the infrastructure and we have a resource management system that facilitates the building of the infrastructure so that we build more houses, both at a private market level—because that is the ultimate way we get rent under control—but also, as part of that, we build more social houses. The Government has a role to play in that, but also the community housing sector has a very important role to play in that as well. We are far more about supporting the community housing sector on this side of the House than members opposite in the past, who think that Kāinga Ora is the answer to everything. Actually, it isn’t.

SPEAKER: Just—answers are answers and they should be as concise as possible. That was an interesting contribution to the House.

Tamatha Paul: Does he accept the findings of the Growing Up in New Zealand study that housing stability is critical for young people, and, if so, what is he doing to maintain housing stability for young people in public housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Absolutely, which is why I gave a speech two or three weeks ago talking about the failure of Governments in the past to fundamentally sort out the land supply restrictions that have held New Zealand back from growing housing. We have a comprehensive programme of work in conjunction with our New Zealand First coalition partners, where we’re committed to making it easier to build 60-square-metre granny flats on land; and alongside our coalition partners in the ACT Party, making the Medium Density Residential Standards optional but at the same time making sure we explore the idea of GST-sharing with councils to make sure that councils go for housing growth. The ultimate answer to all of these problems is to build a bucketload more houses than we’ve done in the past, and we’re committed to doing that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was all well and fine, but that that didn’t address the question, which was around stability in public housing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on. Wait. Sorry, just calm down.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Like, genuinely just raising that point.

SPEAKER: Start again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. That was all well and fine, but it did not address—

SPEAKER: And the House will listen to a point of order in silence.

Ricardo Menéndez March: That did not address the question, which is around housing stability of young people in public housing—

SPEAKER: Speak up, I can’t hear you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: It didn’t address the question, which was around stability for people in public housing. The Minister talked about land supply and addressed a range of issues, but none of which actually—

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I disagree with you. I think the Minister has made it very clear that his answer to almost any question around housing for any sector of society is housing supply, and I think that it does well and truly address the question.

Tamatha Paul: Will he ensure that demand for housing from the wait-list is met by building new homes rather than by evicting families already in public housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the demand for public housing places—as I said in the answer to the primary question—will be met from a variety of sources. One way to cope with the demand on the wait-list is to build Kāinga Ora houses—that is true. Another way is to facilitate the building of the community housing sector so that people go into social houses. Another way is to make sure that people don’t end up on the wait-list in the first place, and the way to drive that is to make rents more affordable. People end up on the wait-list because they can’t afford the private rental market. So, as I said in answer to the primary question, we reject the idea that the way to solve social housing is just to build more public housing. Actually, that has a role to play, but going for housing growth across the supply continuum is extremely important, and that’s what we’re committed to.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about building consent delays?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Today, I announced that we are putting the spotlight on building consent delays. It’s already a matter of law that building consents and code compliance certificates—or CCCs—must be completed within 20 working days. However, feedback from builders on the ground, and frustrated homeowners, is that they often take a lot longer, causing frustrating and costly delays. This coalition Government is taking steps to reduce those delays and speed up the building consents system by requiring councils to submit data for building consents and CCCs every quarter.

Paulo Garcia: What impact do building consent delays have?

Hon CHRIS PENK: These delays increase the cost of building and make it harder to build, as well. The delays also limit the sector’s ability to deliver the affordable houses that Kiwis deserve and need. In the words of my colleague and friend Chris Bishop, in answering a previous question, “This Government is tackling the housing crisis by going for a bucketload of housing growth.”

Paulo Garcia: What data is currently available on building consents?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Unbelievably, there is currently no consistent nationwide data on building consent time frames. This means that there is little accountability and transparency for the delays being experienced by builders or Kiwis just looking to do some DIY. However, starting next month, building consent authorities will be required to report time frames for building consents and CCC applications, with this data being published on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website every quarter.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What steps will the Minister be taking to ensure that building consent authorities have the appropriate resources to meet these new requirements?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: More bureaucracy.

Hon CHRIS PENK: There is no more bureaucracy involved, because this data is already collected. Because building consent authorities are required to understand how long it is that they’re taking to process the consents, it’s merely a matter of them reporting that existing information. In response more particularly to the question around resources, it’s precisely because we need to understand if there are shortfalls in resources, or perhaps system reform that’s required, that we are wanting to have such reforms based on evidence, the hard data that we’re getting currently, rather than just the anecdotal information that we’re currently relying upon.

Paulo Garcia: What impact will these changes have?

Hon CHRIS PENK: There will be three key impacts. The first is transparency and accountability within the current system; second, collecting the data will help to inform any system reform that is needed in the future to work out our ambitious plan to streamline the building consent process; and third, it will provide a baseline for comparisons in the future to monitor the effects of other building reforms that we are taking in this space.

SPEAKER: Members who have to leave, could I ask them to please leave silently. I call upon some honourable member to move that this House take notice of miscellaneous business.

General Debate

General Debate

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Times are tough, but they do not have to be. I want New Zealanders out there to know that the polluted waterways, the droughts across our productive farmlands that Ministers of this Government were talking about just at this question time today, the gridlock that’s clogging up our cities and our towns, the gut-wrenching inequality which the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury demonstrated in the form of reports last year which showed us that the top 311 families in this country hold more wealth combined than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders—none of that is inevitable. It is a consequence—a direct consequence—of a tax system that sees those New Zealanders at the top paying an effective tax rate less than half of that of our average New Zealanders.

The point that we want to make here is that these are choices—these are choices—that Governments get to make. These are choices that successive Governments have made, which have given us precisely these consequences.

This Government wants New Zealanders out there to think that the system that we live under is inevitable. They want New Zealanders to think that the only optional pathway in front of us is more trickle-down tax cuts straight from the playbook of 1980s and 1990s economics, but we here in the Greens know that another system is not only entirely achievable but that it is possible if New Zealanders across this country realise our collective power to hold not only this Government but future Governments to account to make it happen.

This exhaustion that New Zealanders feel out there across Aotearoa New Zealand but also at home in my electorate of Auckland Central, that exhaustion is not inevitable. I know that it is felt largely in servitude to this exhausting system, which many feel, in their day-to-day lives, is exploitative not only of themselves but of our planet and the natural world that we rely on for our very survival.

Now, we have a recent example which exposed precisely how these choices can be made, and it was, of course, COVID-19. We saw that all of these things that Governments successively have told us are impossible, whether it be rent freezes, whether it’s direct payments to struggling people, whether it was flexible working arrangements for sole parents or people with disabilities, it happened, effectively, overnight, exposing that these things were always simply a matter of political willpower.

Now, this Government has made it abundantly clear where their priorities are. They are bloody-mindedly focused on delivering trickle-down tax cuts at the cost of pretty much everything else. This Government is also having the gall to tell us that they care about the climate and the environment, while in their own words from their own Government Ministers, they are telling us that they are passing legislation that is designed to, and I quote, “supercharge mining”. They are committed to pouring oil and gas on the climate crisis fire by reopening exploration for oil and gas in Māui dolphin habitats.

Now, we want New Zealanders to know and to hear from inside this place as much as they do from us, the Greens out there on the streets rallying along with them, that a different world is possible. You only need to look at the economic history of this country to see that every 30 or 40 years or so there is an economic transformation. In the 1930s and 1940s, in the wake of world wars and the Great Depression, there were decisions made by the Government of the day to implement the welfare State, to create public housing, public education, and public health care, and to pay for it by higher taxes on those who had profited during a time of hardship for many.

But we saw that that social safety net—decisions were made to shred that social safety net through the 1980s and 1990s in favour of this rampant, dogmatic ideology of trickle-down economics. And how’s that served us? Well, we are currently facing the dual crises of the greatest wealth inequality that we have ever seen on record in this country and the climate crisis. In the face of that, I believe in the ingenuity, the creativity, and the imagination of New Zealanders. The Greens believe that in working together we can completely transform that system, because another world is possible. In the words of the Hurricanes Poua team, “Governments are temporary”, and New Zealand is the one who gets to decide our future.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): When Christopher Luxon’s fishing around looking for a theme song to enter his next conference with, he might look to Split Enz’s “Six Months in a Leaky Boat” because that definitely sums up this Government’s beginning in office. It’s a Government of broken promises, and it is a Government of wrong priorities.

Remember the rock-solid reassurance that Christopher Luxon, Nicola Willis, and all of their MPs gave before the election that there would be no cuts to front-line public services—no cuts to front-line public services. And yet what have we seen day after day? More evidence of exactly that happening, police hiring freezes in place because they can’t be assured that they’re going to get the funding from the Government that they need to be able to do the job that they have in front of them.

But, actually, the one that I want to devote my time to today is talking about the cuts to front-line disability support services. Because what we’ve seen in the last few days is a Government penny-pinching when it comes to the support for some of the most vulnerable in our communities whilst dishing out literally billions of dollars to the country’s landlords. They decided that tax breaks for landlords were so important that they needed to be decided before the Budget process had even begun, but those who have real issues around disability support on a day-to-day basis now are going to have to wait for longer and, in fact, in the meantime they are having support cut off from them.

I think that says everything about this Government’s priorities but, actually, it gets worse than that, because I think one of the most reprehensible things that we saw here in this House yesterday was when the Minister for Disability Issues came into the House and belittled the disability support carers who are accessing that support, suggesting that they are living the high life using that funding that is provided for those with disabilities on themselves instead of caring for those who have the disabilities. I think that was absolutely reprehensible and I hope that when the Minister goes away and reflects on that, she will actually apologise to those carers, because those carers are people who devote their lives to providing support for some of the most vulnerable members in our community. I know that I’ve spoken to a number of parents who have kids with severe and complex needs, and they will tell us that it is a 24/7 job. There is no break. Even when the rest of us think we can have a bit of a break at bedtime when we go to sleep, they don’t even get that. Some of those kids are up all night with their needs and some days those parents do not get one minute of respite.

The fact that we changed the funding criteria when we were in Government to give those parents the ability to access respite was not a mistake. It was totally and utterly justified. And let’s look at the examples that the Minister gave yesterday of parents supposedly getting massages and pedicures using the funding provided for disability support. Well, I want to talk to the Minister about what those pedicures actually help to prevent: ingrown toenails, fungal nail infections, corns and calluses, athlete’s foot; people who are dealing with disability support face those very ailments. Back issues: getting physiotherapy or, yes, a massage because you are lifting someone heavy all day, every day is not an unreasonable thing for those communities to ask for. It’s not unreasonable for parents who have non-verbal children to be asking for things like iPads to use so that that child has a way of communicating. That’s exactly what the introduction of flexible funding was designed to achieve.

I don’t think that a Minister for Disability Issues should be belittling the parents who are accessing those very supports. Talk about punching down; these are some of the most vulnerable people in our communities and the people who are supporting them are vulnerable as well. They are giving up their lives, in many cases, to supporting people with disabilities and to see the Minister who is supposed to be their champion belittling them in the way that she was in the House yesterday is absolutely shameful. I think the Minister should take the time to reflect on that and should apologise. But not only that, she should put it right and make sure they’re getting the support they deserve.

SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I think you might mean “Mr Bishop”, Mr Speaker. It has been 100 days of action on this side of the House, compared to 100 days of invisibility for the Opposition, and we’ve just seen the duelling, competing “Leaders of the Opposition” go toe to toe on the first and second speech. The newly elected leader of the Green Party, Chlöe Swarbrick, against the so-called Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, and soon enough, the next “Leader of the Opposition”, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, will be up in the second slot in the general debate for the Labour Party. I actually reckon Chlöe outdid Mr Hipkins, and that doesn’t speak well about his prospects. A hundred days of invisibility for them, and a hundred days of action for this Government.

There’s been some criticism from some commentators who should know better—about the speed with which the Government has moved to do things. At the election, New Zealanders had a choice. They had a choice about whether or not they wanted three more years of endless drift and malaise. The three more years of talking about kindness. Three more years of kumbaya and mush, as the Prime Minister puts it. Three more years of good intentions as a substitute for good public policy. What we learnt over the last six years is it’s all very well to talk about kindness, it’s all very well to talk about the things you want to do about child poverty and making New Zealand better; actually, what matters is good public policy and action and moving with a sense of purpose and speed. That’s what this Government has done in the first 100 days.

We repealed the Auckland regional fuel tax, We killed Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which delivered a set of traffic lights on Cobham Drive and nothing else. We got rid of three waters, and we’re going to implement a proper Local Water Done Well policy. We introduced legislation to ban gang patches and crackdown on gangs that are causing mayhem. We’ve banned cellphones in schools. The Opposition said during the election campaign “Oh, that can already be done”, and also, at the same time, “That would be a disaster. How will this possibly be enforced?”—blah-blah. Actually, we did it really quickly and it’s working remarkably well. We’ve introduced an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths in the classroom. We’ve set up new health targets. And we have moved to establish a one-stop shop, fast-track consenting regime to actually build things in New Zealand—the infrastructure that we need. There are 49 actions—we accomplished every single one of them in those first 100 days.

The feedback we are getting—across the coalition, from ACT, through to National, through to New Zealand First—from the public is that, finally, people are glad we have a Government with a sense of purpose, a clear sense of direction, that has sought a mandate from the New Zealand people and is working to implement that mandate at pace.

Something else we sought a mandate for was in relation to Kāinga Ora. Now, there would not be a member of this Parliament, either electorate or list member of Parliament, who over the last few years has not been confronted with horrifying stories about the unruly behaviour of some—I emphasise “some”—Kāinga Ora tenants in properties around New Zealand. You only need to google “Kāinga Ora tenants disruptive behaviour” or “antisocial behaviour” to hear some of the horror stories out there, and I have a list, which, in the interest of time, I won’t read out to the House, but every member of this House knows that there are gang members causing mayhem in Kāinga Ora properties, there are people who are engaged in acts of violence, intimidation, and harassment. The stories are shocking, and those people are breaking their social contract to New Zealanders.

New Zealanders quite rightly say there’s a really important role for State housing and social housing in New Zealand. People fall on hard times, people are in vulnerable circumstances, not everyone earns enough money for the private rental market—that’s why we have State housing. But what they also say is if you’re going to pay 25 percent of your income in rent with a taxpayer subsidy, which the vast bulk of people do in Kāinga Ora properties—they say, “Actually, you know what, you have obligations. Your obligations are to be good tenants and be good neighbours.” The last Government’s policy of, basically, walking away and making sure that no one could ever be evicted from a State house caused mayhem. We’ve said that enough is enough. It’s time to go back to consequences, bring back the social contract and make sure that people can be evicted if they break that social contract and they’re bad tenants. I think this will work. This Government is getting on with things and making sure we deliver for the New Zealand people.

SPEAKER: Is someone—are you going to take a call?

Mark Cameron: Well, I’ll take a call, if no one else will.

SPEAKER: In that case, I call Mark Cameron.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): What defines a veteran? I’ll say it again for the sake of this House: what in fact defines a veteran? What prescription, precondition, threshold qualifies as service testament? How do we recognise former servicemen and women? How is it that we do not know the answer to this fundamental question? Or is it the case that in fact we do know the answer?

Is it the case that what fully determines a vet has never been fully reconciled? Is it a case of active service in countries and conflicts abroad, deployed in front-line service, or is it that of logistical support? To be those people, potentially at risk of losing all your tomorrows so we all here can enjoy our todays—is that the meaning of a veteran? I genuinely ask this House to reflect on that question.

What does a veteran mean to everyone here, beyond Anzac Day, beyond Armistice Day? We all need to ask ourselves this fundamental question. What of the men and women who donned our service uniforms, wore our colours, and carried our flag on their shoulders, deployed or not? Why can’t we square away what is actually a veteran?

This, to me, is something of a nonsense. How do we square away with active personnel? What? “We’ve got your back, until we don’t.”? This is the question I fundamentally want to ask. I openly commit to helping the Minister for Veterans resolve this very pressing issue. Sometimes, service-tested men and women are years in the making and this House has some of those people here today. They stood ready and bloody proud of this country at a moment’s notice, to represent our national interests, our country, and our collective people. That debt on society must be made good with.

In 2019, the Veterans’ Advisory Board recommended that all those that served be recognised, considered veterans; a reflection, perhaps, of the many sacrifices so many had made, from peacekeepers in Tonga or Papua New Guinea, or in the multiple humanitarian missions that were the face of deployment to assist in natural disasters. Perhaps tens of thousands now sit and languish in a place unknown, awaiting recognition.

One person said to me, “If I’m not a veteran, well, who the hell are we, then?” He followed on by saying that surely the length of service must be a consideration. I’m talking about a former commander—and this is one example I want to impress upon the House—a member of the SAS no less, with 32 years of active service, three postings in the NZSAS as a commanding officer no less, retired as a colonel, with two years in the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment in Singapore, and four years as an adviser in Kuala Lumpur. He led the initial reconnaissance mission in Bosnia. Gracious me, he moved his family 15 times. He is not today a veteran. Brian Franklin flew Bristol Freighters in and out of Vietnam doing parcel drops. He was part of No. 41 Squadron posted for 21 months in Malaysia. He doesn’t qualify either. How is this so?

These are a few examples of the thousands, potentially tens of thousands, yet to be recognised. If we don’t recognise and protect those people in our history, how can we truly invest in our future and the surety that must surely follow? And it is for that reason that I and the ACT Party fully support any work that finally paves the way for better recognition of former servicemen and women and protects those brave people that in our future we’ll come to need.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s been 112 days since the coalition Government was formed, 112 days since change came to our communities and our country, 112 days since we left the frustration of the leaky boat of the six years of the previous Labour Government and we can focus on a better and brighter future for our country. My community in Northcote voted for safer communities. They voted for a more prosperous economy, better access to health and education, and an infrastructure that works. They voted not for promises but for a Government of delivery. From the swing seat of Northcote, I want to focus my contribution today on two areas that this Government will deliver on: law and order, and the economy.

Firstly, law and order. The stories I heard while campaigning and doorknocking the streets of Northcote were concerning. A lady got scared when I turned up on her doorstep because she thought I was an intruder. A chap in Birkenhead actually tackled an intruder that came into his home, and he couldn’t get the police to come out and deal with it. People were concerned with gangs on their street and the issues of youth crime. I want to acknowledge the late Joshua Tasi, who, in my community was sadly killed by youth in our community. I’d like to acknowledge his family and loved ones and the grief that they’re feeling.

The hundred days of actions are a start, but more needs to be done. In this speech, I want to talk about some of the positives that we’ve done that will make a difference. We have abolished the prisoner reduction target. We have introduced legislation to crack down on gangs, give police greater powers to intervene, and extend rehabilitation programmes.

But there are good things to come in the law and order space. We’re going to back our police and make sure there’s 500 extra front-line police on our streets in the next two years. We’re going to limit the amount of deductions that judges can make to prisoners at sentencing. We’re going to deliver youth military academies, and we’re going to trial one this year, which is going to be in Auckland to help give these troubled youth a hand up, not a handout. And we’re going to restore consequences for crime in this country.

The second area that I want to talk about is the cost of living, because, as the Prime Minister noted today, it is the number one issue for our country and for my community of Northcote. I’ll never forget the harrowing story I heard of a supermarket worker whose husband took a job in Australia just to pay for the increased mortgage payments that they were facing.

Now, we’ve made some progress in this area, and within 100 days. We’ve taken the regional fuel tax off, that will save hard-working New Zealanders money at the pump. We have started to reduce the bloated bureaucracy in Wellington, and we’re axing wasteful projects. We’ve introduced 90-day trials for all businesses so that they have the flexibility to hire and take on new workers. And we’ve axed Labour’s three waters reform, which we know cost this country too much money, as well.

What will we do? What’s coming people’s way? Well, it is my privilege to say that we will deliver tax relief, come the Budget on 30 May, and that is coming your way if you’re a hard-working New Zealander. We will continue to rein in spending and ask every ministry to go line by line and make sure that they are delivering value for money in their budgets. We will grow the economy, and our finance Minister’s already articulated a great plan to actually boost growth in our economy, because that’s how, ultimately, growing comes: grow the tax base in this country and make all of our communities better off.

So, in summary, change has come, we’ve started on progress, but there’s more positives to come. I want to end my contribution today with a quote from an iwi leader who I met recently: Robert Edwards. He says, as I put it: “The past is the past, let us learn from it. The future is before us, let us prepare for it.” Thank you.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): It is really important that the Greens get on record the voices of those disabled people, their families, and their carers and communities who have been cruelly stressed by the announcements from Whaikaha over the past couple of days. I think it’s really important that while the Minister for Disability Issues is at pains to make sure that this is not a funding cut as such, that doesn’t recognise that particularly for disabled people, family, and carers, their access to services, their access to care and all of the supports that they need has been underfunded for decades and decades. It is simply not good enough for a Minister who has the responsibility right now to not have asked and ensured that more funding is taken into account when it comes to disabled people, who are continuously—continuously—at the end of the line when it comes to funding, acknowledgment, value, and support.

The fact that the Minister for disabled peoples and of Whaikaha is trying to uphold a narrative of austerity, that these changes to how disability support services are delivered and the changes to rules and flexibility around how people access and use the funding are driven from having to watch the wallets of Government—that is a really unjust and, if I can be clear, quite hostile narrative to have to burden on carers of people, of disabled people themselves, and their families. What that is, essentially, trying to blame is that we are having to tighten our belts in an area that has had its belt tightened for generations, when instead the choices that Government gets to make is that this area of funding should have a priority and has to be increased—but the focus has come down to who’s getting a pedicure? That is quite a cruel, cruel way to apportion blame of systemic underfunding to the fact that the wellbeing of carers and the wellbeing of disabled people are interlinked. They are not separate. We have to have our carers cared for.

Anybody who knows what a role it is, what a massive role it is, to be part of the village of caring for disabled people, anybody who understands that, can understand the complete and utter exhaustion that can happen for those carers, who we know also consider it an honour and a privilege to be able to care for disabled people. But it pulls on a lot. It pulls on a lot of our carers’ spirit and energy and resource. Why on earth would any Minister want to focus on what they do for their wellbeing instead of focusing on the systemic undervaluing of our caring sector, that has been this way for decades of undervaluing?

And that is what I wanted to put on record for the Green Party today, having heard directly from advocates, whānau, parents, particularly of children, who have been quite devastated by this news. I acknowledge that the Minister admits and has some regret about the way it was communicated out, but this is also what happens when you don’t work with the sector. As a former prevention of violence Minister, I know firsthand what it is like for the sector to not believe that you are doing things to them instead of with them, for the community to not believe that you are doing things to them instead of with them. So the consultation, the discussions, and the solutions, directly with disabled people and their carers and advocates, has to be a priority in any funding changes. Even they have said they are open to looking at where we can do better with current funding, but let’s not be distracted away from the bigger issue here, which is the further dehumanising of disabled people and their families, that has already been the status quo; the pointing out of blame when we should be apportioning it to the underfunding and therefore increasing funding to this sector non-stop. Thank you.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. “Devastated’, “heartbroken”, and “distraught”—those are just some of the words that parents have used in emails and other communication with me over the past couple of days in relation to the changes that were announced on 18 March. They were announced and implemented immediately. These are changes that will significantly reduce the amount of support that carers of disabled people in New Zealand will get.

I want to just take a minute to read part of an email that was sent to me just yesterday of someone who describes just how difficult it is in terms of caring 24/7 for their disabled child. They say that “through IF”—individualised funding—“I had finally found a little bit of hope that our situation is survivable. The news yesterday that all of our funding is now obsolete for our circumstances is devastating. I don’t use that term lightly. The grief and turmoil is huge. The news is so fresh, I’m shaken to my core, and I can only wonder just how long it’ll take before I’m in the same difficult position” that they describe in their email prior to that. This is just one email.

The respite that parents have been asking for for years, finally got through the flexibility of funding, is now being taken away from them. One mother wrote to me today and said that she’s surviving on 12 hours of sleep over four days. The respite allows her to get some sleep or to take a shower. This is what the Government is taking away by narrowing the criteria for disability support funding, so let’s be clear about that.

Disabled people, their whānau, and their carers—as the former Minister for Disability Issues, I have met many over my time in office. They are determined and strong people, and they need to be because of the challenges that they face to accessibility and support day to day. They have been calling for more flexibility for decades.

So when the Minister on that side of the House says that flexibility was put in place during COVID and now all she’s doing is taking it away and returning it to pre-COVID levels, that’s not true. This community has been fighting for flexibility for decades, and that was the trajectory of travel that our Government was investing in over the last term: more flexibility in how funding could be used; moving towards progressing the roll-out of Enabling Good Lives, which is an approach that gives disabled people more choice and control over the decisions that they make for themselves in terms of how they access support. And now, the changes—which I believe are probably just the start, because this Government, we know, has asked Whaikaha to find another 7.5 percent of cuts in funding. This, I believe, is the start of rolling back decades of work that this community has been fighting for.

Disabled people and their carers are also entitled to their entitlements, not just the Prime Minister with his accommodation. Politics is about making choices. The choice between increasing disability support for carers and for disabled people, because we must bear in mind—and, again, the numerous comments that I’ve read and emails that I’ve read that have been sent to me. I don’t understand how this Government doesn’t get that carers of disabled people need some respite so that they can better care for the disabled people. Ultimately, this will impact both their wellbeing and the wellbeing of the disabled people—let’s not be in two minds about that.

So increased disability support, or $2.9 billion of tax cuts for landlords? That is a political choice, and I believe that this Government is making the wrong choice, because what we’ve heard today is that this Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Penny Simmonds, didn’t fight for her community. She didn’t go to Cabinet to ask for more money.

She talks about a Budget bid, and she probably shouldn’t, but she talks about a Budget bid now—that is, after she has made changes—that will take away the support that many can access. Why didn’t she do that in December? She said that she knew about this before Christmas. Why did that Minister not fight for the disability community? Why didn’t she ask for more money then? Why is she only doing that now, four months on—because that is a political choice. Tax cuts of $2.9 billion, but can’t fight for extra disability support services for some of our most vulnerable and marginal.

That is a lazy Minister who didn’t go to Cabinet, and that is an entitled, callous Government that paints this as a picture of pedicures and massages, and not as respite that is required for the wellbeing of our disability community and our nation. As a nation, we deserve better. Our disability communities deserve better.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): We are a Government of action; a Government that gets things done. As the MP for Tukituki, I thought that I would take this opportunity today to talk about the 49 actions that we have done in the past 100 days that will benefit New Zealanders and the people of my electorate in Hawke’s Bay. Tukituki is a food-producing region that is reliant on our trades and exports. It creates many, many jobs and opportunities; it’s the powerhouse of horticulture in this country. But our farmers, our growers, our fishermen, our foresters, they have found it so difficult in the past six years: challenges, red tape, lots of inflation, lots of spending by this previous Government over here. It is time now to get the wheels moving and strengthen our economy and reduce the cost of living and get inflation back in check.

We have taken actions to do this, and I’m going to talk about some of those actions today because we have got the Reserve Bank back to its single focus on price stability after years of rampant inflation and economic mismanagement. We’ve abolished the ute tax. We are delivering for our Hawke’s Bay farmers, for our New Zealand farmers and our tradies. After years of disrespect, we are finally respecting them.

But I am particularly proud of the focus this team has on driving productivity in this country. One of the first actions in our 100-day plan was to ensure that our Prime Minister, our Minister of emergency management, and our Minister of Transport came to Hawke’s Bay and came and saw the support that we need a year on since we were ravaged by a cyclone. They announced $14 million for Hawke’s Bay for further silt and debris clean-up to clear productive class 1 and class 2 land, and that has been welcomed by a lot of families that are still struggling to clear the land over a year on.

But I think it’s really, really interesting to note here that the previous $150 million or so that was spent on the silt and debris clean-up under the previous Government had not been through a robust procurement process. This just epitomises the last Labour Government’s throwing the money around with no outcomes and no results. But as the local MP, I have been liaising very, very closely with our silt task force and recovery agency and various departments to ensure that there is a full procurement process in place. There are now quotes, there are tenders, and there is a focus on getting value out of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This is really reassuring to see: that we are respecting taxpayer dollars.

Further announcements in our 100-day plan, which I was thrilled to see for Hawke’s Bay, was the Hawke’s Bay Expressway four-laning on the roads of national significance. A focus on building strong, resilient roads in Hawke’s Bay is going to be paramount to productivity in our region and across the country, carrying logs from the Central Hawke’s Bay and apples from Hastings, getting to the port faster and more efficiently. The four-lane expressway is the lifeblood between Hastings and Napier, and it will be hugely positive for our region and for New Zealand.

We are focused on building infrastructure and getting things done. That is why we’ve also repealed Labour’s very broken Resource Management Act reforms that made it harder and more expensive to build anything. At a time that we need to actually get the economy moving again, we need tools to build things faster. That is why I’m a massive supporter of our fast-track legislation, which is going to enable infrastructure to be built. We can build the roads; we can build water storage infrastructure. Let’s get building.

Another part of our 100-day plan, which I personally see the impact of as a mother of four young children, is to get back to basics in the classroom: an hour of reading, writing, and maths every day, and banning cellphones. These are the types of things that are going to get our country ahead, get our children ahead, and get this country back on track.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The general debate is a great part of Parliament’s week and is a chance for members to speak on whatever topic they choose to speak on and about the vision that they have for New Zealand. We have heard speech after speech from Government members about the shopping list of policies that they have introduced under urgency that show no vision for New Zealand. This is a Government with a grab bag and a mishmash of random ideas which have been promoted by lobbyists and vested interests on the campaign, and do not reflect the kind of Aotearoa New Zealand that we could have now and could have for the future of our children.

It’s disappointing because, you know, the general debate is a fun time in the week, and I will speak soon about a parliamentarian with a true vision for Aotearoa. But, you know, it is also a time for Government members to make that kind of contribution that we all hope to make as parliamentarians, both in this House and in select committee. And this is the first week that select committees have sort of been able to begin scrutinising bills, get out of the rush of urgency, and get down to the work of being parliamentarians who represent the communities that we are from and making things better for the lives of those people that we represent. Someone who has always done that, someone who has been a leading light in this Parliament for that, is Grant Robertson. He has always had a vision for change. He’s always been determined to design the kind of economy that delivers for people and for social and environmental wellbeing, not just for this generation but for future generations to come. And that is who I will speak about in the next three minutes.

Through his career, he’s worked on some of the most revolutionary policy that Labour Governments have introduced. First in the Clark Government, his work on KiwiSaver and student loans moved the country forward in the type of support that people could expect from the Government and the type of social elevator that we would create to lift people out of poverty and into successful lives. The Future of Work that he led in his Opposition years was also something that changed the national conversation about what we could expect for people’s incomes, the kind of work that they would do. And that was as a member like the other members on this side of the House, who weren’t backed by ministries; they weren’t backed by public servants. This was a vision that he had, and he brought people along with him. And I’ll return to that theme because it is one that marks Grant’s career as pretty special.

The Wellbeing Budget in 2019 was also a huge achievement, with five key areas being targeted to mental health and child wellbeing, and other policies that had not had the kind of elevation in the Budget process that they should have before he took that lens to the budgeting process. Particularly proud to see my colleague’s focus on targeted health for Māori funding, which parliamentarians had known for a long time was inequitable but only through that budgeting process could it be addressed in the way that it was through things like the Māori Health Authority. But also special funding that carved out a special place for Te Matatini; that is something that creates a sense of national identity that we can all be proud of and would not have had a look-in had we not been bringing that kind of focus to the Budget.

Things like keeping unemployment below 4 percent for nine consecutive quarters is the kind of legacy that as a finance Minister one can be proud of. That keeps people in work, it keeps people with hope in our communities, and it makes a real difference when I look around at how Manurewa and South Auckland look, as its local MP now.

Supporting businesses through COVID is also something that he can be proud of. There are businesses operating right now in our communities who employ local people who would not otherwise be operating without the kind of decisive action that the finance Minister had to take within 24- and 48-hour periods within that COVID time.

The 2021 welfare package undid the damage that the “mother of all Budgets” did in 1991 by restoring welfare to the level it was then in real terms. That is something that has changed the way that beneficiaries are supported in New Zealand and will be meaningful for decades. He also shifted the discussion on debt and investment in New Zealand and committed record levels to infrastructure and investment which will make a difference for many, many generations to come.

His whole philosophy is lifting people up. He said, as the former Prime Minister Norman Kirk used to say, that New Zealanders wanted a job, a place to live, and someone to love and something to hope for, and he set about designing the sort of economy that would create that for everyone. But it wasn’t just a philosophy; he lifted the people up around him too. Those were the volunteers in his campaigns, the staffers in his office, the people working in the Public Service, the NGOs and the international organisations, and the MPs on this side of the House who owe our careers to him—like me, one of his many teenage volunteers who has supported him right through his career. I am proud of his contribution and I look forward to his valedictory statements today.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. He Hōnore, he korōria ki te Atua; he maungārongo ki te whenua. [Honour and glory to God; peace on earth.]

I won’t wax lyrical about the last 100-day programme, or the 49 projects which we were both committed to and achieved, although it was very good, and the community is certainly relieved to see the meaningful progress after six years of well-meaning ideology, fantasy, unicorns, and, frankly, hot air. But talking about hot air, I would like to discuss the Balloons Over Waikato, which is happening this week and actually kicked off yesterday and will culminate in a great finale in Claudelands this Saturday night, attracting over 10,000 people, which is the ZURU Nightglow.

Moving on, though, aside from the cost of living, which is the biggest challenge facing our people and certainly the people in Hamilton and during the campaign period, was the issue of crime—ram raids; breaking and entering, sometimes for tobacco, alcohol, vapes, but sometimes just for energy drinks and food—not just liquor stores, dairies, and gas stations either but salons, pharmacies, restaurants, cafes, jewellery stores in the middle of the day. Last year in New Zealand, 12,383 retail crimes occurred, on average, every month—that’s one retail crime every 3½ minutes in little, old New Zealand. Real people were affected too: Gaurav and Pooja in Hillcrest; Manish and Rupali in Green Hill; Ash in Flagstaff. Well, let’s talk about entitlement, like the previous member brought up. How about people thinking they can just walk out of New World Rototuna or Woolworths with a bag or trolley full of groceries, or a surf shop with clothes and walk out and intimidate bystanders? Those days are over. Help is coming. I must acknowledge the advocacy of Ash Parmar in this space, back home, too.

We recently abolished Labour’s prison reduction target of 30 percent. I just want to pause on this for a moment. I still can’t figure out why on earth they would think it’s a good idea to reduce the prison population by 30 percent. No commensurate social investment or rehabilitation programme or key performance indicators or rationale to figure it was good; let’s just empty the prisons, because it seems like a good idea.

In fact, since we have been in this Government, I have heard the Opposition use the word “outcomes” more than ever; it was a shame they didn’t use it in the last six years. Ironically, now they’re in Opposition, we hear them talk about outcomes and delivery, and, you know, tangible things. But I think it’s like an osmosis. I think we campaigned so hard on outcomes and deliverables that even the Labour Party caucus is starting to use these terms and say, “Hm, this is actually quite good.” Oh, well, it’s a little bit too late. As George Gregan said to Byron Kelleher in the Rugby World Cup final in 2003, “Four more years.” Although, in this case, three more years, but, of course, we’re going to be in here for much longer than this and we won’t be getting complacent like the last Government did with the people of New Zealand, and we will be not taking our foot off the plug-in hybrid.

We’ve introduced legislation to support police further. We’ve put limits on discounting sentences, and we’re getting rid of the taxpayer-funded section 27 reports and the gravy train that that created. We took steps to extend the eligibility for rehabilitation programmes for prisoners in remand. So nearly 60 percent of our prisoners were on remand, but they had no access to rehabilitation and addiction services. So it’s not just the carrot and the stick but we’re incentivising, we’re giving those people who have made poor choices an opportunity to find a better way. This could have been introduced years ago, but, of course, we did it in less than 100 days.

Very importantly, we’re starting to crack down on youth crime. Yesterday morning, I sat on the plane next to a very experienced community leader with programmes like Blue Light, and he said that those leadership camps, which we are proposing, work. They are an incredible partnership with the New Zealand Defence Force and act as a genuine circuit-breaker in the lives of those individuals, with the appropriate wraparound support and mentors that they need. Of course, his acknowledgment was often that the whānau back at home also need support. But we’re a pragmatic Government with holistic solutions, and so we will work and find a way forward through those challenges. We care about business owners and their employees. We care about our communities. We care about our rangatahi and our future, so we are taking action.

Hamilton looks forward to safer communities, communities with opportunity to get educated and prosper, a world-class education system, and, hopefully, a graduate-degree medical school that will empower not only our city but the rural regions of Aotearoa New Zealand. Fast, efficient, and productive roading networks; building consents that are timely; housing supply that meets a growing need—that is aspiration and that is what we are committed to. The day for hot air and half measures is over.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is quite interesting sitting here listening to the contributions of the Government members, hearing what it is they want to talk about and noting what they don’t. Never before under MMP has a newly elected Government gone backwards in the polls within a matter of months, but this Government has. Never before has a Prime Minister dropped so drastically, so quickly, after a general election, but this Prime Minister has. If you listen to the Government members, you would think that they are the saviour of this country.

Sam Uffindell: We are—we are.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: New Zealanders don’t agree. “We are.” is the cry in response. New Zealanders don’t agree, and it is reflected in the polls, because New Zealanders didn’t vote for the reversal of world-leading smoke-free legislation. New Zealanders didn’t vote for police officers screaming out to their Minister, “You promised that you would support us.” only to have the Minister run away and hide and refuse to answer simple questions while police officers sat in the gallery during question time today. New Zealanders didn’t vote for higher rates, but that is exactly what they are going to get and exactly what they are getting under this Government.

The National Party went around the country and promised councils that they would help them pay for water infrastructure. They reneged on that promise. There are councils around this country that said, “We support a change in Government because the National Party will help us pay for our pipes.”, and what did they do? They said, “You’re on your own.”—you are on your own. To regular and repeated and often questions to the Minister of Local Government asking what he is going to do to help councils, his response has been the same: that is a matter for councils—a broken promise that will leave councils high and dry, because the fact of the matter is there is $185 billion that needs to be spent on water infrastructure over the next 30 years. This Government reversed a reform that would have saved ratepayers money, and they haven’t replaced it with anything. Their own governmental and departmental advice says so—they’ve ignored it, and now there’s nothing in place in its stead. Councils are by themselves. They have this vague promise of a voluntary system that might help without any guarantees that it’s going to save ratepayers money, without any guarantees that it will contain balance sheet separation—a crucial factor that the Department of Internal Affairs says has to be included but can’t be included under the Government’s plan.

Ratepayers around the country are facing massive hikes—double-digit hikes. In some places, it is over 20 percent, and it is all the Government’s fault. The Government says it’s the councils’ fault, but it’s not the councils that reversed water reform. It’s not the councils that went around the country promising ratepayers that they would help fund it; it is the National Party, and it is the National Party that broke that promise. Now ratepayers are getting hit in the pocket, and it’s not going to end this year. The proposed rate increases around the country, roughly 50 percent of those increases are for water infrastructure and for servicing the debt attached to water infrastructure. The water reforms would’ve removed that debt from the council’s books. Now they can’t, and many councils are stuck at the debt cap. So how on earth are they going to build the infrastructure to meet the plan for 30 years’ housing growth if they’ve got no money? There are councils in this country who have paused developments and paused consents for two years because they don’t have the money to pay for the pipes to develop the land. That is down to this Government.

When ratepayers get a bill in the mail that they can’t afford, don’t go to the councillors, don’t go to the mayors. Write to your local National MP. Write to the Minister of Local Government and write to the Prime Minister and ask them to justify themselves, because it’s not the councils’ fault—their hands are tied behind their backs. It’s the Hon Simeon Brown, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, New Zealand First, ACT, and the National Party who are to blame.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you. This debate started with the words that “times are tough”, and they are tough. They’re largely tough because of the last three years of mismanagement.

I’m going to give you a little graph here. This little graph here shows you the level of Government debt going up from 2020 to 2023, and it exactly mirrors the rate of inflation going up. People might glaze over when you talk about GDP and GDP per capita, but the reality is that we are going backwards per capita. That means that in real terms—real terms—we actually earn less than we used to a couple of years ago. We are going backwards. You see that at the supermarket. You see that with rising costs, rising rents, and you see that with mortgage rates as well. Those things hurt New Zealanders.

Retail sales are down eight quarters in a row—eight quarters in a row. We are still borrowing to pay for our lifestyles because our current account deficit is running at $30 billion a year—$30 billion a year we are borrowing to pay for our lifestyle. The last Government spend 80 percent more, but I don’t think it delivered 80 percent more. In fact, I think it barely delivered anything more. What it did leave is more divided than ever.

This is the first general debate we’ve had since the Government completed its 100-day plan. We’ve heard a lot about that. But what I do want to say is that this is a coalition that is working collaboratively and constructively together. I think it is working very, very well. We’re delivering on what we collectively campaigned on, we’re delivering on our coalition agreements, and we’re delivering real change. We’re taking our country back, and we’re getting out country back on track.

As the Hon Chris Bishop said earlier, we’ve essentially achieved every single one of our 49 items in our first 100-day plan. Even that well-known friend of the Government, Stuff, gave us a 100 percent pass mark, except for one thing. They said we hadn’t introduced the five objectives for our health system. Guess what! That’s been done in the last few days as well. So I think we’re doing pretty well there. It’s been about removing strangling, ideological legislation, reducing burdens and the cost of red tape, removing poor-quality investment—for example, Auckland Light Rail—and reducing wasteful spending of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. What we are focused on is getting our great country moving forward, more productive than ever.

What’s been great is that after the first 100 days of hard work, we’ve been able to hit the road, and been able to talk to, and more importantly, listen to lots of great New Zealanders up and down the country. I have to say, what I saw is a lot of excitement that there’s a breath of fresh air. There’s new management that people are looking forward to, and a greater sense of freedom to be the people that people want to be.

Our team’s been out and about as well. I’ve got a lovely picture of us all there, out and about around the country. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, our leader, has been reestablishing New Zealand on the world stage after three years of neglect. Matua Shane Jones has been meeting with productive industries and focusing on getting things done up and down the country. The Hon Casey Costello has represented New Zealand, as the Associate Minister of Police, in the UK. The Hon Mark Patterson has been meeting rural communities, farmers, and supporting the future of wool and fibre, and looking at gold mining as well. Jenny Marcroft, Jamie Arbuckle, and I met with the marine farms sector. That’s a really exciting industry. What we heard about is great innovations, and great work that they are doing in looking after the environment better. One of the other messages that we got—and this is a real support for fast tracking—is the difficulty not only of consenting, but of re-consenting. That’s something that I think that we need to do much, much faster, and much smarter.

We met with mayors and civic leaders, and we asked them: how can we help you? We looked at Provincial Growth Fund projects, again, up and down the country, water reservoirs, water storage, water treatment, civic libraries, making a difference, and that was the last, of course, contribution that New Zealand First made between 2017 and 2020. We met with key infrastructure providers, educators, and social housing providers. We heard a bit about Kāinga Ora (KO) today. We heard concerns from social housing providers who are providing transitional housing, but what KO is doing is they’re taking the most needy, the ones who actually need the social housing support, the wraparound support, and they’re taking those people away from that, and putting them in permanent housing. What could possibly go wrong? And it does.

We heard from downtown Auckland businesses, saying how thrilled they are to see the police back on the beat, and even chasing crims through town. That is great to see. They’re seeing a breath of fresh air. We met with small businesses and hospices, and what I can say is they love being heard. They want to see vision. They want to see certainty. They want to see action. They want to see inspiration.

We finished off with a wonderful Fielday in Feilding. All three of the parties in the coalition represented there, none of the Opposition, which was shameful, and our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, speaking to a mass crowd of 700 people, gave a state of the nation speech. This country is under new management, and our country is loving it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

First Reading

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. Sorry, James.

On the first day of February of this year something fortuitous but potentially quite impactful occurred. This bill, in discussion, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, was drawn from the ballot box. Now, I say impactful because this bill, although on the face of it it’s quite straightforward, if passed through it will no doubt improve the lives of many victims of crime.

I would like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, the Hon Judith Collins, and the Hon Mark Mitchell—who are all connected to this bill in some way, and it is my quiet pleasure to now be the member in charge of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

Now, as I just touched upon, this bill is simple in form but substantial in effect. In essence, this bill seeks to protect victims of crime and protection order applicants from being contacted by the perpetrators of the crimes against them. Many people I have spoken to about this bill within my electorate of Takanini and across South and East Auckland, quite frankly have expressed surprise at the fact that this specification, this specific protection, is not already enshrined in law. Victims of crime and those who are under the supposed safety net of a protection order should be able to feel safe and protected from unwanted, undesired, and unsolicited contact from those who inflicted harm upon them and who are in the supervision of Corrections. This is the crux of this bill that we are conversing today in the first reading.

Now, before delving into the mechanics of the proposed changes, I would like to briefly discuss the current status quo, which can help our listeners further understand why these changes, in our opinion, are imperative. Currently, the Corrections Act 2004, which for the benefit of our listeners from home—in Australia as well—is the principal Act that we are seeking to amend with this bill. This Act provides a framework for the management and rehabilitation of offenders within the New Zealand corrections system and this Act, the principal Act, outlines the responsibilities of corrections staff, the treatment of prisoners, and various mechanisms to ensure safety and order within the corrections environment.

Essentially, the Corrections Act focuses in a broad manner on the management of offenders, with some specific provisions for victim notifications, for example parole hearings, but does not explicitly mention preventing contact between prisoners and victims across the board. And this is where I want to acknowledge that there is a section of the Corrections Act that refers to the victims of family violence, but we want to widen the scope to all victims of crime.

So although the Corrections Act covers a range of situations and scenarios, including the subject of telephone calls and mail being sent to people outside of prison—and telephone calls fall under sections 111 to 115, specifically, of the principal Act—we believe these sections do not include the objectives that we are aiming to achieve with this amendment bill, and that is to put an obligation on the chief executive of Corrections, and prison managers, to make sure prisoners do not contact their victims of crime. This is why the proposed changes in this bill are necessary: to fill this void; this void which is causing harm to people who should be at the forefront of our protection, the victims.

Now, there are three changes to the Corrections Act that this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, intends to make so that this void can be adequately addressed. First, by introducing a new power and function of the chief executive of Corrections into section 8 of the Act. Now, this section, section 8, stipulates the power and functions of the chief executive of Corrections. We want to bring in a new power to ensure that processes are established and maintained to protect victims of offences and persons for whom protection orders are in place from unwanted contact from people within corrections control or supervision.

Secondly, this bill seeks to amend section 12 of the Act, and this section outlines the powers and functions of prison managers, to also include the power and function that we’ve spoken about just now. And, thirdly, this bill also amends section 190 of the principal Act to ensure that these matters are included in the department’s annual report.

Now, one must question why should these changes be made to the Corrections Act when the purpose of the principal Act does not include the direct protection of victims. In response to this, I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 6 of the principal Act, which outlines the principles guiding correction systems. Subsection (1)(b) states that “victims’ interests must be considered in decisions related to the management of persons under control or supervision:”. And as to whether these proposed amendments are consistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I’m pleased to direct the House’s attention to the Attorney-General’s findings—thank you, Madam Attorney-General—that this bill appears to be on par with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Now, I’d like to also draw my colleagues’ attention to a various number of news articles that we’ve collated just to bring us into a deeper understanding of why we feel these changes should be made. As early as January of this year, the Family Court ruled that a serial rapist is not to contact his daughters after he sent mail after mail of inappropriate drawings to the daughters and to another person that he had sexually abused. That was just this year, January.

Hon Judith Collins: Disgusting.

RIMA NAKHLE: It is disgusting. In 2021, Stuff reported that a stalker was guilty of continuing to contact victims despite being in jail. And here, out of the 77 convictions for this person, 60 were for attempting to contact the couple—that was meant to be protected from this person—from prison. Another article: in 2019, a psychopathic sex attacker sent letters as well from prison to his victim, and the victim endured three days of repeated sexual assault and violence. She said in her victim impact statement: “How is this possible? How is it possible that this can happen?” This is what we’re dealing with.

The corrections commissioner at the time, Ben Clark, said that the ability for prisoners to send and receive mail was a statutory minimum entitlement. And so this is why the specificity we talk about in this amendment bill is very important.

In 2019, again, a convicted stalker sent multiple mail from jail. In 2018, the article that really stirred the Hon Louise Upston to act is where someone made over 100 phone calls to a victim of their crime—from jail. And so although the Act has some type of general references to protecting victims of crime, we need to make it specific.

Finally, I’d like to end with a quote from the victims advocate Ruth Money, who said, “I can’t understand why this basic protection for witnesses and victims isn’t already in place … It’s mind boggling” Let’s get this simple yet deeply effective bill through, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to just start my contribution by acknowledging the member who’s just taken her seat, Rima Nakhle, for the fortune of inheriting this bill and for doing such a good job of introducing it to the House today.

I think it’s fair to say that I don’t think anybody would disagree that victims of crime deserve—absolutely deserve—to feel safe and absolutely deserve to feel supported by the system. For that reason, Labour will be supporting this bill. Most often than not, though, victims of an offence have ongoing fears, not only for their physical safety but often for the safety of their family members as well, so there is some work to be done in this quarter.

However, I’m glad that the member touched on something, and that was that Corrections kind of already do have this ability. Corrections already provide a range of support, and the Act enables some of that to happen, but we are mindful of the fact that sometimes the specificity and making it very clear rather than the general application has a purpose, so, for that reason, we are prepared to support the bill, but I do want to make a couple of remarks around that.

When we think about what Corrections can do and the range of support that they can provide to ensure that victims are protected from further harm from those offenders, along with the standard kind of conditions as set out on the Parole Act—things like having to report to your probation officer and telling the probation officer if you’re going to be moving—the courts and the New Zealand Parole Board can also impose some special conditions for sentences and orders, such as those non-contact orders. So whilst we acknowledge that that already exists, we can see that there is at least some merit in specifying this. Those non-contact orders which consider—and have the ability to consider the ongoing safety and the choices and the preferences of the victim not to be contacted by the offender. So it’s already there, and I just want to acknowledge that.

With what this bill does, though, we don’t actually think it provides any additional support over and above what’s already there. Corrections already provides various kinds of mechanisms to ensure that those who have been subjected to crime and who feel the way they feel about those particular perpetrators—they have an obligation to try and limit the continued mental and physical harm that offenders of crime can cause.

But this bill creates an obligation, as has been said by the member, for the chief executive and for prison managers to protect those who are subject to a protection order and the victims of crime from contact from prisoners. I think there are some details that need to be worked out there, so perhaps during the select committee process, while it’s quite specific and it’s specified and it’s not necessarily over and above what already exists, I think there are some details that do need to be worked out, and the select committee is a good place for that.

What the bill also does, as the member has very eloquently said, is ensure that the victims and others who are subject to protection orders under the Family Violence Act 2018 are also protected from unwanted communications with those prisoners.

I think the issue I have, though, is that whilst acknowledging that this is a member’s bill, and whilst acknowledging, as my own have been pulled from the tin, it’s a bit of a lottery, this Government has talked a pretty big talk and a pretty big game on supporting victims and victims’ rights. We’ve heard today through the general debate about the first 100 days, and, therefore, that’s somehow supposed to specify priorities, and it’s taken this member’s bill to be drawn to actually have something come before this House that’s particularly dedicated to supporting the victims of crime and their rights.

So I think it’s a little bit rich that despite having talked a big game, on one hand, not that long ago, the section 27 reports were scrapped. We’ve heard it being referred to today, quite unceremoniously, as the stopping somehow of some sort of gravy train, which I think is a pretty vacuous comment that was made earlier on, and I think it simplifies, and it is, yeah, just quite an unfortunate characterisation of something that actually provided the victims of crime a chance to have a voice in this process as well. So to scrap that on one hand and yet to say that more needs to be done is a little bit of an incongruent sort of position.

I think the other thing that also concerns me when we think about how we could better support the victims of crime, and the various mechanisms that we can either utilise better or ensure has some sort of priority recognition in terms of daily business and business as usual, is the fact that it’s yet another example of something that’s being loaded on to a service where they’re actually being told not that long ago to go away and make 6.5 percent cuts to, and to make those cuts and to come up with those line-by-line savings that the chief executives of these departments and these organisations have been asked to do just to make tax cuts work, just to chuck that out there—6.5 percent to the Crown Law Office, 6.5 percent to the Department of Corrections, 6.5 percent to the Ministry of Justice, and 6.5 percent to the police.

At some point, you’ve got to add that all up, and it almost conjures up a visual picture of the sorts of things that fall through those gaps that aren’t seen as necessarily priorities and that are seen potentially as “nice-to-haves” and things that can get done once all the other really important stuff is done. But I think looking after the victims of crime is important, and I would have liked to have seen a commitment from this Government, alongside the introduction of new legislation, to ensure that there are actually resources in place to support these types of measures. Because no matter even if it’s just small, it still requires resource and it still requires that someone work collaboratively within an existing system to enable these new measures to actually make sense in a practical sense, in so far as that which would actually filter down and help real victims.

When I think about that, I think about the contrast that during our last term, Labour made, I think, some of the largest ever financial investments into victims. We reviewed legislative settings; we launched operational pilots in the court, many of which were incredibly successful; we tripled the level of funding for victims’ assistance schemes; and doubled the level of funding for Victim Support. Whilst that’s not an opportunity to make direct comparisons, it’s certainly worth noting, because you can’t achieve these types of measures that we’re talking about today unless those structures and that scaffolding is in place to support that.

So Labour has made progress, I think, in increasing also the access to justice, particularly for low-income New Zealanders. There’s a whole list of things that I could rattle off in so far as how that’s been done, but it’s just to illustrate—and I’m sure that colleagues might like to expand on that as we go through this process, but, as I said, happy to support this bill through to select committee. Very pleased for the member to be able to shepherd this further, and we will be supporting the bill. We wish it all the best and we want to ventilate this a little bit more in select committee with some practicalities. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just belatedly say the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I also congratulate the MP Rima Nakhle for bringing this to the House. Having picked up the bill from others, it’s clear that she is no less passionate about this topic and will be a good steward for it as it makes its way through the House.

It does appear to be a very narrow bill, on the face of it, and it aligns, at first blush, with a survivor-centred approach to justice. The scope includes, but is not limited to, people who have a protection order against someone. And a protection order, of course, is used to seek protection from family violence. So, in this speech, I will be focusing on the victim/survivors of family violence.

A survivor-centred approach to justice avoids re-traumatisation, and it systematically focuses on their safety, their rights, wellbeing, their expressed needs, and their choices. Ensuring that victim/survivors of family violence are protected from unwanted contact can be seen, certainly, to align with that approach. So we do welcome the opportunity to hear directly from survivors, advocates, and from front-line experts as to how we can make sure that this bill truly provides protection from re-traumatisation, and a role in affirming survivor dignity.

We do want to test, at the select committee, the extent to which the protection against unwanted contact is actually already in legislation, and how this bill can add substantially to that. We also want to test whether or not we are including family violence victim/survivors who may not have a protection order. This is important because, of course, protection orders aren’t easily accessible to everyone, so we want to make sure that there isn’t a discrepancy there.

We do need to be very clear that a survivor-centred approach to justice is not the same thing as a tough on crime approach—which is the flavour of the month at the moment—because, when it comes to family violence, it ends up being the justice system itself that can cause as much harm as the actual family violence. Sadly, we can highlight generations of family violence victims saying that they wished that they had never reported family violence, because they felt even more violated by the system’s response to it than by the family violence itself—which is an extraordinary indictment on the justice system.

So while we do welcome this change as having positive potential—as long as it’s done right—we know that so much more needs to be done in order to truly transform our system away from just an adversary approach and towards actual restorative justice and authentic accountability and enduring justice.

So, on that note, the Greens hope that the Government continues to prioritise Te Aorerekura and the essential system-change shifts that are highlighted in that strategy. This is a focus on primary prevention over the course of 25 years, and we really do want to invite this Government to truly engage with victim/survivors’ lived experience—backed up by years and years of research—and what the real solutions are to preventing crime and violence. It is all—hopefully; I have a copy with me here—there, for all the MPs in this House to take a look at and to learn from. [Holds up a copy of Te Aorerekura: National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence]

In summary, the Green Party does support this bill, and we do look forward to public submissions to make sure that it can truly protect survivors and victims of violence, of crime, from unwanted contact. And there are some things that we do want to test in select committee as well, to make sure that this is adding real value. But we also know, at the same time, that the real transformational work to prevent violence and crime requires a new, collective approach from all of us working together and taking on a new strength-based whānau-focused and whānau-led lens to our work. We recognise that the scope of a member’s bill is not to transform the entire justice system, so, you know, we do support it within that context, but it has to be within that context as well. So, as I said, we will be supporting this bill, and we look forward to working with the member to advance it through the House.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I’d like to congratulate my Government colleague Rima Nakhle on getting this bill drawn and bringing it to the House. I think, as we’ve heard, it is a very simple bill, but I think a very important bill. It does really go to the heart of actually strengthening protections for victims. ACT has been a supporter of increased victims’ rights and ensuring that we do get a balance in our justice system between, obviously, people having a fair and proper trial and making sure those rights are protected, but also ensuring that victims are actually heard and what they want is also acknowledged and understood.

We’ve campaigned on a number of things during the election. Obviously, some of them are around actually getting a bit tougher on some of the areas we think have been deficient—things like restoring three strikes, changes to the Sentencing Act, etc. In fact, in the first 100 days, we’ve seen a number of advances made, with the defunding of section 27 reports. Let me be very clear, section 27 reports are still allowed, they are still available, it’s just they’re no longer funded by the taxpayer.

So I think this bill really fits nicely into some of the Government’s other objectives in the justice area. We’ve talked a little bit about some of the other things we will be doing around youth offending. My colleague Minister McKee’s actually done something around virtual participation in court proceedings and making that more available. And I think we may see another bill, actually, around some victim-centred and witness-centred improvements this afternoon which we’ll be discussing. But we really do want to try and get some real balance in our justice system. We know that cuddling criminals hasn’t worked, and we actually need to put victims first and their rights.

Again, while some of these obligations might already be in the Corrections Act, I think making them explicit and actually placing an obligation on prison management through the amendments to section 8 and section 12 and having those obligations spelt out around unwanted contact or stopping unwanted contact with the victims, particularly, as James Shaw pointed out, when those victims are actually from family violence situations where it can be very, very unpleasant and people can be retraumatised by unwanted—whether it’s phone calls, emails, postal mail. Again, I know the member had some examples.

So we’re very happy to support this through to the Justice Committee. I know some of the people on that select committee. I think it can then be examined and some of this overall context—again, as the Labour member said, some of the overall context of what that committee’s looking at, how can this actually be used to really strengthen this focus on victims and make sure we are getting a balance in our justice system so that everyone’s rights are protected, and that’s really the key that ACT would like to focus on.

There may be some administrative burdens. There may be ways we can improve this bill in the select committee. And I look forward to actually hearing, hopefully, from some of the people who would benefit from this bill and having this obligation put on prison management. And I’m sure they will be able to give us firsthand accounts of what a difference this could potentially make. And I think, again, we could look at any other improvements or anything else that needs to be considered as part of that process.

So I look forward to, hopefully, if this bill is referred to select committee, working on it. But ACT certainly will be supporting it. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, and I would also like to acknowledge the member Rima Nakhle for bringing this bill to the House.

Sadly, many individuals are so obsessed that they will stop at nothing to contact their victim. I have worked with a number of victims who have lived in fear and have not known how to cope. Even though the perpetrator was behind bars, they still lived in fear and they still held even shame of the actual crime.

I feel that this bill is a wonderful way for us to now just add that extra level of protection for those who have suffered at the hands of crime, some heinous crimes, and often the perpetrator is very skilled and knows how to stay in the victim’s head. And this is one way that the victim can be sure assured that there will be an extra level of protection. So it’s something that’s very close to my heart, to be able to speak on this bill, especially when you hear that people continue to carry the trauma of crime, and it doesn’t have to be that way.

New Zealand First is very, very happy to support this bill. New Zealand First is a party that prioritises the safety of all New Zealanders, and we believe that we need robust measures in order to protect victims of crime and anyone who is vulnerable, no matter how many years after a crime has taken place.

So we will support the bill. It reinforces the principles of victim protection, especially within the corrections system, and it very much aligns with our goals, New Zealand First goals, of prioritising victims’ rights to ensure there is accountability within our justice system.

So how will this bill do this? Well, as I already mentioned, there is a new function for the chief executive to establish and maintain processes. They have to be established, and I’m hearing what the members opposite are saying to ensure that there are secure processes and that these people are protected. This function is extended to managers as well. This will ensure an extra layer of accountability within the process. In any process you need a segregation of duties. You need more than one person assigned for one task. So this will be one way to ensure that at least there is some manageability within the process.

And the third part of the amendment that I find to be very, very good is that there is going to be that extra level of accountability to ensure that the processes have been carried out and that they are recorded, and recording them in the department’s annual report every year is one way of doing that.

You cannot manage what you don’t measure, and if it is not recorded and accounted for, then there is no way. So this bill will enhance transparency through this public reporting. I think that’s probably about all I have to say. I’ve said a lot about the victims. I really wanted to focus on the victims, who, I am sure, will feel that extra level of certainty and safety and know that the system is protecting them. So I commend this bill to the House on behalf of New Zealand First.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou. E Rima, tēnā koe, tēnā koe i tō kawe mai i tēnei pire ki mua ki te aroaro o tēnei o ngā Whare.

Kei te hāngai tonu te titiro o Te Pāti Māori ki tēnei pire me te tautoko ake, te tautoko ake i tā te whakaaro e mea nei kia āwhinatia te hunga kua tūkinotia i roto i te wā iti. Ā, kia kaua anō hoki rā te hunga kua tūkino e tūkinotia anō e te kaitūkino.

Nō reira e tautoko mārika nei mātou i tēnei tū a koutou, me taku mahara ake ki a koe, e Rima, me tō tō ake i tēnei pire hei kawenga māu, hei hāpaitanga mō ngā tamariki, mō ngā mokopuna, tae atu ki ngā whānau.

Heoi anō kei te whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero kua puta i tēnei o ngā huihuinga, me te mea nei kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, engari ngā kōrero i puta ake nei i tēnei taha kei te manako nui, kei te hāpai tonu i tā te taha ki te tangata. Engari anō i tā mātou titiro ki ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga hou me te tango nei i te tahua pūtea mō te section 27 mai i te Tāhū o Justice, me te tango ake i te 7AA i a Oranga Tamariki, he tūkinotanga, he turakitanga o ngā mana o te iwi Māori i raro iho mai i te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka tahi.

Heoi anō i roto i tēnei o ngā kawenga, e Rima, kei te kite ahau i tētahi paku whitinga o te rā kei te whai whakaaro nui te Kāwanatanga hou ki te mana o te whānau, ki te mana o te wahine, o te tāne, o te tamaiti, heke mai ki te mokopuna. Nō reira tēnā rā koe i tērā ōhākī ōu.

Nō reira kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, engari ki te toko ake nei i tā Te Pāti Māori tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire. E Rima, tēnā koe, otirā kei te Pīka, tātou katoa, tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us. Rima, well done, well done for bringing this bill before this of our Houses.

The gaze of the Māori Party continues to focus on this bill in support, in support of what the concept proposes—i.e., to assist the people who have been abused in a short time. Also, that those who have been abused are not further abused by the abuser.

And so we absolutely support your position, as I consider you, Rima, and how you have brought this bill as a responsibility for you, to uplift the children, the grandchildren, and also including families.

However, I consider the statements made during this assembly, and I will refrain from repeating those statements, but the comments that arose from this side are aspirational, and continue to support humanity. But also in our observation of the actions of the new Government that include the removal of the budget for section 27 from the Ministry of Justice, and the removal of 7AA from Oranga Tamariki, this is abuse, this is the subjugation of the authority of the Māori people that was granted under the Treaty of Waitangi, firstly.

However within this commitment, Rima, I see a small ray of sunlight in that the new Government is considering the authority of the family, the authority of women, of men, of children, and all the way down to the grandchildren. So thank you for that final commitment of yours.

So I will not repeat the statements made, but will endorse the Māori Party’s support of this one of the bills. Rima, thank you, indeed Madam Speaker, all of us, greetings to everyone.]

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I start by acknowledging our colleague Rima Nakhle, who has put her name to this amendment bill and who will be the one to see it through the process. It is a very-much-needed bill. It seeks to amend section 8 of the Corrections Act 2004—the focus of section 8 is to empower the chief executive of Corrections to establish and maintain processes to ensure that there is no unwanted contact by perpetrators of crime against their victims. Then there is section 12, which also provides that authority to prison managers to, again, establish and maintain the processes that will prevent unwanted contact.

As I went through preparation and reading of this bill, I am surprised myself that there remain opportunities and that these opportunities have been used a number of times by people who are in prison already to contact their victims. Central to crime, particularly family violence, is this assertion of power and intimidation, and this intimidation cannot be allowed to carry on even as the perpetrator has already been put in prison. The process is long and so there are many perpetrators who are intent on disrupting that process and possibly continuing on with intimidatory contact with their victims to prevent them, possibly, from testifying in the cases, particularly if they are themselves the claimants. So it is unbelievable that contact is continuing to be made.

We have been given various and multiple examples of how this contact has been made. Multiple letters sent over time, multiple repeated phone calls—up to 100 times; up to 90 times. I understand that the opportunity to make a call is given to prisoners and a call is able to be made to people on a list, and these people would have given their consent to receiving a call. So there have been machinations about frustrating that list and having the very victims of the crime put on that list so that they are able to be called and contacted.

The examples also have shown that continued calling and intimidation over the phone has resulted in a prolonged process where victims have themselves been cowered to not participate in the process and not testify to their experience as a victim, and to add to the court process and facilitate the process. So it is clearly necessary that that unwanted contact and continued intimidation be stopped. The bill authorises the Corrections chief executive and prison managers to make sure they establish those processes to stop the unwanted contact. It is a necessary bill. We cannot not have this bill pass through. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We’re in support of this bill because victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported. More often than not, victims of an offence have ongoing fears about their personal safety or security, and that can even be on a physical level, and it’s really important to make sure that people who say they want no contact with their offender—we know that that can be implemented. So non-contact conditions support this right. This bill does not provide any additional support on top of what Corrections already provide to ensure that victims of crime aren’t further subjected to further mental or physical harm from offenders of crime.

One point I would like to make is that while we support the general intent of this bill, I would just like to raise the fact that when a Minister is in charge of a ministry, one of the first things that they typically do is write a letter of expectation to the chief executive, and that’s the case quite often. So a change like this one, I would’ve thought would’ve been a pretty typical thing for a Minister to stipulate in a letter of expectation to the chief executive in terms of the types of processes that they expect to be followed. So while I think it’s a great idea, I don’t know if legislation is necessarily the right pathway. It’s great that you’re going to take a belts and braces approach to this, but it would be something that would typically be covered off in a letter of expectation from a Minister to the ministry to outline what should be happening.

What this bill does is it creates a legal obligation, if it goes ahead and is amended, on the chief executive and on prison managers to protect those who are the subject of a protection order and victims of crime from contact from prisoners. So we really look forward—I assume it will come to the Justice Committee if it passes its first reading, and we look forward to receiving that at the Justice Committee to hear directly from Corrections what their current approach is, how they can strengthen that, and how we can make sure this bill works in the best way possible.

This bill ensures that victims and others who are subject to a protection order under the Family Violence Act are protected from unwanted communications from prisoners, and this is important work. It’s important to note that when you talk a big game on getting tough in these areas, it’s also really important that there is funding in place to make sure that this happens. There’s already been a statement made in terms of Corrections, that there will be increased availability of rehabilitation while at the same time Corrections are expected to find a 6.5 percent reduction in their overall spend. So I guess as a word of caution, if we’re expecting our Corrections department to be doing more work but reducing the amount of funding that they receive annually, then that’s not—I mean, I’m not flash at maths; I didn’t do great on School Cert.; I was more into other things, but you can add up that if you’re asking someone to do a bit more and you’re giving them less money, something’s got to give. I question where the funding’s going to come if you’re asking corrections staff to do more than what they’re currently doing but giving them less money to do it. This bill does what Corrections sets out to do but, as I said, provides no additional support.

I’d just like to wrap up by saying that, you know, we stand strong in our record of supporting victims of crime. We know that 93,000 more people accessed legal aid by increasing that threshold, with further increases to come over the next two years. I really hope that that funding stays in place and it’s not subject to cuts in the upcoming Budget. It’s really important if we care about victims of crime, that we give people access to legal aid and that there are no barriers to justice.

Finally, I’d just like to touch on the fact that we’ve increased the hourly rates of those legal aid providers and also removed the user-charge fee for people receiving civil and family legal aid. These are really important mechanisms. Also, stopping that sort of litigious harassment through the courts—that’s an important step as well to make sure victims of family violence are not further subjected. So we support this bill, but I’m looking forward to receiving it at select committee and asking some good questions.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to first pay tribute to its sponsor, my good friend and colleague Rima Nakhle. Rima comes to this House with the perfect credentials to be the sponsor of this bill and the inheritor from the likes of Judith Collins and Louise Upston. Rima Nakhle and her husband, Roger, have been involved in transitional housing, emergency housing initiatives over a number of years and the Nakhle family is synonymous with the building and creation of Manukau City over many decades. And so Rima brings a social licence as well as empathy as well as experience and as well as the credentials, because she also, of course, studied law at Western Sydney University and so comes well equipped to see this bill through to select committee and, hopefully, on to greener pastures.

As previous speakers have alluded to—but I will again for those that might have just tuned in to parliamentary TV with a valedictory speech coming up—this member’s bill would create an obligation on the chief executive of Corrections and on prison managers to protect those who are subject to a protection order and victims of crime from contact from prisoners. And as Rima Nakhle, the MP for Takanini, told us, the current Corrections Act refers to the protection of victims of family violence, but this member’s bill widens the net to all victims. And as has been alluded to, there are processes in place, there are managers that are overseeing it and doing the right thing. But as the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, said, this creates a legal obligation and that is what the law is all about—those legal obligations to close the net and to make sure victims are protected. And on this side of the House, we certainly are a Government that’s going to go out continually and back the victims of crime.

This is common sense. It’s a pragmatic yet simple law change that would provide relief and protection to victims of crime. Many New Zealanders would be surprised that such a legal safety net and requirement and compliance of those leaders within our corrections facility is not actually mandatory in a wider sense. And as others have alluded to, there’s been plenty of cases, as Rima Nakhle said. She alluded to a more recent one, but the National MP, the Hon Louise Upston, when she had the bill, alluded to a number of terrifying cases as to why we should make this a stipulation on the statute book. We heard about a recent case a few years ago that was highlighted in the media that exposed the fact that a prisoner contacted his victim 93 times to get her to change her story. There’s also been newspaper reports in recent years where a victim of a savage beating, who should have felt safe in the knowledge that their assailant was behind bars, was indeed contacted more than 100 times from jail, calling upon the victim not to give evidence at the trial. And there was another case during seven weeks in custody: another 102 phone calls from prison to a victim in a desperate bid to prevent the victim from testifying against them.

So these people are our most vulnerable. They need the most protection. Victim advocate Ruth Money has been all over this and says we need to close this loophole, we need to get this on statute. Rima Nakhle has the social licence, has the empathy, has the experience, and has the credentials to see this through. I commend the bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Well, congratulations to the member for getting this bill drawn, and, as is apparent from the speeches that have gone before, it looks pretty certain to make its way through, I imagine, the Justice Committee, and we look forward to having a good, old look at it there.

I think it’s really important, though, to recognise that putting an obligation in the Corrections Act doesn’t magic up the resources to make sure that the obligation is complied with. We know that, at the current time, Corrections don’t have the resources to do the things that they’re legally obliged to do at the present time. The member whose name this bill is in was on the select committee when they were subject to annual review and fronted up and said that they can’t comply with their legal obligation under the Corrections Act now. So if this bill goes through—it’s got a pretty good chance of it—it’s going to require more of Corrections, it’s going to impose further obligations on Corrections, and we’ve got to make sure that Corrections has the resources to do that.

Having said that, the sentiment behind this bill is a very good sentiment, and, certainly, in terms of having a survivor focus on how we manage prisoners, that’s a really good thing, and I think that simply shifting the narrative to make sure that survivors are part of the conversation, in terms of how prisoners are managed, is a good thing; whether we need legislation to do that is quite another. The bill, as is apparent from its slim nature, does not make significant changes.

I would note that there’s already considerable powers. Section 33 of the Corrections Act, which is the Act being amended, gives a prison manager the ability to make rules for prisons, and these are pretty uniform across prisons, and they can deal with things like visiting rights, correspondence, telephone calls, right through to what they can spend their pocket money on, and all sorts of things. So the ability is already there to do that. In fact, a ministerial expectation that this is part of prison rules would probably achieve the same thing. I suspect that when we go through a select committee process, there will be some discussion around whether legislation is, essentially, a disproportionate reaction to that.

I note in section 108 of the Act that there is an explicit power to withhold mail between the prisoner and any other person. So, actually, the power is already there, in black and white, in section 108, to stop mail from going from the prisoner to any other person. I’m aware of a number of the instances that we’ve heard where this power has not been properly exercised. That’s not because the power didn’t exist. All of those anecdotes that the member who just spoke alluded to, that won’t change simply because we say that there is now a function of Corrections to protect victims. There’s already that power to do so and the expectation. So if we’re going to make sure that this harm doesn’t occur, we’ve got to give the power, the rules, but also the resources.

I also note, going through, again, section 77 of the existing Act: outgoing telephone calls can be monitored. There are very narrow exclusions: lawyers and medical professionals, for obvious reasons. But the very purpose of monitoring outgoing telephone calls is to stop calls which are not appropriate. I’ve had contact with people who, for that exact reason, have had phone calls stopped because they were, essentially, re-victimising people—and that’s exactly what should happen, and in section 112, it sets out the purposes for that.

So, look, it’s not a bad piece of legislation. You’ve got to fund Corrections to do these things; at the moment, they’re pretty much on their bones, so to speak, so we absolutely need to address that as much as this minor tidy-up of the legislation. Thank you very much.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I’d like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the speeches that were made and the support on this first reading for the bill. I didn’t expect it that much. I expected it a little bit because, in my heart of hearts, I know that most of us here in Parliament are good people even though we have different views on how taxpayer money should be spent. So thank you for the support across the House at this stage.

I note the various concerns, and for the most part they’re concerns I share as well. When I inherited this bill, I did a lot of research and continue to do so. I did find—just as Dr Duncan Webb mentioned and the Hon Ginny Andersen and also members before her mentioned—that in the Corrections Act, the principal Act as it is right now, there are these protections in a way.

But what I’d like to just, for the time being, highlight, which I touched upon earlier, is that section 33 and section 108 use the word “may”—that prison managers, etc., “may” withhold mail and things like that. When I was doing my research looking into it more, I thought, “Well, ‘may’ clearly hasn’t been enough.” So we need to really highlight the abuse that’s taking place notwithstanding these sections that already exist and, respectfully to my colleagues across the House, I think that, at this stage, has driven me to feel more strongly about this amendment bill. Yeah, look, I tautoko about the resources and also looking forward to Corrections coming in in the select committee stage and us querying them and hearing from them how it is on the ground and how we can, hopefully, make this work.

I’d like to also say thank you to my colleague across the House, Tākuta Ferris. Later I’ll tell you what “farris” means in Arabic, actually—means “stallion”—but I’d like to say thank you for the thoughts that you shared and thank you for acknowledging that from your point of view. It’s a glimmer of hope because, as I said, I’m of the view that most of us in this House are inherently good people. I’d like to also say to my colleague Cameron Brewer: you can write my new CV any time.

Again, I’d like to recap for our listeners that have just tuned in or for our guests in the gallery that have just come in to listen to the final speech of this first reading.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Just for you, Rima!

RIMA NAKHLE: Just for me! I’d like to recap what we’re doing here today. It’s the first reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. We’re in the first reading, ladies and gentlemen, and essentially this bill is hoping to make three changes in the Corrections Act 2004. Those three changes, in essence, seek to protect victims of crime and protection order applicants from being contacted by perpetrators of crimes from prisons or being under the supervision of Corrections.

I’d also like to re-highlight the recent stories that I spoke about during my first speech about people being contacted—victims of crime being contacted. But also, I would like to emphasise before we go on and continue on from the point that my colleague Cameron Brewer made, with respect to the current protections in this bill, the Hon James Shaw spoke about the need to focus on survivors but also to reference family violence survivors. The Corrections Act, the principal Act, at this stage does cover protection for victims of family violence but, as we said earlier, we want to expand the scope.

So thank you very much to my colleagues across the House. Thank you for everyone in the gallery listening to this final reading of this amendment bill. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill

First Reading

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I move, That the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider this bill.

Tēnā tātou. Well, I feel absolutely privileged to see all of these ex-MPs—and even Sir Geoffrey Palmer is here to hear the first reading of this bill—because at one point, they would have all been passionate about ensuring that we start to close the gap between the rich and the poor. So I rise to introduce my member’s bill, the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill, to the House today.

Just before I enter into the speech, I want to acknowledge all the whānau that supported and signed our petition. Near-on 20,000 people signed this petition to take GST off kai.

Look, Aotearoa’s experiencing a cost of living crisis. This bill looks to make immediate changes to allow our whānau the dignity to put kai on the table to feed their whānau and their babies. Therefore, a vote against this bill is a vote against eliminating poverty.

I wish that they treated this bill the same as they treated the last bill that’s just gone through the House, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, where it was unanimous—where it was unanimous, that we were all agreeing on eliminating poverty in this House, not just addressing it. Because I hear a lot of the parties in this House—they want to address the poverty, but they don’t want to eliminate it.

GST is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts lower-income whānau who spend their entire income to survive. If I’m making $10 an hour and you’re making $200 an hour, I’ve got to pay the same tax on that goods and services from the supermarket. If I send my five-year-old tamaiti, or child, into the supermarket, they’ve got to pay tax on whatever they buy. This is how regressive tax disproportionately impacts lower-income whānau, who spend their entire income to survive.

The removal of GST from food would recognise cost of living pressures and the reality that food products are a basic necessity of life that people should be able to access without taxation. Kai is a human right.

We have a broken tax system which has fuelled extreme wealth inequities here in Aotearoa, and it’s only getting worse. The richest 2 percent control 50 percent of this country’s wealth. Ordinary whānau are subsidising the lavish lifestyle of the rich. Ordinary whānau pay 20.2 percent on tax; the wealthy pay 9.4 percent on tax. Even today, Ipsos, the third-largest market-research company in the world, reported the primary concern for New Zealanders remains to be inflation—cost of living—with 59 percent of New Zealanders identifying it as a key issue.

If an apple a day keeps the doctor away but whānau can’t afford apples and can’t afford to go to the doctor, all whilst this Government has scrapped Te Aka Whai Ora, how do we look after the wellness of our people? If this House is so concerned with bread and butter issues but whānau cannot afford bread and butter, then what does that say about the morality of this House? It’s absolute hypocrisy and it’s disgraceful. Tangata whenua have never been afforded the privilege of experiencing a cost of living crisis, because they are still bearing the brunt of the cost of poverty. Not only that, but you’ve left your own people behind as well, where many tangata Tiriti are also experiencing the same hardship.

The supermarket duopoly—they made $400 million in the year. We need to break the duopoly. This is an and/and. Others will make speeches in this House saying GST has too much impact on the administration—has too much impact on administration. Others will sympathise with this bill, but will not go as far as supporting this bill to eliminate poverty from this country.

Between June 2019 and the March 2023 quarter, household living costs for all households had risen by 17.7 percent, and for Māori households by 18.4 percent. In fact, in the coalition Government’s 100-day plan to rebuild the economy and to erase the cost of living, they do not have a single item of urgency addressing poverty for whānau who are facing hardship. Instead, the Government introduced legislation to narrow the Reserve Bank’s mandate to price stability, repealed the fair pay agreement legislation, cut benefit increases, introduced legislation just to disestablish the Māori Health Authority, e kī rā! [really!] They’ve repealed amendments to the Smoke Free Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990, and so many more regressive, harmful, racist legislation aimed at further disenfranchisement for whānau. Because we know what is actually urgent, and that is that whānau can’t afford to buy kai.

Today, one in five tamariki Māori are living in poverty. This means their whānau can’t afford a safe home, essentials like regular healthy food, doctors visits, or to pay their power bills. Food prices have gone up 12 percent as of 2023, the biggest annual increase since 1989—and some of the ex-MPs that are up the back there would remember this.

In 2014, the Ministry of Social Development provided quarterly 92,167 food hardship assistance grants. In 2023, that number increased to 336,270—it increased by 265 percent. In the 2020 to 2022 time period, the New Zealand Food Network reported a 165 percent increase in the demand for food support following COVID. Those are extraordinary numbers. Those are extraordinary numbers.

This bill will automatically make a make a big difference to those whānau who are struggling right now. But it’s time for us to put politics aside and to actually address poverty and the hardship that many of our people are suffering right now. This is not an and/or; this is an and/and. Some of you will come up with other initiatives that you say are better. Our people cannot wait. They are starving right now. They are starving today. But they cannot wait for you to come up with other alternatives. This must be an and/and. Yes: taking GST off kai. Yes: breaking the duopoly, for our whānau, in those supermarkets—$400 million, in the year, made, taken overseas. Where’s the company tax on those particular corporate companies that have taken our money overseas? That money should be used for the greater good of Aotearoa. And so this is an and/and. Yes: doubling baseline benefits—absolutely an and/and; it should not be an and/or.

We’ve got to have a collective approach to this. We’ve got to prioritise poverty. We should not walk into a supermarket and see whānau walking down those aisles, having to put food back because they can’t afford it. This is not about food discrimination, where you’re saying, “Only fruit and veg.” E kī rā! [Really!]

So our whānau can go into a supermarket and you’re going to say, “You can go down this aisle because we’re taking GST off it, but you can’t go down that aisle. Only the rich go down that aisle. We’re going to discriminate against you from going down that aisle.” Everybody should have the dignity and the mana to be able to walk down those aisles and shop for whatever they want to without being taxed. Kai is a necessity—it is a human right. You shouldn’t be taxed for kai. We need to take GST of kai right now.

I’ll tell you what, people have tried to push Te Pāti Māori on to the left, on to the right—we are staying up the guts. We are in the middle, and we want to know who else is committed to running the ball up the guts. Pop me the ball! Who’s going to run the ball up the guts? Who’s going to commit to eliminating poverty? Who is going to support our people who are struggling out there? All eyes are on you. All eyes are on you. I know this House; I know where they’re voting—not you, Madam Speaker. All eyes are on us. All eyes are on us.

So I look forward to the debate. I look forward to seeing where everybody else votes, because Aotearoa is looking. The 20,000 people that supported our petition, and the 70,000 people that supported another petition last year, where they agreed that GST should be taken off kai. All eyes are on us, e hika mā! Who is here to eliminate poverty, or who is here to play politics?

This is about an Aotearoa hou, an Aotearoa hou where we will welcome you on to that marae. We will feed you, we will house you, we will care for you, we will love you. This is the bill. Kia ora tātou.

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

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And I wish to acknowledge Rawiri Waititi for that very energetic introduction there. I think what he was indicating there is he might be wanting to join the parliamentary rugby team, and we’re going to run it up the middle. As his co-captain, I welcome him to that team at any point. But as I said to the member as I came in and I acknowledged—and I won’t leave the House in any more suspense for any longer, but as the Prime Minister acknowledged in his comments at question time today, National will not be supporting this member’s bill today, and I acknowledge that.

But, look, before I delve into why National will not be supporting this member’s bill, I want to extend my congratulations to the member for getting this bill drawn in the ballot.

The primary reason why National will not be supporting this bill is because of the staggering fiscal cost that this change will incur.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, the administration—I knew you were going to say that.

Hon SIMON WATTS: And the member’s saying he knew that’s why I would do it. He is relatively psychic, and I acknowledge that. But the cost of $2.6 billion is a figure that cannot be overlooked. Over the last year, there has been a considerable amount of commentary, I think across the House, in regards to this bill, so what I’m saying comes as no surprise for those that have been watching this. But the issue around the fact of GST on food—and, in particular, fruit and vegetables, as was noted by the Labour Party—has also been covered extensively by the Labour Party’s Tax Working Group back in the day as well. So we know that this analysis has already been done. And not often does a National Party member refer much to the Labour Party’s Tax Working Group, but today is the day that maybe we will. And I will cover some of that.

So estimates within the work that was undertaken by the Tax Working Group indicated that the total value of this change could give an additional $53 to some of the most wealthy households per week as a result of this change, and about $14.50 for our lowest-income households. So let’s unpack that aspect. Let’s start with the first point, which is in regards to the Tax Working Group indicating that that spending and that amount of money would mean, in effect, a cash transfer of around $29 for every household per week; far more than the lowest income families would get from this policy that the member is representing. And I note for the House that these numbers are from 2018, before, obviously, a significant implication in regards to the inflation that has flown over the prior periods. But let’s take that aside.

The goal merely from this policy, as the member quite rightly indicated, is in order to maximise that transfer of money back to the back pocket of those with low income predominantly, and it is just simply not an efficient mechanism in order to do that. The claim that this is a progressive policy that will deliver most of its value to low-income households simply is not correct. It is not the reality. It is unavoidable because the nature of GST, as we know, is that GST is paid in terms of those that spend it, and it will benefit those who spend more on food than those that don’t. The truth is that this policy benefits a number of those people who were going to spend more on food and will not necessarily bring the benefits to those on lowest income.

It’s also based on the assumption that all of this benefit will be passed on to consumers. And we know from analysis in the debate, actually, that the Labour Party had in regards to a similar promise that they made leading into the election that the real question is how much of this GST reduction will actually flow through to consumers. It’s sadly the case that one of the biggest beneficiaries of this policy that the member is proposing will actually be the supermarkets chains themselves, not the low-income families. And that’s why we are not supporting this bill.

Rawiri Waititi: That’s rubbish.

Hon SIMON WATTS: And the member’s saying that’s absolutely rubbish. I can hear the member saying “rubbish”. It’s not rubbish—it’s not rubbish. It is facts—it is facts. And I’m running it down the middle there for the member, and I’ll pass it to the member as well.

But we’ll keep going because we’ve got five minutes to go and I’m enjoying this opportunity to do a little bit more talking on GST, which is a great topic to be talking about as we lead into the main event at 5.30 p.m., in only 14 minutes. And I can feel the crowd building, not only for this GST speech, but for the main event.

So let’s get back to the topic. The other issue with this is that the more exemptions that you place in terms of GST, the more complexity there is that comes into the system. And New Zealand has a very good system in regards to GST, unlike our cousins across the Tasman, in Australia, who have exemptions for everything. In New Zealand, actually, we have a very simplistic model and very few exemptions.

Rawiri Waititi: We follow them into war. We don’t follow them in the example of no GST on food.

Hon SIMON WATTS: And I’m loving the participation of the member in terms of the commentary that I’m providing, but the reality is, as it stands, our system has very few exemptions, meaning that the flat rate of GST that flows through on most goods and services means that it is a system that is easy to apply and it is easy to predict, and that’s important as well. For businesses, it makes it easy for them to do what they need to do. And if we apply what the member’s proposing, that’s going to make it more complex, and that is not the outcome we want.

I obviously congratulate the member for putting this bill in. It’s a little bit simpler than what the Labour Party were proposing prior to the election, so I acknowledge the work and effort that’s gone into the simplification of that. But that’s pretty much where I’ll draw the line—it’s where I’ll draw the line—in terms of that, because there’s a lot of complexity that comes in between fruit and vegetables and other food items, and the problem is, as we know in these types of conversations, the devil’s always in the detail, isn’t it? The devil’s always in the detail. And when we start getting into the definition of food, that’s when the complexities are going to arise, and we can’t have any of that.

We’re a Government of simplicity and we want efficiency in regards to that, so we’re not going to be up for that. And we don’t believe that this is going to do what we need to do. So don’t worry about that. We think that GST should apply flatly across all goods and services, and I think that is the most appropriate way that we want to do that.

In regards to other aspects of this, we think that in the points that I’ve raise that it will apply to any of the changes, and we need to also think about the broader context around this bill. We’re also aware that this will make our system more complex, and we have noted that pretty clearly.

So, look, I’m not going to continue on too much longer. I know we’ve got a little bit more time to kill this evening before 5.30 p.m., but National will not be—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, and I do welcome all our visitors to the gallery and thank you for being here. But the House needs to continue its business until the valedictory that you’re here for. And I just respectfully ask that you do it in silence. Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m sure they were no doubt wanting to listen to the conclusion of this GST speech before that. But National, sadly, will not be supporting this bill. Instead, we will be focusing on more policies of substance that will lower the cost of living for hard-working Kiwis across this country like focusing the Reserve Bank on a single mandate, or maybe removing the Auckland fuel tax could be a good option that we might do, or delivering real tax reductions for hard-working Kiwi families. And we’ll be talking about more of that soon, for the member as well.

So when it comes to tax, we’ll be focusing on making the system much more straightforward, much more simple, rather than making it more complicated. On that basis, sadly, I will not be commending this bill to the House.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this member’s bill, the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill, in the name of Rawiri Waititi, and I want to acknowledge the brother and thank him for coming to the House with an actual initiative to address the cost of living.

The reason why I want to thank you is because on the other side of the House we have seen over the last hundred days, policies that have done nothing—nothing—to improve the cost of living for everyday Kiwis. In the House today, when the new co-leader of the Green Party, Chlöe Swarbrick, asked the Prime Minister to name one cost of living policy they’ve implemented in the last hundred days to bring down the cost of living, the answer was the Auckland regional fuel tax. And then when the member for Auckland Central continued to ask the Prime Minister “By how much, what is the cost now?”—

Rawiri Waititi: Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. What we have seen from the other side of the House to address the cost of living has been cuts to benefits, and the removal of the Māori Health Authority, which was there to help with the health and wellbeing of Māori people who are at the very bottom of our health statistics. What we have seen is a commitment to removing public transport fees at half-price and removing it so it’s no longer free from July. These are costs that are on everyday Kiwis and everyday families.

But this Government, who says they’ve got a laser-like focus on the cost of living, instead decides to put $2.9 billion towards tax breaks for landlords. And then on the other hand, what they do is they say sorry to the disability community, sorry to all those hard-working parents who have to work 24/7 to look after their disabled child, but there’s not enough money in this pit for you. And yet $2.9 billion has been committed to tax breaks for landlords.

That is what we’re seeing on the other side of the House to address the cost of living—and a member across the House has asked me what this has got to do with the bill. It’s very clear the purpose of the bill is to deal with the cost of living. But, you know, I will give the member some latitude because they are a new member in the House.

I want to take a very quick moment to acknowledge what’s going to be happening at 5.30 p.m. today, and that is that this House will be farewelling the Hon Grant Robertson. It’s always intimidating to speak in this House, even more so when surrounded by former members of Parliament—who will probably grade me after this—like the Hon Kris Faafoi, who was the mighty member for Mana. When he left one door, he left the door open for me to walk into. Then when it came to the Hon Grant Robertson, when he decided to leave the door, he opened it for me. So I’m indulging the House’s time to be able to provide that small acknowledgment of the contribution that the Hon Grant Robertson has done for this country.

Coming back to the bill, purpose and values is why this side of the House walks through those doors every single day. If you have no purpose or values, you are in the wrong job. This side of the House is absolutely committed to helping those who are most vulnerable, providing support where we can to advocate for those carers because of the actions of the other side of the House, because of the ministerial decision to tighten up their application for respite care funding. So this side of the House will have more time to speak as to our view in relation to this bill, but I do want to finish by ensuring that we acknowledge the contribution that the Hon Grant Robertson has made for us, through the Working for Families changes, the Best Start payment, and the winter energy payment.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I wish this was the audience that we had for every single tax debate. As Rawiri Waititi, the co-leader of Te Pāti Māori, has just outlined, we have a fundamental problem in this country when it comes to the way that our tax system presently operates. That is, as he was alluding to, that report from the Inland Revenue Department with subsidiary papers from Treasury, released at the beginning of last year, which showed us—which showed this House and the whole of the country—that we have a tax system that sees the top 311 families pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of the average New Zealander. That’s not an accident but a consequence of the way that our tax system has been designed.

So let’s get into the content of this legislation. Firstly, I just want to commend our colleagues and our friends in Te Pāti Māori, for, as the Hon Barbara Edmonds said, bringing a bill to this House which does speak to values, and also for the luck of the draw in having it put forward to us in the House today.

The call to action from Rawiri Waititi was asking this House whether we had the guts to do what was necessary to eliminate poverty. That’s where I’m afraid I must be up front and straight up with Rawiri Waititi and our friends in Te Pāti Māori. I called him and said this earlier today, that we in the Greens could not support this legislation because, unfortunately, it will not do what it says on the tin.

Hon Member: Oh, you agree with us.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So let’s get into precisely that. It is fundamental Green Party policy, and one that we’ve said multiple times throughout the campaign, Carl. So the question is: what does this bill do? The proposition that we’ve had is that this bill will eliminate poverty. Unfortunately, it won’t do that.

The reasons for that are manifold. The first is that we know that there is nothing that will stop the supermarket duopoly from filling the gap. We have seen similar moves from corporates when we’ve seen targeted taxes removed à la the regional fuel tax. We know this because it’s reflected in the Tax Working Group’s report, which the Minister of Revenue alluded to just before.

We also know, as a result of that independent advice, that a policy like this, unfortunately, will disproportionately benefit the wealthy, who will buy more of those goods at the supermarket. We also know that it comes with an approximate $3 billion price tag, and, therefore, the proposition from the Greens is that that money can be better spent elsewhere. If, indeed, our priority is to eliminate poverty, we can do that through the likes of what we campaigned on in the Greens—our evidence-based policy to tax wealth and pay for a guaranteed minimum income to eliminate poverty. We also know that there is immense complexity in administration of a policy like this. We’ve seen that reflected in Australia where they have a similar policy.

I just want to call out the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Simon Watts, who previously was speaking to some of these points in the Tax Working Group report, because he loves to cherry-pick the fact that the Tax Working Group went through this policy and said that it wouldn’t work and it wouldn’t do what it said on the tin, but what he doesn’t want to put the microscope on is the fact that the Tax Working Group recommended a comprehensive capital gains tax, which would have gone some way to fixing our tax system and some of those fundamental inequities that I opened my speech with.

I also want to say thank you to our colleagues and friends in Te Pāti Māori for expanding the tax debate from the austerity, trickle-down nonsense that we have heard thus far from the three-headed taniwha that is this coalition Government.

So, in summation, let me be very clear: the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand wants to eliminate poverty—those are our values. We will follow the evidence to see that happen, as is reflected in our policies for a wealth tax and for a guaranteed minimum income, least of all and also helping to fund our public infrastructure that we know is in colossal—hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit, because successive Governments have preferred to stick their heads in the sand than fix our tax system.

Ultimately, I might add, that comes at the cost of our productivity. I put these questions once again to Treasury when they were in front of us at Finance and Expenditure Committee the week before last. The point that they have consistently made is that a lack of a capital gains tax pushes up house prices and robs us of that productivity.

So, in conclusion, the values behind this bill are correct, but the evidence shows it will not do what the member says it will, and we look forward to working with them to see more evidence-based policy implemented. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with a determination by the Business Committee, we’re now going to hear a valedictory statement. Before I call the member to make his valedictory statement, can I just say to the Hon Grant Robertson that I wish you all the best for your future and every success in your new job. There are a lot of members who come through this House. You, sir, have been a great parliamentarian, and I’m sure you’ll do an equally good job in your new role—although I do have a little worry about the curriculum, but perhaps we can talk about that some other time.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Tihei mauri ora! E mihi ana ki ngā mana whenua ki tēnei rohe, a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, Te Ātiawa Whānui, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The breath of life! I acknowledge the people who hold the mana of the land in this region, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, Te Ātiawa Whānui, greetings to all of you.]

When I arrived here in 2008, the Speaker was the Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. We had a bit of history. He had been education Minister when I was the student president at Otago, and we pursued him around the South Island. He didn’t seem keen to talk. At one point, he had to climb out of a window at Canterbury University to get away from Megan Woods, and some other students as well.

I need not have had any concerns. Lockwood was an excellent Speaker, who, like you, Mr Speaker, had the occasional lapse with names. He did try hard. He memorably prepared himself for one of his first calls for my friend and colleague Carmel Sepuloni. She duly rose to take her call, and Lockwood proudly announced, “I call the member Sepul Carmeloni.”

Now, Lockwood also diligently read the prayer each day off a card. At that time the prayer began, “humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant”—and, strangely, Lockwood paused each day at that point, and I felt very much at home.

Of course, I did know the place pretty well. I had worked for the fifth Labour Government in various guises for five years prior to becoming an MP. In doing so, I worked for two—well, actually, three remarkable women. Firstly, my dear friend the Hon Marian Hobbs. Now, I have made a lot of Marian’s memorable quotes over the years, and there certainly have been a few. Like the time she was impressing on the executives at TVNZ the importance of the film and television industry to Wellington, and she so wanted to say that it was the city’s bread and butter, but instead she told them in no uncertain terms that it was the city’s “bed and breakfast”. We laughed until we cried.

But today, what I want to do is thank Marian for being my political conscience. She is principled, intelligent, and empathetic. These are the qualities of a great politician; not being able to pull off a one-liner or find the right words for a witty riposte. Marian, you are a tower of strength for the Labour movement.

I was poached from Marian’s office by Heather Simpson to come and work for Helen Clark. My job description was to count to 61—the number of votes that we required to pass legislation. In the five years I worked for Heather, I received four emails—take that, Mr Ombudsman. She set incredibly high standards and is the best political operator I have ever seen in this building. She also had a Southland sense of humour that I appreciated. One day, a mysterious stain appeared on the carpet immediately outside her office door. Her executive assistant (EA) Stephen Woodhouse and I were staring at it when Heather appeared, grunted, and said, “Well, I guess now you know where the bodies are buried.” I’ve always presumed that was a joke.

Helen Clark was extraordinary. She managed to make progressive change while maintaining an attachment to a coalition of voters from across the political spectrum. She is ultimately the reason I joined the Labour Party, and for your leadership, courage, and insatiable love of gossip, Helen, I thank you.

Those times working in the fifth Labour Government were formative. It’s also where I got to know Sir Michael Cullen. Michael was a visionary, whose legacy as Minister of Finance is enormous. He was a terrific mentor to several of us who entered Parliament in 2008, especially for me as finance Minister and finance spokesperson, and I miss him dearly.

Our nine long years in Opposition when I first arrived here was when I settled into the role of being the Wellington Central MP. Among many, a true highlight was sponsoring and passing the Wellington Town Belt Act. The only protection that the town belt had was the trust deed signed in 1874, which was, depending on the whim of the council at the time, honoured in the breach, with some interesting developments taking place. I worked with the council to produce a piece of legislation that not only protected the land currently in the town belt but allowed us to add land to it.

Another highlight has been the creation of social housing in Wellington. The development at Rolleston Street is a partnership with the Wellington City Mission to provide housing and wraparound services, and I want to acknowledge Murray Edridge and his team for their work. Along with Stephanie McIntyre when she was at the Downtown Community Ministry, they and their teams were my heroes, and, Steph, wherever you are, we’ve finally got ourselves a wet house.

In my electorate office, our philosophy was that the door was always open. I am so incredibly grateful for the team I had with me over those 15 years. Anna, Sheila, Sophia, Beth, Kurt, Reed, Kasey, Alka, Seamus, and Thomas, thank you for being the front line. You literally saved lives, gave hope, and made people feel that there was someone in their corner.

One of the people who walked through the electorate office door in about 2010 was Keith Whiffen. Keith wanted my support with his case arising from abuse in care at the Epuni Boys’ Home. What has followed is a 13-year journey and friendship. Previous Governments had said no to the establishment of a royal commission into abuse in State care. In 2017 myself, Andrew Little, and Jacinda Ardern met with Keith and gave him our assurance that we would establish a commission, if elected, and we did it in our first 100 days.

I would ask every New Zealander to pay attention to the report of the commission when it is shortly released. The abuse, bullying, and cruelty experienced by young people who were supposed to be cared for by the State and churches is horrific beyond any measure. It casts a dark shadow over our history.

I am proud that we stepped forward to tackle this, but that pales in comparison to my pride in the courage of Keith and other survivors. We owe it to them to get our response fair, timely, and long lasting.

In Parliament, there were a couple of highlights in the “nine long years”. One of those was the passing of a bill I drafted with the help of staff member Marcus Ganley to ensure that Waitangi Day and Anzac Day were given full recognition and “Mondayised”—Chris Finlayson hated that word—when they fell on a weekend. We had the numbers because Peter Dunne supported it, but the bill lay in the ballot for several years, and eventually I gave it away to Darien Fenton, and then to Dr David Clark, who, of course, had it drawn immediately. In an interesting twist of fate, Dr Clark was “unavailable” on the day of the third reading of the bill, and I got to move it when it passed. I’m pretty sure David was OK with me locking him in his office for a few hours.

The “Mondayisation” bill passed on the same day that we had the final debate on the marriage equality legislation. The speech I gave that night—actually, from this seat—remains the one I am the proudest of in this House. I was involved in the campaign to get civil unions passed. We were never totally confident that we had the votes on that one, and in the end we got there 65 to 55. To see how far we had come less than 10 years later was remarkable, and to win the marriage equality vote 77 to 44 was a strong vindication.

Colleagues, the next time you have a visitor in the building, take them to the Rainbow Room, also known as select committee room 11—not such a great title. It’s a humbling experience to see the wall with the front page of the laws that this House has passed to address discrimination against rainbow communities. In my time as an MP, we’ve added marriage equality, the expungement of convictions pre - law reform, and the banning of conversion therapy, and I was proud to play a role in all of those.

We still have some way to go to ensure people can grow up to be who they are and are supported to live fulfilling lives. I am particularly concerned at the way our trans community have been the subject of increasing hatred, bigotry, and lies as part of the ongoing culture wars. I saw this especially in the sports portfolio. People with absolutely no care for women’s sport suddenly became warriors for safety in pursuit of an imagined enemy. The “othering” of trans people is despicable. We have to support people to live the lives that they want to live, and to show them some respect.

Today is not the day to go through the ups and downs of what happened to the Labour Party before we eventually got into Government in 2017. It’s a bit like the 1960s: if you recall it, you weren’t really there.

Nor, sadly, is there time today for me to discuss every portfolio or role that I have had, but I want to focus on two of them. When Jacinda asked me to be the Minister of Finance, I told her that it was on one condition: that I was the Minister of Sport and Recreation as well. She said a few people had expressed interest in that role. I asked her how many of them she had asked to be Minister of Finance.

I have loved sport for as long as I can remember. I was never very good at it. My own personal sporting peak was being the ballboy for the All Blacks versus British Lions test at Carisbrook in Dunedin in 1983, running along beside Matt Doocey’s father, who was the touch judge that day. It rained, sleeted, and huge pools of water appeared on the field. We were given giant oilskin parkas to wear. I looked like a rotund, bespectacled, drenched Ewok. It was only ever going to be downhill from there, but I believe in sport as a way to strengthen our communities and our wellbeing.

New Zealand never had a comprehensive strategy for women and girls in sport before we came into Government. Thanks to the hard work of the team at Sport New Zealand and wāhine across the country, we were able to pull together a plan.

It had a clear vision and priorities: increased participation, improved leadership opportunities, greater valuing and visibility, and the results are obvious. Bidding for and hosting three exceptional World Cups for cricket, rugby, and football, with each of them special in their own way: cricket delivered in the shadow of COVID, but ending with a full house at Hagley Oval; rugby with the extraordinary run of the Black Ferns and a final that ranks up there as my favourite ever sporting moment; and then the incredible, commercially successful FIFA World Cup. I want to thank the amazing teams who ran those events, some of whom who are here today.

But much more than that, it’s the increased participation of girls and women across many sports that I am proud of. The enormous increase in visibility and the improved roles for women in governance, with all national sporting organisations now compliant with the policy to have at least 40 percent women on their boards.

There is still a long way to go to achieve the equity that women in sport deserve, but I am proud of what we achieved. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the wāhine toa who have promoted women’s sport over generations, against the odds and the prejudices they face. We owe it to them and the generations to come to keep the momentum going over the coming decades.

The second achievement in the sport portfolio that I am particularly proud of is the establishment of Integrity Sport NZ. There have been far too many examples of abuse, bullying, and undue pressure being placed on athletes. The death of Olivia Podmore while a resident in the High Performance New Zealand cycling programme was tragic, and I think of her family today. Integrity Sport NZ is an independent body to uphold safe, fair, drug-free sport, assess complaints, and undertake investigations that can give athletes and their families confidence.

Being the Minister of Finance is an extraordinary privilege. It gave me the unparalleled opportunity to spend time with my colleagues when they were at their most stressed and anxious. I want to—[The Hon Nicola Willis laughs] You’ll know! I want to particularly thank Willie Jackson for his patient and calm advocacy. I genuinely felt his aroha when he said to me “Why do you hate the Maoris?” when I’d just given him $1 billion worth of funding. I also want to thank “Chippy” for not following through on his annual threat to resign during the education budget process, and all other colleagues who responded so well to the limited amount of funding we had available.

I was going to ask the Parliamentary Library to calculate how many times I used the word “balance” as Minister, but I feared that the computer server would explode. But that balance was what I was trying strike between the careful approach to managing the country’s finances and the pressing needs that exist in our country.

In my first two Budgets, we posted a surplus and kept net debt below our self-imposed limit of 20 percent of GDP. Our first Budget paid for our 100-day plan commitments. Craig Renney and I dreamt up the winter energy payment one day in Opposition, with a nod to the work of the UK Labour Government. It remains the policy that I think I got the most positive correspondence about. The 100-day plan also included fees-free, the Best Start payment, and the broader Families Package that lifted Working for Families and the accommodation supplement. It was a positive and constructive start to our time in Government.

Budget 2019 was our first ever Wellbeing Budget. This approach to creating a Budget and measuring our success as a country with indicators beyond GDP is world leading. This approach means that Budget initiatives must show value for money but in all senses of that word: for people, for our environment, for our communities, and for our finances.

We now report at each Budget on indicators of child poverty, climate change, and overall wellbeing. We continue to report on how we are tracking fiscally, but to do so myopically risks forgetting the very reason that we’re here. The economy is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end.

We moved to multi-year capital allowances to give significantly more room to plan properly. We brought together agencies with a common purpose to agree on priorities and then to be funded for three years—not just one—so they can get on with the jobs we need them to do. These approaches are the way of the future. The public that we serve do not care which agency funding comes from; they just want to know we are getting on with addressing the challenges and creating opportunities for the future.

We often measure Government activity as a percentage of GDP. It allows comparisons over time and borders, rather than dollar figures, which lack context. When we entered Government in 2017, Government spending was 27 percent of GDP. That’s not enough. It’s the reason why we had sewage running down the wall of hospitals, it’s why nurses and doctors were so underpaid, and it’s why we saw a growth in homelessness and more kids in poverty. It’s vital that we are careful with the money we spend on behalf of New Zealanders, but the public services that they want and need will not be provided without sufficient investment.

Our level of spending peaked at about 34 percent of GDP during the COVID period, and it’s coming down. The long-run average is a bit over 30 percent. Anything less is, in my mind, austerity. We are still dealing with the intergenerational damage from that approach in previous decades. We must not repeat the same mistakes.

Budget 2021 was a personal highlight. It was 30 years on from the “mother of all Budgets”, and, finally, 30 years on, we restored main benefits back to the value they had been before that event.

In the interests of not seeing history rewritten, here are some facts. We built more State houses than any Government since the 1970s. We built more school classrooms than any previous Government. We supported thousands of apprentices, and we lifted the pay of nurses by more than 20 percent and the pay of teachers by a similar amount.

But numbers don’t tell you the story. I think of the young woman in Kawakawa who came through our Mana in Mahi programme, and by the time I caught up with her, she was running the team on the building site.

I think of the social worker who burst into tears when I knocked on her door in the last election campaign because she was so overcome by the difference a pay equity deal had made.

I think of the family I met in Christchurch who had their first home of their own through Kāinga Ora, and the love and respect they had for that modest home was humbling to witness.

I think of the parent who wrote to me to say how the apprenticeship that their son had undertaken had transformed him from heading to a life of crime to wanting to run his own business.

And I think of Jim Kelly, rest his soul, and the workers at Hillside in Dunedin—a few hundred metres from where I grew up—beaming from ear to ear when we brought back manufacturing to South Dunedin.

I am proud of the necessary first steps we took on climate action, and I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague James Shaw in this regard. He was tireless and dedicated to making progress. His patience is extraordinary. I still think he and Damien O’Connor should go on the road together to talk to New Zealanders about climate. Damien would be meaner to the farmers, but they both know that we need to do more.

Our modernisation of the Reserve Bank was a massive undertaking, with three pieces of legislation that led to more open and transparent decision-making, as well as the expanded objectives for the bank.

A less commented-on element of our reforms was the creation of a depositor compensation scheme. New Zealand has been a bit of an outlier with not having a formal protection scheme for depositors when a financial institution goes belly up. Our strong prudential framework makes this a rare occurrence, but when the worst can happen—think South Canterbury Finance—we need to give account holders and investors confidence that their money is safe. The scheme will be fully operational next year, funded via industry levies. It will protect the first $100,000 of a deposit. It is a landmark achievement and I thank the incredibly dedicated officials who worked with us on this, and a particular personal thanks from me to Governor Adrian Orr and his team for their hard mahi in challenging times.

Working with Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister was the greatest joy and privilege. I am not sure New Zealanders appreciate just how fortunate we were to have someone of Jacinda’s intellect, compassion, and practicality leading us through some of our most difficult times as a nation. Jacinda got the balance between head and heart so well. She knew how much it mattered to the children who wrote to her that she replied—often with a personal, handwritten message—but at the same time, she was equally clear on how important was to speak clearly to leaders around the world about our independent foreign policy. I was so very honoured to serve alongside you, my friend.

I remember vividly the day we shut the borders. We did it on a teleconference of Cabinet. I was in Jacinda’s electorate office with her. When the call ended, we looked at each other and recognised the enormity of what we had done. It felt very heavy. I tried to lighten the moment by noting that I knew when we went into coalition with New Zealand First our immigration policy might change, but I didn’t think it would go this far. Jacinda didn’t laugh.

As finance Minister, I was looking at some dire forecasts. Globally, financial markets were in freefall. We were told that bond markets could dry up. Treasury were forecasting 13.5 percent unemployment and mass business failures.

We were heading into unknown territory at every turn. Early on, we knew Air New Zealand was in trouble. The border closures here and overseas were cutting their revenue to next to nothing overnight. We pulled together the $900 million loan package in a very short few days.

When it came time to announce it, it coincided with the directive for Beehive staff to work from home. We scrambled out a media release, and I hand-wrote some talking points and headed down on my own to the theatrette to announce it. A small number of journalists were sitting there. After I had finished speaking, one of them said, “Why have you done this?” I said, “Because Air New Zealand would be insolvent in months if we didn’t.”, and everyone just kind of nodded. As I walked out, Pattrick Smellie said to me, “On any other day, that would have been the biggest financial story of the year.”, and I agreed, as we stood in the Beehive foyer with staff coming by, carrying screens and printers, and wondering if they would ever be coming back.

As we got into lockdown, we settled into some routines. There were only seven staff actually working in the Beehive. I was completely alone on the seventh floor. Of course, no shops were open, and at the beginning we hadn’t been to the supermarket. Like some kind of latter-day Bruno Lawrence in the movie The Quiet Earth, I roamed the office in search of food, eventually stealing the bread from Kelvin Davis’ freezer. Things improved dramatically on the catering front when Leroy Taylor began his daily sausage-roll baking.

The Government’s approach to the virus was to go hard and early. In the finance space, this translated to focusing on cash flow and confidence. The wage subsidy was the centrepiece of this support. We wanted a scheme that would keep people in their jobs and save businesses at the same time. We also knew that it needed to be available quickly and for long enough to give confidence. The work done by the Ministry of Social Development, in particular, to make this happen was positively heroic. At one point, they were processing 21 applications a minute.

In the 2020 election campaign, I remember being in Featherston one day, waiting outside the community centre for an announcement. A filthy ute came past, and my first thought was that Kieran McAnulty had arrived, but it wasn’t. It was a builder who had pulled over to talk to us. He walked over to me and he shook my hand. He told the story of telling his employees as various contracts they had were cancelled that he would probably have to let them go. He and his wife sat down one night to look into the wage subsidy. They filled out the forms and were gobsmacked when the money was in their account the next day. Every single one of those staff had their job kept.

In the end, across the lockdowns, the wage subsidy paid out $19 billion and protected more than 1.8 million jobs.

There were many other schemes that we developed fast. The Small Business Cashflow Loan Scheme, the Business Finance Guarantee Scheme, the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment, the leave support payment—the combined result of all of this and the hard mahi of New Zealanders was that unemployment never went above 5.4 percent. It actually fell to record lows and business failures were lower than in a normal year, and you don’t need to take my word for it. New Zealand was one of only a handful of countries to have its credit rating upgraded during the pandemic by the international ratings agencies, and it’s worth noting that those credit ratings have been maintained throughout our time in Government.

Now, these great results, of course, pale into insignificance in the face of the one statistic that matters: the number of lives saved. On that measure, New Zealand stood head and shoulders above others, with lower death rates than in normal years. Those statistics are real people. We know exactly who they were, if we look around the rest of the world. They were our grandparents, our neighbours, kaumātua, and kuia. To coin a phrase, they are us, and saving those lives trumps any statistics or any hate on social media.

Alongside the things that I am proud of, there are of course things I could talk about that we didn’t get to do. I’m just going to talk about one, and my colleagues will not be surprised. New Zealand’s tax system is unfair and unbalanced. We are almost alone in the OECD in terms of not properly taxing assets and wealth in some form. Our current system entrenches inequality. It’s not my place any longer to say specifically what the answer is here, but I do know that the answers are out there, and this is not a message for my party alone. The truth is we need some political consensus about this to ensure we get it right and that it sticks.

I don’t want to spend too long giving my reckons on all the things that you need to do—after all, I’m the one that’s leaving—but there is one other area that I have to talk about. One of the greatest joys of my life has been connecting more closely to te ao Māori, in large part through Alf, his whānau, and the mighty Ngāti Porou iwi. They have welcomed me more than could ever be expected. No trip to Ruatōria is complete without being spotted at the Four Square, and the steady stream of visitors to wherever we are staying to share the unrivalled subtle and quiet East Coast wisdom.

But one thing I have learnt from my contact with hapū and iwi across the motu: if Māori are doing well, if Māori are supported and enabled, if Māori are given their rangatiratanga, we are all better off.

Te Tiriti has been dishonoured by Pākehā settlers and it has been contentious. It has also been remarkable. It has given our country so much. It’s the framework through which we have sought to right wrongs, to give hope, to come together. It’s an imperfect partnership, but it is one that sets us apart from many other nations in giving place and voice to indigenous people.

It sickens me when people use our journey as a nation and the role and place of Māori as a political punching bag. My message to rangatahi and tamariki is that what we are seeing now is but a blip—a small, ugly footnote to the progress we have made and that you will make in the future. Kia kaha.

Mr Speaker, it’s the people you meet on the way. The extraordinary people of the Wellington Central Labour Party—I am proud that we had the largest membership in the country and that we brought by far the largest number of remits to conference. May you always push the boundaries.

To the New Zealand Labour Party leadership and wider membership, as an MP, we are nothing without the party we represent. I owe you all so much more than you could ever owe me.

I want to make a special mention of the crew who helped me during my early election and leadership campaigns. You were Young Labour then, and you’re well on your way to being middle-aged Labour now. You know who you are. You have been my support and my inspiration, and now I am asking you to stay in the fight because it matters.

A big thank you to everyone who supports us to do our work in this building. It’s hard to single folks out, but I do want to specifically mention two groups. Our VIP drivers as Ministers were, without exception, superb, and to Malcolm, who snuck his retirement in just before mine—thanks, mate, for always going above and beyond. And to the cleaning staff of this building, it has been a humbling experience getting to know you over the last couple of decades, and I was so proud when you were paid the living wage. You deserve more.

To Angela Bray, my senior private secretary for the six years I was a Minister—you were unflappable, Ange. Thank you so much. And the late Jen Toogood, my EA for the whole nine years of Opposition, thank you, Jen—I learnt so much from you, and I miss you very, very much—and my thanks to Janine Tapelu for helping pull today together.

To the political staff of my ministerial office, thank you so much. We did good and we had fun.

To the exceptional public servants who worked as seconded staff in the office, I say a heartfelt thankyou. I think it’s very easy to forget that the public servants who work for us are just people. They do not possess superhuman powers. They do not possess an endless supply of time and knowledge. What they are is a group of people who work extraordinarily hard to support the Government of the day, whoever they are and whatever they are doing, and I thank them all.

To my darling Alf, you have always kept it real and kept me grounded. Having a partner who actively dislikes politics has something to be said for it. But you have always supported me. We celebrated 25 years together last year, and I love you more every day.

I also love the family that you have given to me. Especially to Hayley, Abe, Keira, Khloe, Miley, and Kenny, and the Nolans, thank you for all the love and hugs. I never ever thought I would be a GG—that stands for Grandad Grant—and you have made my life a joy.

To Stephen, Delwyn, Cleo, Craig, Erin, Felix, Lisa, Campbell, and the wider family, thank you for your support from near and far, and to my late father Doug, I am pleased that you got to see your son enter this place. I know it made you proud, because you told everyone, all the time. You were taken from us too soon.

And to my Mum. Weaved through this speech has been my admiration for strong women. The strongest of them all is my Mum. It’s your values, your love, and your spirit that I have spent a lifetime trying to match. I’m not sure what we’re going to talk about each week without me being here, but at least we can both complain about the Government now. Thank you for everything, I love you with all my heart.

I remember Steve Maharey saying that politicians make rubbish friends, and he was right. I have been blessed with friends who have accepted that, and have always been there when I needed them. I look forward to a beer with all of you some time soon.

To the Labour team, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. It has been an absolute privilege to serve alongside colleagues over the last 15 years. You are a terrific team, and, “Chippy”, you are doing a great job in leading them. I endorse “Chippy” ’s view that you cannot be the dog that barks at every car. It can be tough if there is a convoy of stupidity going by, but it’s still the right strategy. A special thanks to my friend and benchmate Megan Woods for letting at least 40 percent of our conversations be about me.

To every member of this House, I wish you well. I continue to regard it as an absolute privilege to have had the opportunity to serve as a member of this House.

What we do in this place and in our community really matters. It can change lives and the course of history. You will not get everything right when you are here. You will not be able to achieve everything that you set out to do. There are days when it’s hard and you think no one cares. But they do, and they need you too.

l said earlier that the speech I was the proudest of was the one I gave on marriage equality. In it, I quoted Harvey Milk, the gay US politician tragically assassinated in office. Harvey Milk once said, “I know that you cannot live on hope alone, but without it life is not worth living. So you, and you, and you—you gotta give ‘em hope.”

That is our job in this place: to give people hope. To give hope to those who seek a better tomorrow for their families and communities, to give hope to everyone that they can be who they are and live free of discrimination, and to give hope to those who have none.

So that is my final, simple message today to you all. Hoatu he tumanako ki a rātou—you gotta give ‘em hope.

SPEAKER: The House is suspended for the dinner break.

[Applause, hongi, and harirū]

Waiata—“Homai o Ringa”

Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Kia ora, members. The House is resumed. Just before the dinner break, we were debating the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party will be opposing this bill today. This is poor policy for many reasons, but not limited to the constant legal battles and lobbying as to what might be considered fresh food or not—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You’d know about lobbying!

SIMON COURT: —as seen in other countries like the UK and Australia. Dr Webb, no one has to lobby the ACT Party with good ideas, OK? Let’s just be clear about that. Giving a tax cut to some of our highest-earning duopolistic companies, the supermarket companies, it’s clear the full savings won’t be passed on to consumers. All the evidence says that. Opening the floodgates next to what else could be GST-exempt—once you exempt GST on a few items, what next? Dental treatment? Wheelchairs? There’s no longer a justification against any further campaigns to remove GST from items on the basis of necessity.

The beauty of New Zealand’s GST scheme is its simplicity, something mentioned by extensive reviews of the UK system—

Rawiri Waititi: Stinks of privilege.

SIMON COURT: —and this is at risk by giving certain goods GST-free status. The gentleman says that campaigning for a single GST applying to everything stinks of privilege. Well, when you look at removing GST from food, what might be the implications, Mr Waititi? Food for human consumption: live animals intended for human consumption at the place of purchase is one of the definitions. I didn’t realise people ate live animals at the place of consumption, but maybe they will if your bill was to pass. What about any ingredient or any other constituent of food and drink, anything intended to be mixed with or added to food and drink? Does that mean the tonic that I add to my gin? Mr Waititi, your bill is flawed—it is flawed.

Who would be the main beneficiaries? Well, consumers might have cheaper food at the margins, but supermarkets would, effectively, get a 15 percent income tax cut, and, of course, all the lawyers who would make a big business arguing what is food, Mr Waititi. The costs to the Crown’s tax revenue would be significant. New Zealanders would get a short-term reduction in the price of food rather than any real addressing of the underlying concerns, which are the competition issues which increase our food prices.

One way we might address competition issues is through reform of the Resource Management Act to remove some of the economic tests that would currently apply if you wanted to open a new supermarket down the road where there’s an existing supermarket. Did you know, Mr Waititi, that if you want to get a resource consent to open a supermarket—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If the member could direct his comments to the front, to me.

SIMON COURT: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Did the Speaker know that if you wanted to get a resource consent for a supermarket down the road, you would have to prove that your new supermarket, Mr Speaker, would not interfere with the business of the existing supermarket?

Hon David Parker: That’s not correct.

SIMON COURT: That is completely nonsensical, Mr Parker, and you know it. What did the Tax Working Group, led by that great champion of financial stability former finance Minister Michael Cullen say about it? He said, “only 30 per cent of the benefit of removing GST from fruit and vegetables will be passed through to consumers in the form of lower prices, with supermarkets keeping the rest.” In 2009, France reduced their VAT rate on restaurant service from 19.6 to 5.5 percent, but only 45 percent of that rate cut ended up being passed through to lower consumer prices. In 2010, in Germany, the VAT on hotels, guest houses, and campsites was reduced from 19 to 7 percent, but only 28.4 percent of those savings were passed through to consumers.

This policy, Mr Waititi, Mr Speaker, is nothing but an act of desperation from a visionless, TikTok-driven party—absolutely empty of ideas, no idea how to deliver real value to New Zealanders. ACT will not support this TikTok-driven bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): On the subject of TikTok, the Hon Shane Jones—apologies, Hon Shane Jones; I had to.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Some people who desire to be stars are better staying behind the stable door. In the animal kingdom, a mayfly is an insect that lasts for one day; it is born, and then it perishes, and that will be the outcome for this bill—it will be addressed, it will be voted upon, and it will go the way of the mayfly.

But we should acknowledge the honourable member and the Māori Party for bringing to the attention of the House the importance of the cost of living. It may actually have occurred to them that so much of what they’ve had to say has been copied out of the New Zealand First manifesto, because—now, let me think. Please highlight that the Māori Party, like magpies, have sought to take shiny items from the New Zealand First manifesto. But manifestos are dynamic; they evolve, they change depending on the vicissitudes and the challenges of the time, and we have inordinately serious challenges of an economic character, which is why we need to draw the line at supporting legislation that is vague. It’ll be virtually impossible to ascertain is cocoa chocolate, is chocolate cocoa? It could be that in Australia, there are distinctions, but we’ve been advised on numerous occasions that their GST is not as clean and it’s not as rational as ours.

But what are the other ways that we can actually deal with the problem? I think this is where the Māori Party is woefully short of anything that can be contributed, other than the predictable narrative that it’s all the fault of Captain Cook. So let’s focus our attention on what the specific interventions are that can be done and actually remind our own people, in terms of te ao Māori, who come from a rich tradition of ahuwhenua—of agriculture—who come from a rich tradition of food gathering, who come from a rich tradition of food production, much of which has been allowed to slip away as the sense of agency has been stripped from modern Māori, that many of them have been conditioned to look to the tax system, to look to Parliament, to look to Wellington to address a number of the challenges of how to eat in a healthy vein, how to look after themselves, and how to make smart choices about lifestyle. Regulation, tax system, and Parliament will never address or never replace the sense of responsibility. Of course, that’s actually what rangatiratanga means: taking responsibility for the lifestyle choices that you decide to make. Don’t bother looking in dusty heaps of manuscripts in museums or old photos on the wall of the marae; think about the people today and what responsibilities they have to ensure that their tamariki, their family, and their own sense of ownership to grow your own kai, to support kaupapa such as māra kai and mahinga kai.

Now, in the month of April, I will be returning back to Tai Tokerau, and the thick end of a quarter of an acre of not only kūmara but native peruperu potatoes—a number of names that I won’t repeat in the Whare because they could be misconstrued, but that’s a small example of how there’s a practical response to relying on convenience food. Don’t make it easier; make it more challenging for people to stand up and take responsibility for lifestyle choices. It’s not the total answer, but it’s a key answer in the sense that the Māori Party is focused on the ability of whānau to feed themselves and clothe themselves. When you bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility primarily to look after that child. Secondly, don’t look to the State or don’t deploy weapons of colonisation to overlook the fact the responsibility is not the tax system, the responsibility is not Wellington. For those reasons, the GST amendments proposed in this bill are going the way of the insect known as the mayfly: haere ki te pō.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I would like to begin by acknowledging the reason that this bill was brought to the House, and that is the desire of Mr Rawiri Waititi and the Māori Party to address the cost of living, to find some way of helping with the cost of living. We’ve been promised help with the cost of living, but it hasn’t eventuated yet. And, of course, we do need some way to help people, but we do not think that taking GST off kai is going to get the right result.

I just want to take the House through some numbers and some evidence on this, to explain why we think there are better ways to address the cost of living. So, back in 2018, in the midst of all its paperwork, the Tax Working Group did produce a background note on GST, and, in it, it very explicitly examined the possibility of taking GST off kai, and looked at some of the numbers. They estimated which households would get a benefit from it. Now, by the time that’s adjusted for food price inflation since 2018, there’s been about a 28 percent food price inflation. A decile 1 household—so that’s the lowest-wealth 10 percent of our households—would, in today’s terms, get maybe about $19 a week benefit from taking GST off kai; a decile 2 household would actually get $18 a week; and a decile 3 household would get $23 a week. That’s the kind of benefit that would flow to low-income households from taking GST off kai. But a decile 8 household would get $46 a week, and a decile 9 household would get $53 a week, and a decile 10 household would get $68 a week. The benefits of this change would flow primarily to high-income households. That’s the evidence of the Tax Working Group in 2018.

In fact, that group suggested the better way to help low-income households to meet the cost of living was through targeted means—and these are some of the means that we had put in place in the Government—such as indexing benefits to wages, such as providing lunches in schools, such as providing low-cost public transport. Maybe it’s even things like money for rural roads. There are better ways to spend that money.

The actual fiscal cost of doing this, of taking GST off food, would be—again, in today’s terms—about $3.3 billion to $3.9 billion. That $3.3 billion is the $2.6 billion that the Tax Working Group estimated back in 2018, adjusted for food price inflation since then. The $3.9 billion is a library re-estimate. That’s a lot of money. That’s $3.9 billion in any fiscal year, and that could be used for a lot of purposes, and specifically directed towards low-income families.

So because the benefit-flows from this bill, alas, go mostly to higher-income households, and because the way of helping lower-income households could best be achieved through targeted measures, the Labour Party does not support this bill. That’s our primary reason.

There are some other reasons as to why we cannot support the bill. But rather than going through them, I do just want to express one regret that this evening we’ll be voting against the bill, in that it doesn’t get to select committee. I think there is actually an unexamined assumption around taking GST off some products and not others, and that is that it is difficult to do and it has very high compliance costs. Now, certainly that’s the argument that’s always put forward when this is suggested, but I do think that’s an unexamined assumption since GST was first put in place on 1 October 1986. I think it would be worth examining that assumption again thoroughly. The Tax Working Group did a bit of work on it, but I would like to see some work put into that at some stage, because I can see why people do get upset and feel that we oughtn’t have tax on a necessity like food. So perhaps we should be looking at that at some stage. However, as I said, that’s a regret that we’ll be voting against this bill, that we won’t be able to test that assumption. But what we will always support is assisting low-income families, and that is our major reason for turning this particular bill down.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Well, I welcome this opportunity to be able to speak against this bill. There’s been a lot of conversation and discussion tonight around the cost of living crisis, because we are in a cost of living crisis. Our economy is fragile and we need to strengthen it and get it back on track. On this side of the House, we do that by being good fiscal managers and managing the books properly, looking at productivity, and realising that, in New Zealand, we actually have an effective, simple, fair tax system that we do not need to change by removing GST from food.

But there are other ways we do need to change it, and that is to ensure that hard-working New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn. On that side of the House, they have used hard-working New Zealanders as a bottomless ATM. Well, we have stopped that. We have put a stop to that, already making announcements to get rid of the ute tax, the fuel tax, and we’re bringing back the brightline test back to two years and restoring interest deductibility, because these are practical solutions, practical policies that are going to get this economy back on track by focusing on less tax and more productivity to strengthen our economy.

But, today, we have had a bill that has been introduced to this House, which is once again going to treat New Zealanders like a bottomless ATM machine—we absolutely oppose this bill. Taking GST off food will cost the Crown about $2.6 billion, it is estimated out there. In a cost of living crisis where there’s been a lot of spending, we need to bring it back; rein it in.

When we look at this, it’s not actually the ones that are the most deprived that are going to get the most benefit out of this bill, because the research has proven that the administrative costs and the complexity means that it could be that the supermarkets are going to be the ones that, basically, benefit from this—and not directly going into the consumers’ pockets, where it needs to be going. So this actually raises concerns about the effectiveness and the justification of this spending. It is not the way to reduce the cost of living. The way to do that is by directly assisting hard-working New Zealanders with tax relief, which we will see more of later this year.

But removing GST from food will bring a whole lot of administrative costs. I think it was interesting that the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell earlier spoke about the Tax Working Group—I mean, we don’t really like to bring up those working groups; there was quite a few of them. But this particular one did make some quite interesting comments around GST. Basically, they said that it was a bad idea. We should be looking at that and taking that advice, because it is a bad idea, where we would see more administrative costs, more complexity, and that money not actually going into the pockets of the people who really need it, because the ones that would benefit more are the ones that are going to be spending more on groceries at the supermarket, not the ones that aren’t going to be spending as much. So, broadly, it is not a good idea.

I come from a region which produces a lot of food: Tukituki, Hawke’s Bay. It’s the food-producing region of New Zealand. But the way to bring food prices down is to get on top of inflation, strengthen the economy, and make it easier for the businesses to produce the food—that is, less red tape, less regulation, so that we can actually bring the cost of food down. At the moment, we are seeing inflation high, but we need to bring that down. So we need to refocus our priorities on strengthening the economy. It is not removing GST off food. It is a bad idea—that is what the tax groups have recommended. So, today, I do not support this bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, thank you very much for the opportunity to take this call. I’m really pleased to have it, because this is a bill which is about what we should be talking about in this Parliament: about bringing down the cost of living for people, about our tax system, and about the ways to make it fair.

I have here a proposal that Labour members seek to work on with members of the Government, with all parties around this House, on a select committee inquiry into food pricing, because every member of this House has given a speech tonight which has identified a huge problem and a weakness, a structural weakness, in our economy about the price of food. We need to be able to dig into those details. We need to understand why the price of food and the profits that supermarkets are making do not match up, and why New Zealanders are paying more than their international counterparts for food. We need an enduring solution to the high prices that New Zealanders are paying, and we need that to be cross-partisan and something we can all dig into. I welcome support of all parties to open this inquiry at a select committee level about why it is that New Zealanders are paying too much.

Now, I said I wanted to talk about tax, and I am keen to get into that tonight because this is a bill which would seek to change our tax system in a couple of ways, which my colleagues have discussed tonight. Because tax is important, if you want a New Zealand where every person is living the kind of good life that they envision for themselves, no matter who they are, where they’re from in the country, and for that to happen, we need high-quality public services that are accessible to everyone and that work for everyone, that meet them where they are at. To be able to do that, to have the kind of social welfare system which catches people and it’s a genuine safety net, to be able to have a healthcare system which is responsive to people’s needs, to have the transformative social elevator that is education in New Zealand, we need to be able to raise taxes from a broad base. And in New Zealand, we are not doing that in the way that we should be doing.

The Māori Party’s bill tonight is a great opportunity to be able to talk about whether their solution would do that. Labour members do not think it would do that in the way that we would hope to, because it would result in less tax take, because Labour has always believed in a progressive tax system and has been committed to a fair, transparent one that promotes social equity, sustainability, and long-term economic growth. That kind of tax system would levy everyone fairly and progressively. It would levy more tax to pay for the kind of redistributive politics that Labour and the Māori Party champion in this House for everyone to be able to access. We should not, in the kind of economic environment that the National Government is promoting, be promoting a tax cut, which this is. Instead, we need to be talking about how we levy everyone fairly to pay for those social services that people deeply rely upon, that our whaikaha families and their carers rely upon and need, that Ministers need to be able to go to the Budget and say we need more money to pay for these social services that mums and dads around the country are crying out for today because they are being taken away from them. That is the kind of tax system that we need to be talking about.

But we also need to have, at a select committee, cross-partisan agreement about the fact that, yes, the Māori Party have raised that our people, everyone in New Zealand, are paying too much for food. The answer is not that the Government shouldn’t take its share of food, that we should not pay our way as part of a goods and services tax that is levied very cheaply across everyone, and includes people like tourists and visitors to this country who wouldn’t otherwise pay tax. We need to be having a conversation around why it is possible for super-profits to be made in our grocery and food sector, that New Zealand has one of the least effective markets for consumers of groceries in the world, that our supermarkets—which are, in fact, Australian supermarkets—are 20 times more profitable than their European counterparts, which exist in a much more competitive market. We need to take those issues seriously, and that’s why we should be debating that at select committee.

It’s not the solution to the problem to take tax off things like food and grocery; it’s the solution to actually look at why the duopoly and luxurious market conditions that the supermarkets enjoy have been able to go on for so long. Labour began this work; if we had been able to finish that work, we would be in a different situation than we are today. We need to keep going on it, and it cannot be something which is treated as a political football. So I welcome every party in this House’s support when Labour members present to the select committee our food pricing inquiry.

NANCY LU (National): I stand in front of all of you today to oppose the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill in its first reading. At its first glance, and I invite you to read the title again, it sounds like it’s making an attempt to address a pressing issue, which—every single member tonight and this afternoon has addressed it, too—is to provide financial relief for the high cost of living pressure in our country that our people are experiencing. I must put out loud and clear—and, eventually, in black and white in the Hansard—that this member’s proposal to amend our current effective, fair Goods and Services Tax Act is ambitious; however, it is very dangerous to New Zealand’s tax system, not only just now but also in the long run.

I don’t believe any member in this House or any families in New Zealand watching TV right now or online watching would disagree about the reality we are in, which is the high cost of living pressure and crisis that we’re in. All of our families experience and feel the financial burdens and pain when they go into a supermarket, having to choose between an apple or a banana, or having to choose and downgrade for a different brand of products. Do you know why the people of New Zealand have made their choice in October 2023? It is precisely because they’ve lost hope for the last Government, who had tried for six years—six years—to do something for New Zealand, but they didn’t. So the people of New Zealand actually made their choices by voting for a National-led Government to bring our country back on track, to bring down the cost of living, to bring down inflation, to fix the economy, to grow our economy, and to get our country and our people back on track.

I am definitely opposing this amendment in front of you today because this amendment simply does not address the intention to help cost of living pressure for any of New Zealand’s families, not in the short term and definitely not in the longer term. My first reason is very, very simple. This amendment to the House today to change the current tax code in order to charge GST according to the different products and kinds of products in the market simply is just not going to work. It’s going to be an overhaul of word games. Let me ask who in this House—members and Speaker—needs a new definition of what “food” is. We know what food is. We don’t need a separate tax definition to tell us what food means, so I am opposed to this overhaul of word game that the member is proposing.

Secondly, I oppose this bill because while it seems like it intends to provide relief for families who go through the pressure and the painful points when they’re in the supermarket, I encourage members and all our voters and constituents watching us to learn from other countries who have already adopted or are adopting similar tax policies. I encourage you to have a look at the UK.

I remember, going through university, that my tax law professor said to our class once, “There are only two things that are certain in this world: death and tax.”, and it should keep it that way—it should be death and tax. Tax should be simple and easy to understand. It should be effective. It should be fair. We do not have to go into the restaurant or the supermarket to understand that “Oh, this is taxable, but this is hot, and therefore this is taxable. But this is cold—oh, I’m sorry, this is not taxable.” This is not the situation and not the thing that New Zealand families need.

I am opposing this bill before the House because I believe a National-led Government has better policies and better tools to bring our country back on track. That includes working on improving the productivity of New Zealand sectors and New Zealand’s workforce. That includes increasing trade, and that is why we are talking actively on free-trade agreements with other regions and countries. We are talking about better technologies, so that our people, our tradies, and our companies can have higher profit return, and, therefore, pay higher wages for their employees. We’re encouraging people to look into baking a bigger cake so that every single New Zealander can have more to share. So, therefore, I oppose this bill.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I do want to acknowledge the Government over the last few speeches—you’ve gone all the way through to the end of them! I must say, under urgency, you might have done a minute or not even a minute. But I think that has to be acknowledged, that, tonight, you’ve gone all the way through to the end of your five minutes or your 10 minutes. Well done—well done.

Pō ngā rā, pō ngā rā. Ka tataki mai te Whare o ngā ture. Ka whiria te Māori, ka whiria. Ngau ōna reiti, ngau ōna tāke, a ha ha. Tē taea te ueue—the shadows fall, the shadows fall. There is chattering in Parliament, and Māori are being plaited as a rope. Its rates and its taxes are biting, ah ha ha. Its teeth cannot be withdrawn. Alas, the kaupapa we talk to this evening.

I heard from this side of the House that $2.6 billion will be lost if we were to take GST off food, but you want to give $3 billion in tax cuts to landlords—absolutely makes no sense to me. This is a call to those who have voted against this bill this evening, to the middle New Zealand, that you continue to seek support by. Just remember that New Zealand wouldn’t be an isolated case to take GST off food; Canada, Australia, Mexico, Ireland, and the UK have all done it. There are examples out there already, but let’s get down to the nitty-gritty.

Our people that walk into those supermarkets are having to return things on to the shelves. They have to choose whether they’re going to fill the car up with petrol or to put food on the table or to pay the bill. It’s a sad situation out there. Under urgency, we have done nothing to close the gap between the rich and the poor. We have done nothing for those who are struggling out there; it’s been to undo everything. But what are we actually doing in this House to start looking after people?

We did a questionnaire on one of my social media pages, where we asked people how much they were paying for GST—what was the average cost that they were paying in a supermarket. The average was $400; $80 a week on GST. That’s $320 a month. That’s $3,840 per year that they would keep in their pocket. That’s seven weeks of free food. That’s what we’re talking about here. This is the reality. You can talk about all the other things you’ve talked about—administrative costs, there’s going to be huge tax implications. Rubbish. If you were to put more effort into chasing down tax evaders who are costing this country $7 billion a year, you’d make a hell of a lot more money than on regressive tax like GST on kai.

What is clear to Te Pāti Māori, and our whānau living in poverty, is that everybody against this bill is blinded by their privilege. So don’t anyone in this House come to us to talk about lifting our people and whānau out of poverty, because today you have committed our whānau to it. This was an opportunity for tangata Tiriti to stand with the only tangata whenua party in this House. So will the real tangata Tiritis please stand up?

We will remember this; our people will remember this. This is a sad day because this Government has got no legislation coming up we’ve heard; and that you have an opportunity—you have an opportunity—to start looking at—not you, Mr Speaker—we have an opportunity to come up with solutions. Not and/or solutions, not either/or solutions; and/and solutions.

GST wasn’t the only back-breaker for this particular issue, on poverty—absolutely not. But it’s the beginning, to look at resetting what a fairer tax system looks like and not continue a regressive tax system that continues to punish the poor; that continues to allow our mothers and our nannies and papas who cannot afford the food in supermarkets to have to put those things back. It’s a sad reality, and this House has turned their backs on trying to close the inequities and the poverty gap for our people. Today is a sad day. Te Pāti Māori can unequivocally say that we are the only party in the middle that is willing to run these types of kaupapa up the guts to ensure that there is a voice for those have-nots. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 6

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 117

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I move, That the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

This bill proposes a small—but I think important—measure to enable company directors, in some circumstances, to have their address removed from a public register of a company. It’s had quite a history coming to this Parliament. I would like to acknowledge, first of all, Sarah Pallett, formerly the MP for Ilam—this was her bill in the ballot. When she left Parliament, we put the bill in the ballot in my name, and it was drawn recently. However, it is Sarah Pallett’s bill, and I am honoured to bring it to the House on her behalf.

I’d also like to acknowledge Laura Trask, ACT MP, who had a very similar bill in the ballot. I will talk about the issue she was addressing a little as I go on through this speech, but she had some particular reasons as to why she thought a measure like this would be quite good too. I look forward, with interest, to hear what she says.

I’d like to tell you a bit about why this bill is important. As part of our companies law, there is a public register of company directors, names, and addresses. That’s publicly available—anyone can go and search up a name of a company director, and can search up their home address. Back in the olden days, before the internet, if someone wanted to go and find a company director’s address, there was quite a barrier to doing so. The person who wanted to search it up had to go to the Companies Office and look through physical records in order to access a company director’s address. It might take quite some time to find that particular address. So it took time and effort. What that meant was that there was quite a barrier to people searching out a company director’s address for frivolous or for malicious reasons.

But contrast that with the way the Companies Register is kept today. It is online; it is readily accessible. So, in fact, with a little bit of effort, if you know someone who is a company director, and you know that person’s legal name, then it is perfectly possible to go and type in the person’s legal name, and come up with their address in a matter of moments—seconds even. I’ve done it myself, and it is an easy thing to do. What it means is that there is no barrier to finding out where someone lives, in the way that there used to be. With that comes hazards. In particular, the hazard that this bill addresses is that where a person feels that she or he, or that someone they live with, is in physical or mental danger, they could be traced very, very easily. At the moment, a stalker, someone who wished a person harm, can find where they live at home so quickly and so easily. People might think that this is just a theoretical problem, but it is not.

At this point, what I would like to do, if you will excuse me, is to read something that Sarah Pallett herself wrote about this. It’s a way of getting Sarah Pallett’s words into the Hansard. This is from a letter that Ms Pallett wrote to the then Minister of commerce:

“[I’ve] been approached by one of my constituents who has raised some serious concerns relating to her personal safety. My constituent is a Clinical Psychologist and Neuropsychologist, whose work involves assessment of violent offenders, and clients who often have serious mental health issues and brain injuries. The outcomes for her assessments can have substantial impacts on the lives of her clients, determining matters such as custody, sentencing, parole, and eligibility for financial compensation. Inevitably, my constituent’s assessments do not always conclude in the client’s favour, and this can result in her clients becoming very angry and threatening towards her. For this reason, my constituent goes to great lengths to protect her privacy and safety. For example, she is on the unpublished electoral roll, and has ensured that her child has a different surname to avoid them being easily connected to her.

“My constituent recently discovered that a quick google of her name links it directly to her physical residential address [off of] NZ Companies Office website. [She’s] appealed to the Companies Office, and explained her situation in an attempt to have her residential address removed and replaced by an alternate contact address … as the visibility of her residential address to any and all members of the public who wish to find out her location constitutes a very serious risk to her safety given the nature of her work. She was advised that there was no way to have her residential address removed from their website, unless she had a court order under the Family Violence Act [2018], and that they would not accept any alternate contact address other than her personal residential address.”

So that is the issue: a person’s address can be found readily, and then that can expose that person to malicious actors.

So how does this bill address that issue? What it says is that if a person thinks that she or he is at serious risk of mental or physical harm, then she or he can, after swearing a statutory affidavit to that effect—so there’s a statutory declaration to that effect; there’s a test in there—then that person can apply to the Companies Office to have their physical address removed from the records, and they must provide an alternate address for service. So that’s what this bill will enable to happen. I think it is a very sensible measure.

It could go further. I think there is a case to be discussed about whether all company directors should be able to have an alternate address rather than their personal address. There’s some pros and cons on that one. I think most of us in the House would know the stories of the phoenix companies which rise up and disappear very quickly, and stiff the subbies on the way. Where company directors do just disappear into the ether, having a personal address available might be a counter to that. But that is something that could be weighed up—that, I think, allowing all company directors to perhaps have some way of making sure their own personal address is not available is a rather bigger issue, and it would take a lot of time to discuss.

In the meantime, I think it would be worth it to enable people to improve their own personal, physical, and mental safety by not having to have their home address publicly available to anyone and everyone. So, that’s the issue—you may recall that I mentioned that that Laura Trask had been working on a similar issue, and she had looked at that particular issue. It’s worthy of consideration too. However, I am asking this House, in the meantime, to consider this rather smaller measure to take the small step that would improve the safety of many, many people.

Of course, I have read out the example which Sarah Pallett gave, and one of the obvious groups of people that this applies to is women, that women are more likely to be stalked or subject to violence. We also have stories of people whose former partners have been stalking them, and so on. But it is important to note that it is not only women who are affected by this sort of issue. As I was writing about this bill being pulled from the ballot on my social media, I had my old friend contact me to say he’d been out in public on some issue, someone had tracked him down through his personal address, and then had managed to turn up outside his kid’s school to harass him, because he was able to trace him.

So this does actually matter, the public availability of company directors’ addresses, and it is a broader issue. I would hope that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Andrew Bayly, would consider addressing it one day. But, in the meantime, I would invite the House to consider this rather smaller case, and this rather smaller measure, that, possibly in the short term, would provide some better safety, particularly for women, but also for men, whose addresses are so publicly available. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. First of all, I want to acknowledge and congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for having a bill pulled—I presume this is her first?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: No, second.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Oh, second?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Yeah.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Oh, that’s outright greedy! I’ve never had one pulled in the nine years—and I’m now going in my 10th year—it’s just unbelievably lucky that you’ve had two!

But, anyway, I’m glad you acknowledge Sarah Pallett, who—obviously, she was the one who filed the bill initially, and we all know the game, and it’s good that you picked this up. I also wanted to acknowledge Laura Trask, who had a very similar bill in the ballot, and I understand that she withdrew that bill once this one was drawn, which is a proper thing to do, really, and I congratulate her on doing that.

Of course, this is a very worthy issue, and the member has talked about the issues. I think, particularly, we’ve heard many stories specifically around women being stalked, but, as the member noted, it’s not exclusive to women. But I think we are very mindful of that fact: that people can use this information, as they can use other sources of public information, to identify where people live, to actually do serious harm in terms of chasing them, hounding them, and all the other things that go with that. So, I think, from that perspective, I’ve got to congratulate the intent of this bill. It is a worthy bill; it is an excellent bill that ordinarily would be considered and should be considered by this House as a member’s bill.

But we’re not going to support the bill, and the reason why is not because we don’t find the bill is worthy; we do. It’s, as I’ve said—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: If you say you’ve got a bill coming!

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Interesting, I’ve just been interjected by the former Minister of commerce, and I’ve just got to say that I find it staggering that the previous Government didn’t take the opportunity to progress this issue when it was in Government, and particularly that Minister who progressed many things—and, in fact, I’m having to tidy up some of them at the moment. But you should have had the opportunity—sorry, Mr Speaker; the member, the former Minister of commerce should have taken the opportunity to pursue this, and it’s interesting—I see him sitting there, showing outrage. But this is a worthy thing, and I think it’s something that the Minister of commerce should have pursued.

I just want to go into why we’re not going to support the bill. But I just want to look at the main provision. So clause 4 of the bill, amending section 215 of the Companies Act, allows replacing a director’s residential address with a service address in public records, provided new section 360D conditions are met. Obviously, that is a fair bit of discretion around: when does someone really have safety concerns and when might they be using this provision to escape the attention of creditors or other reasons, legitimate or otherwise? So it is a test that is somewhat subjective, and I’m not denying the situation that there are people who are sometimes very much in danger—that’s not the issue. All I’m noting is that the test is somewhat subjective, as set out in new section 360D.

The second one is specifically around 360D. There is a requirement for a process requiring a personal application, risk declaration, alternative address been specified, and a fee applicable across multiple companies. So that’s, obviously, the process that people go through, and then, of course, the prescribed fee, which I’m not sure that’s been set, but, obviously, that would come with some cost. Whether this is something you should be charging for, I’m not quite sure, given we’re talking about safety matters. It’s one of those interesting things that we would be asking the Companies Office to make a change for the reason of protecting someone’s safety and seeking to charge for that, rather than other aspects where sometimes we don’t charge for this type of registration. It’s an interesting point.

But there are some reasons why we see a little bit of concern with this bill. The first one is—and I’ve noted before—it is principally around meeting safety concerns, and the member introducing the bill talked about that tonight. It overlooks the critical issues relating to privacy for both directors and shareholders, and actually increases, probably inadvertently, the potential risk of identity theft and fraud. I’m not sure whether the member has thought about it in the wider context of it, but by moving to this arrangement, by removing one of the identifiers of a particular individual who might be a director, it does create the opportunity for theft and fraud. The limited focus may not adequately protect against fraud and privacy. That’s the first thing. There are times when people also may want to have their addresses withheld, not only for safety reasons but quite separately for privacy reasons, and, of course, this bill does not address that issue at all.

The second one is that—

Hon David Parker: You could fix that at select committee.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: —there’s a lack of logic, Mr Parker, and I’ll tell you what the lack of logic is. The lack of logic is: if we accepted this solution to this important issue and we allowed people to strike off their residential address, the lack of logic is that if they are a shareholder—and for many smaller entities, the directors are also the shareholder of those companies—the shareholder residential address would not be changed under the provisions in this bill, and that is rather much of a glaring issue. I don’t know whether the member thought about this further. It seems inconceivable that we’re going to achieve much of an outcome, where you go through the process under new section 360D, strike off your residential address as a director, but guess what! When you’re listed as a shareholder, just as accessible, your residential address is also highlighted there. So this bill does not adequately address that one.

The third element is that the bill lacks provisions for a clear differentiation of directors sharing the same name posing difficulties in terms of identifying who people are. So just before I came to the House, I went to the Companies Office and I put in “Brian Smith”—and, by the way, I think it went to 51 pages, but I’ve just printed off a few of them. So here we are: I’ve got Brian Smith, lives at 394 Vaile Road, Reporoa. Now we’ve got the next one, Brian Smith—Smith, Brian, actually—7 Darcy Place, Massey, Waitakere City. Third Brian: Smith, Brian—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I’m just aware that there is a convention in this House not to identify individuals, and certainly not identify individuals’ personal details.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Well, these are on the Companies Office.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just take some advice on that, as I was thinking that could be an issue. I wonder if the member could give us some assurance about whether that information is in the public domain and/or whether he got assurances from the people whose addresses he just read out.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: It’s come straight from the Companies Office. Anyway, I think, Mr Speaker, I’ve made my point—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I think the point’s been made, if you could just move on from reading the addresses.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: So what I’m saying is that as soon as you remove the address identifier—so we end up with 51 pages full of Brian Smiths, all spelt with the same B-R-I-A-N.

I think the fourth element to this is that inevitably what will happen is people will see people taking advantage of this clause and then actually moving to the recommendation that everyone should strike off their name, and we will end up with, inevitably, I think, over time, people’s addresses not being made available at all.

Look, I agree with the member—it is an important issue—but the reason we are going to oppose it is that we will be introducing a revised Companies Act, which will include amendments to it, which will address this issue, in particular. I think the big issue is around: how do you distinctly and uniquely identify specific directors so that people are accountable, particularly, as the member quite rightly pointed out, where people choose, quite deliberately, phoenix companies, where they have companies—particularly we see it, unfortunately, often in the construction sector—they get into trouble, they close them down, open them up, same name but with a different date on it, and continue to operate.

People do manipulate the Companies Office records by either putting their name—it might be Brian Smith, it might be Brian D. Smith, it might be Brian Daniel Smith, it might be a slightly changed address, because people who deliberately try to avoid detection and identification use those things, they may even try and change the Brian from an “i” to a “y”. I think we will be introducing changes that will specifically deal with those unique identifiers. That is why we are not supporting this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I rise in support of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. As a true Marxist, I’m not really one to stand up for the petite bourgeoisie, but I think what this bill is trying to do is address structural issues relating to violence that may occur as a result of the way we have created a disclosure regime that does put people at risk of violence because of how easy, as the previous speaker actually demonstrated, it is to find some of that information. I think this bill has merit in that regard to unpack, especially at a select committee stage, how we can, as we’ve identified, utilise a test that protects people from those threats of violence and harm and therefore have a regime that would allow for people who are at risk to be protected.

I think it’s also worth unpacking at a select committee stage how do we create, none the less, the ability for companies’ directors to be properly held to account, for example by media. Media has often used those registers, actually, to then be able to hold companies’ directors to account when there are things of public interest.

So I think the select committee stage would’ve enabled a proper unpacking of, specifically, the concerns that the previous speaker raised and would’ve allowed for a more substantive debate on the nature of how do we protect people who under the current systems and structures are more at risk of violence and physical and mental harm while at the same time ensuring that companies’ directors are held to account and we continue preventing phoenixing, which is a practice that was identified as one that is still a problem in Aotearoa. For that reason, we support this bill.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. Firstly, I just want to congratulate the member, the Hon Deborah Russell, for having this bill pulled from the tin. I also want to acknowledge her predecessor or her former colleague Sarah Pallett for her work in raising this issue. I also want to acknowledge our coalition partner and the Hon Andrew Bayly for the work that he will be doing in this space as well.

The member’s bill is very similar to a member’s bill that, actually, I had in the ballot. I may say that I feel that ours could have quietly been a little bit more superior because it was covering a few more of these wider issues that we’ve seen discussed here tonight. Once I put my member’s bill into the ballot, I was inundated with messages of support and other complaints from many different people—mostly women, but there were all kinds of different people. There were issues with stalking, domestic violence, violent threats, fraud, even the likes of spam mail, for example, going to people with their business’s address.

The thing is: if you’re a director of a small business or a company, do you deserve to have your public address made available? I feel, personally, as a former director of a company, that this is actually very scary and very dangerous and it is not appropriate. I heard from a few people during the time that I did have my member’s bill in the tin that there were concerns that, you know, big corp will be hiding their directorship. Well, news flash: they already do. Because if you open a business or a company via an accountant, the accountant’s office is there—which I can tell you our business was. So this issue didn’t directly affect me.

Who it affects the most is actually your sole traders. It’s your hairdressers, it’s your tradies, it’s your people that are working from home as well—and during COVID, we saw quite a few businesses established from home. And to have your work address and your home address publicly displayed, that is really unacceptable.

What would be the benefits of having an address on the register at all? So this bill actually allows for an alternative address, but, really, what is the benefit from having any address publicly available? I really, honestly don’t see the benefits. I want to support this bill, considering that it was very similar to my own and it would be silly for me not to—acknowledging the fact that my colleague Andrew Bayly will be doing some work on this. I want to see it go to the select committee and hash out some of these issues that we are seeing.

And yeah, really, that’s all I have to say on it. I just want to congratulate the member again and say that I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m going to join in congratulating the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for having her bill drawn. I’m not quite sure why we do that, because it’s a matter of luck—but you have to be in to win, as they say, so you were in to win on this one.

New Zealand First is not going to support this bill, and that is, basically, on the basis that we think there is other legislation, which has been talked about already in this House, which is going to be more comprehensive, and we don’t want to take too much of the House’s time—valuable time—to consider one bill when a more comprehensive approach is planned to be taken.

Look, these issues are a balancing act. They’re a balancing act between providing for business people’s safety. I think we are a little concerned about that concept of the “mental safety”, because that could be—you know, physical safety is one thing, but mental safety is something which we could see some fairly long bows drawn, and what we don’t want to see is people hiding behind those sort of things and it being too hard to administer.

But I think one point that I would make is that we’ve often seen—you know, I could almost say “the late”—Fair Go, operations like that, where they have said, “Look, there is an issue, some business is not behaving in a way which it should be behaving to its customers and its clients.” Of course, the media want to go, or other people want to go, and actually knock on somebody’s door and say, “Well, hey, Mr Business Person, Mrs Business Person, how are you doing, are you behaving fairly to your customers?” I think the ability to be able to access those people and to be able to hold them to account actually is a really, really important one.

So finding the balance, here, between the safety of the business person and their responsibility to the people who are their clients is a really, really important one. So we think that a more a more holistic approach, that the Hon Andrew Bayly has talked about, is the right way to go, and we will not be supporting this bill.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m absolutely delighted to be standing here in support of this Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. And I’d like to say a thank you to Te Pāti Māori for allowing me to be able to have this call here this evening.

Look, just listening to the last contribution and the contribution of the Hon Andrew Bayly, I’m a little bit concerned that we’re hearing some of the reasons why this needs to go through, and possibly even with some more urgency. And we’re hearing work’s coming, but we don’t know when that is or when those discussions will actually take place. I’m really concerned, especially when I hear the contribution from Laura Trask around the really serious reasons why this bill is so important, especially to some really vulnerable demographics. And it is the small-business person who is most at risk. For me, in reading through some of the media that has been about this bill, it is the most vulnerable business-holder who is the woman often in those situations who is having her address being published in a way that is making her unsafe. I think that we need to really take that into account and really think about is the time in the future for that work or is the time now that we need to put safety into place for those vulnerable people.

I can remember having the conversation with Sarah Pallett around this particular bill as it was being put together when I was Minister for Women and saying that I would support this 100 percent because it is something that addresses some absolute vulnerabilities for women. And I want to say thank you to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell and congratulate her for actually taking on this bill, because there was a bit of a concern at one stage that it might not progress any further when Sarah left Parliament.

The Institute of Directors have been calling for this change for quite some time. This isn’t something new that’s been thought up in the last wee while—I actually have found stuff that goes back about eight years where they have been calling for this. They have been saying that changes in law need to happen, and they need to happen to make their home addresses safe from people who are disgruntled—not just women in this case, this is everybody—or clients who might have something that they think they can go after that person.

But the one issue that I really started to get a bit antsy about when I was reading it was in November of last year when there was an article that was put up about an Auckland company director who felt forced to break the law to keep her home address off the Companies Office register when she was persecuted by a man with a history of violence towards her. Because she could easily be found on the internet, she felt she had no other alternative than to do something about that. The woman secured a permanent protection order against the man, allowing her to have her home address off the public searchable Companies Office register, but she had to go through all that trauma to be able to make that happen. This is something that we need to address.

As I said, I really listened to Laura Trask’s contribution there around why it needs to go to select committee, why we need to hear these stories, why we need to hear what it is that has brought this to this particular case and to this point in time. We can’t wait for something that might happen in the future, and that’s basically what we’ve heard here tonight. That’s great if people are talking about that, but at this point in time it is a might. We have something concrete in front of us now that is going to keep people safe. That is why we need to be voting in support of this. We need to keep our women, our most vulnerable people, and those people who feel under threat safe. As we have developed—and I hadn’t thought of that point, but the flexible working environments that we have put in place in recent years make this even more urgent. This is something that we must vote for, and I am very happy to commend this to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, thank you. You know, it was good to see Andrew Bayly, Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, front up and talk about this bill and why the National Party’s not supporting it. It was, however, disappointing.

Now, this is a bill that was put in the ballot when I was Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and I was very happy to see it in there because it is a small adjustment but it’s a timely one. I think it was a great idea to have an improvement to the Companies Act, even though, as Mr Bayly mentioned, we were at the same time working on a more robust overhaul of aspects of the Companies Act.

The interesting thing, of course, is that the aspects of the Companies Act that we were working on, and I hope he remains working on, are around transparency. And as the ACT member Laura Trask noted, it’s very easy to hide ownership interests through trusts and trustee companies, through limited partnerships and all kinds of obscure shareholdings. In fact, New Zealand is on a grey list for that reason because it’s not possible to see who owns what and where funds are going because of the ability to hide shareholdings. As that member also pointed out, and I must say it’s a certain irony, but the fact is that we do agree on some things and we do agree that we need to look after the little guy here, that hairdressers and tradies are the kinds of people who have relatively straightforward company arrangements—just a shareholder and director, very simple—but they’re the ones who have to put their home address on the company’s register.

And, I mean, it beggared belief to me that Andrew Bayly would come into the House and talk about a bill that touches on privacy and start reading out people’s home addresses. It shows how out of touch he is, that the very thing that Deborah Russell has brought this bill to the House to protect, he sits there and violates. It really just amazed me. So this bill is about privacy, Mr Bayly, and the idea that you’d sit in this House and read out people’s home address, whether it’s on a public record or not, frankly just astounds me. But, then again, what’s surprising there? But I do challenge you, Mr Bayly, to get on with that company transparency legislation and improve the work that was being undertaken and bring into this House a bill which makes corporate transparency much more effective in New Zealand.

Then Mr Bayly also gave an example—I think it was Mr Bayly, or was it the New Zealand First member—of media sort of wanting to look up a company director who, you know, might have defaulted, or something of media importance, and that being the reason that they should be able to go on the Companies Register, get the cameras, knock on the front door, and intrude on that person’s privacy. That, again, shows a real misconception as to the reasoning underlying why being able to find a director one way or another is important. The reason you want to be able to find a director is because the director in many circumstances is liable for the operations of the company—legally liable. So you need to be able to go and track them down for legal purposes to serve a notice on the company or for shareholders to serve notices on the director for similar purposes. It’s not a general ability to hunt someone down—we’re not private investigators here. It’s actually a really important legal reason.

I do want to, in my closing minute, just mention Sarah Pallett, who did come to me and talk about this and we agreed it was an important and actually quite urgent thing to do. Because every day that this isn’t in place, there are people—and, as my colleagues have said, mainly women, but people of all kinds—who are at risk, and we can change that. It’s good to see that there seems to be some agreement in this House, at least, that that’s a good thing. And where people are at risk, the idea that they can approach the Companies Office, give a statutory declaration to say that they feel at risk and thereby not have their personal details on the register is a good thing, and I absolutely commend that to this House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, we are going to oppose this bill, and I am going to speak to the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. I believe in privacy and the ability to protect our privacy—it is really, really important. And, look, I do want to acknowledge and congratulate the Hon Deborah Russell for having that member’s bill pulled and putting the spotlight on this issue, which is a really important issue. And to Laura Trask for obviously realising the same issue, that we do need to have these concerns and we certainly do need to address them because, especially for women, as you have spoken about already, there are potentially issues of stalking and harassment and that is not OK. However, we do not believe that this specific piece of legislation is the right way forward.

I do thank the member Deborah for giving a bit of a process around the Companies Office website and how it works. Because myself, I’m actually quite familiar with that process because I was a former journalist, actually, working here in Wellington for TV One News. As I’m sure many of you may be aware, the media often do try to unravel stories. They try to find out stories and hold people accountable, make us all transparent—hold politicians here in this House, actually, accountable—but they also hold companies accountable. So, you know, sometimes part of that job was actually to put the spotlight on companies that are actually acting fraudulently and not doing the right thing. So you could use that website to find out who those directors were and who those shareholders were, and hold them to account.

As a journalist, I actually did uncover quite a large story. It was actually an exclusive story and I did about three or four kind of exposés on this specific company that was fraudulently ripping a lot of its clients off. So that was not on, and that company was not doing a good thing. So I suppose what I’m trying to get to here is that, you know, that information on the Companies Office website actually can be very beneficial in some cases.

So let’s just look at perhaps why we are opposing it, which the Minister has already spoken to. But, you know—and as I have just mentioned—we do have to be careful and mindful that people can’t use it as a tool to evade something, and I think that’s a really important note to make. You know, we don’t want to see people using it as a tool to evade theft or fraud. There was obviously also another note there around the bill introducing a fee and perhaps that’s something that we also need to look at, and perhaps the lack of logic in some areas in terms of—giving the example around the shareholders and the directors and the discrepancy that we perhaps see there.

So the Minister’s already said that he’s going to revise that piece of legislation; we’re very well aware of the concerns here—and rightfully so—around privacy, and I think all of us can acknowledge that. But how to move forward is not this specific bill. We just need to make sure that we don’t have people who are manipulating the system and potentially, you know, who could evade fraud or other serious legal matters. You know, as companies—as the member Duncan Webb also referred to, there is a legal responsibility here as well. We also have to respect that legal responsibility when you are a company and when you are a director or a shareholder of that company as well. So I think that is also really, really important to note.

So, you know, we’re going to welcome the Minister doing some more work on this very important area, but we are not going to support the bill today.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. It’s a good bill. It’s a good bill from my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell; it is a good policy intention from Laura Trask, who has spoken on her very similar bill; and that’s why we should support it around the House tonight and enjoy the opportunity that we have—we still have—to break out in a round of “Kumbaya” about this cross-partisan thing that we can all do. If Labour and ACT can agree, surely we can agree that this is, indeed, sticking up for the little guy. This is about making small-business owners’ lives easier.

Because it is not about the big-business owners. Big-business owners have options to set themselves up with the kind of corporate structuring that allows them to already do this, to choose whether or not they want their directors’ details to be on the corporate register or not. They can use things that already enjoy the protections of limited liability, but still allow directors to not have their addresses published—things like limited partnerships which allow them to have all of their address details withheld from public view. That’s not available to the hairdressers and the tradies that Laura Trask spoke about tonight, and that’s why we should make this urgent change, even if there is further change coming later, which I welcome.

It was good to hear the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs down here saying he’s going to review the Companies Act. So, if you’ll indulge me, I want to talk just briefly, in this reflective mood that Grant Robertson has set for the House tonight, about the corporate veil and about why we give people the ability to set themselves up, to limit their liability when they’re trading, through a company—that’s usually the way that we do it, although there are other entities like limited partnerships where you can do that. The corporate veil and limited liability allow commerce to happen between people because we say, in this very special set of rules, that only your liability in your trading relationships, in your business, will apply to this particular circumstance where you are complying with the Companies Office rules.

One of those particular circumstances is that people need to be able to find you. They need to be able to tell you if you owe them money or if they owe you money—that sounds reasonably right. The problem here is that because of successive amendments to the way that our corporate structuring rules work in New Zealand, some people can avoid those rules through limited partnerships, through trust structures which avoid the disclosure of details, and some people can’t—and that’s the little guy, and it’s often women, who are then subject to the kind of abuse online, the kind of abuse in real life, that we want to avoid for them.

So there is no reason to delay this. Some people already have the ability to do this. We want to make sure that small-business owners, who make up the majority of business owners in New Zealand, have the ability to enjoy the same kinds of protections that their big-business - owning counterparts have. I think it’s a good, fair approach to take immediately tonight.

Now, what I was saying about the commerce Minister coming down here and telling us he’s reviewing the Companies Act—that is good news. I’m really interested in that. When? When will the Companies Act be reviewed? Because the reason he gave tonight is that, you know, he’s got a few minor concerns that it could be aired out at select committee. We’ve had a number of really good members of the select committees tonight making contributions about not only their personal experience but their professional experience with the Companies Register and the Companies Office rules, so we know we have expertise in this House to be able to iron out these problems.

He’s identified privacy concerns. He’s identified the fact that we need to double these provisions up and make them apply to shareholders—all sensible stuff that members of this House can get their heads around. So the primary reason that we heard from him is, “Well, I’m reviewing the Companies Act.” But there’s no reason why that review of the Companies Act can’t go ahead at the same time as this provision would come in.

This is a sensible thing. I hope members in all parties can listen to this debate and change their minds here and now, because there is nothing in this bill which would create harm, there is nothing in this bill which would put the directors in a worse position than they were before, and there’s certainly nothing in this bill that would put shareholders in a worse position than they were before. In fact, it would just allow a small protection for the large number of small-business owners who are affected by this and who have been asking about this for a long time.

My colleagues made the point that the Institute of Directors have been asking for this for some time, that it is a stand-out thing that comes up for women in directors’ positions about why they would not become directors. So if we are committed in this House to making sure that small-business owners, medium-sized business owners are treated in the same way as large-business owners, then we should do this tonight. It makes sense.

The other concerns are around the fees. That is interesting. I will hold this Minister to account when he says that he does not think fees should be charged for Companies Office changes which are about safety. We will make sure that that is followed through if the Minister does, in fact, revise the Companies Act.

NANCY LU (National): I stand before you tonight to oppose the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill at its first reading. The reasons are very simple. But, before that, I wanted to congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, because we sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee together and I’m learning from her, and I’m learning from the fact that to have an idea to put in front of the House is sometimes not easy, because when an idea is not good enough it does not get support.

There are a couple of reasons why I don’t support this bill in the House tonight, and one of them is particularly around the fact that it is not addressing the solutions that it is proposing to the House, is not addressing the intention or the improvements that it wants to make with the amendment.

First of all, the bill’s main provision is to allow directors to, in a way, basically, substitute their residential address with a different address in the public record. However, I want people to understand, and I want members as well as our voters and constituents and also directors of companies in New Zealand to understand, that will hinder the transparency that we uphold so highly in New Zealand. If I can refer to the latest transparency.org.nz recent review on New Zealand’s latest corruption performance index, CPI, ranked in 2023, about conducting businesses in New Zealand, we are ranked top three in the world. We New Zealanders uphold high regard to how we conduct businesses in New Zealand, and one of the ways we do that is by being honest about who we are and what we do. So I don’t agree to the proposal in the House tonight, by simply trying to hide or trying to substitute the address on the Companies Office website.

Secondly, I also do not support this bill to the House because we, as New Zealand—and this is according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment official information, that in New Zealand, small and micro-business, including the self-employed, make up 97 percent of all companies registered in New Zealand. Ninety-seven percent are small and self-employed businesses. That means that on company office websites, when you go into registered companies, it’s 97 percent of the case where the shareholder information will be exactly the same as the director information. So I don’t understand how substituting the address for a director address on the company’s website will be helpful, when you can literally go to the next page, look at the shareholder, and identify the same person with her or his address.

I honestly think, in light of the considerations of the members, what they put forward, and, as well, their personal stories or their constituents’ stories that they have brought to the House today to try to address a legitimate concern of personal safety and privacy—however, they’re not talking about how do we address the problem of undermining transparency and accountability of business directors in New Zealand. To me, it’s just not good enough. In principle, I do acknowledge there is a need to protect the privacy and safety of our own people, but I do not support this bill, because it’s just simply not good enough. The amendment is only addressing one thing, without considering the full picture. The amendments that I see—that I’m reading and seeing and listening to tonight—are not improving towards the full intention of protecting people, because they have neglected the fact that small enterprises like the sole traders and the sole proprietors would still have their information displayed on companies’ office websites.

For me, I think it is critical for our country’s reputation in terms of transparency, and also the fact that we should be addressing the full problem instead of addressing part of the problem—I do not think the legislation put forward to the House today is really doing it justice. So, therefore, I do not support this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a letter from Sarah Pallett, former MP for Ilam, to the then Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Minister Clark. It’s not publicly available. It just sets out the problem, as it has been addressed. Tabling it would enable it to be in the record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.

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

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin this final speech by saying, well, I’m pretty sad that this bill looks like it won’t make it through the first reading. That’s a real shame, because I think it does address a real problem and addresses it in a thoroughly reasonable way.

I would like to begin by acknowledging again Sarah Pallett, who put this bill in the ballot during the last Parliament, which meant that, in this Parliament, when it was in the ballot in my name, it was able to be drawn out. So a thank you to Sarah for her work on this bill. I’d also like to thank Laura Trask, who has had a very similar bill in the ballot, addressing the same sort of issue. I’m grateful to Laura for a really good conversation about it, and I acknowledge that she personally supports this particular bill.

I guess, in this final address, I’d like to just go to how this problem is really caused. It is caused by the fact that we can find a director’s name and address very, very quickly and easily. When this bill was first drawn from the ballot, I wrote to the Minister of commerce, asking for his support for the bill. He did come to the House tonight, and I’m grateful for him coming himself—and he said he won’t support it. Nevertheless, as I wrote to him, I said, “Actually, Andrew”—although I did it a little more formally—“I managed to search the Companies Register and find your”—meaning his, Madam Speaker, not yours—“home address within about 30 seconds.” That’s how quickly I found his home address—being a middle-aged woman, I’ve probably forgotten it. I didn’t record it—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ll let the member be the judge of that.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Ha, ha! Because that wasn’t the point. But it did only take about 30 seconds to find the Minister of commerce’s home address. And that’s the problem: that people’s home addresses can be found so quickly and so easily.

Now, members opposite have pointed out some problems. They’ve said that, of course, the same thing applies to shareholders too—that can be easily searched. But that is precisely the sort of problem that can be ironed out at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. If this bill is a good idea—and they have said the principle is a good idea. Nevertheless, some of those problems could be ironed out at select committee, so it’s disappointing that it looks like we’re not going to have that process.

The last speaker, Nancy Lu, did raise an interesting point about transparency, pointing out that New Zealand does have very transparent businesses, and it’s a very good point. But, of course, this bill does not seek to enable all directors to use different addresses; it is just in the case where a director has serious fears for their own safety or for the safety of someone who lives with them, and they sign a statutory declaration to that effect, and then they can apply to have their name removed from the register and a different address used instead. That, to me, strikes the right balance between personal safety and maintaining transparency.

There is a balance to be sought there—of course we want to be transparent about business, and I think that’s quite correct too, given some of the problems I talked about myself, with phoenix companies. Nevertheless, I think we also need to be seriously concerned about physical safety. The rate of violence against women in this country is quite extraordinary. As I talked about, it’s not just women who are affected by this; it’s men as well.

We should be doing all we can to ensure that that people are safe in their own homes, and this bill would have added to that. So I am deeply disappointed that a couple of the parties opposite are not able to support this bill this evening. I am grateful for Laura Trask’s support, and I’m grateful for the support of the Māori Party and the Green Party on this bill. Having said that, I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 66

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill will be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Bills

Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill

First Reading

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

I am hoping that there will be a repeat of what we’ve just seen in the House again tonight, as I ask the House to consider this very important bill. As we stand in this building, everything reminds us that we are part of a continuum; that the 54th Parliament we are part of stands on the shoulders of parliaments and parliamentarians that came before. Statutes which we amend and even repeal often date back to a past era, but deep in that history, there are seminal moments which are highly significant today. One of those was the advent of universal suffrage in 1893. But even before then, in the 1890 election, which brought the reforming first Liberal Government—eventually led by Richard John Seddon—had been the first where plural voting had been outlawed. Before then, plural voting allowed landowners to vote in every electorate where they owned property.

Perhaps those who changed the legislation were influenced by the quote from Sir George Grey, who in 1878 spoke of the “monstrous” inequity of a man having two votes. In fact, Sir George moved an amendment to the Representation Act Amendment Bill to prohibit electors from voting in more than one district. This was enabled perhaps at the time by the fact elections were held at different times in each electorate. In that 1890 election, for the first time, property owners had to choose which electorate they voted in.

Then, in 1893, when universal suffrage was introduced, the one-person, one-vote principle was enacted. This was to become a fundamental feature of democratic electoral systems in the 20th century. So even that anomaly—a choice of electorate—was removed and a voter only voted in the electorate in which they resided.

Now, here we are in the 54th Parliament, 131 years later, debating an identical issue around whether owning property should bestow on individuals the ability to vote in multiple jurisdictions or local councils. Theoretically, with 78 local authorities representing all areas in New Zealand, including the 110 community boards and 21 local boards, an individual could vote 209 times if they owned property in each. Just in case that does sound too far-fetched a proposal, one individual in Auckland enrolled in eight different community board elections, all of which he owned property in.

What my bill does is abolish the ratepayer roll, which enables that sort of activity. Section 24 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 qualifies individuals that own property outside the area they reside in to vote in that area in addition to their place of residence. For example, someone living in Wellington who owns property in Masterton could vote in local body elections for both territorial authorities—could vote both in Masterton and Wellington local body elections. A person living in Auckland and owning property in Wellington could vote in an Auckland mayoral election, the Wellington mayoral election, and also the Greater Wellington Regional Council election.

My bill amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 to abolish the ratepayer roll for local body elections. It also consequently amends the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, and the Local Government Act 1974. Essentially, this bill fixes an anomaly left in 1893 when New Zealand introduced universal suffrage, being the first country in the world to give women the vote—something we are justifiably proud of as a nation. It did leave in place this dual voting concept for local bodies, which my bill seeks to modernise and repeal.

Of course, the one person, one vote concept has been very much a hot topic in recent times. Members of this House have railed against proposals around water reform which dealt with voting issues. David Seymour even took time to pen an op-ed in the New Zealand Herald in 2022, in which he states, “First up, [that] believing in one-person one-vote democracy does not make you [a] racist.” He had an ally in the current Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who told Newsroom in 2023, in explaining why he would not work with Te Pāti Māori after the election, that it was because his party stands for one person, one vote. Speaking about the ratepayer franchise this bill addresses, he is quoted as saying, “one person, one vote works well.” When asked whether he would therefore get rid of this option, he is quoted as replying, “Possibly, yes.” Given those statements by both leaders, I’ll be disappointed if those parties don’t support my bill.

Although the number of individuals enrolled on the ratepayer roll is relatively low—7,277 in the 2022 local body election—unfortunately, so is the turnout at local body elections, thus the potential for a well-organised group to influence an election is a very real possibility. Those on a ratepayers’ roll vote in considerably higher percentages than those on the conventional roll. I’ll give an example: in the Wellington mayoral election 2019, my good friend Andy Foster, now a member in this House, won the chains by 62 votes. In that election, there were 219 ratepayer electors, and I’m sure Mr Foster will be happy to vote for my bill to ensure no accusation would ever be made that out-of-towners influenced an election—obviously, that’s absolutely no aspersion on Mr Foster or the merits of his victory; the point being that it does highlight this anomaly.

In fact, speaking of Wellington, a recent by-election was won by only 45 votes. It’s such a close contest, any attempt to mobilise those eligible, in any way, to enrol on the ratepayer electors’ role could easily have swayed the result. Given the importance of that councillor position in determining the voting balance of the whole council, with the potential for such an event, it is extremely important that the voting criteria be transparent and limited to individuals who live in the jurisdiction.

Perhaps a better example of that is the Thames-Coromandel District Council, where 8.42 percent of voters are ratepayer electors. This is an area with a large number of holiday homes. Auckland resident but Coromandel property owner Gary Gotlieb proudly told The Spinoff that he’d encouraged his fellow holiday homeowning Auckland friends to become ratepayer electors in the 2022 election in that area and to vote for him, and he was elected. He told The Spinoff at the time, “If others are jealous (of ratepayers getting two votes) then I’m sorry, that’s life!” To those who would argue no taxation without representation, then that argument would take us back to the 1800s, where that logic would mean anyone who owned a business in a general electorate anywhere other than where they reside should be entitled to vote in that electorate as well. Surely, by that logic, someone living in the fine Ōhāriu electorate but owning a business in Levin would be entitled to vote in the Ōtaki electorate as well.

This is very much a matter of principle. I know there are members opposite who have a strong sense of Kiwi fair play. I know, when I first became aware of this issue—and, at this stage, allow me to acknowledge Dan Rosewarne, a colleague from the last Parliament, who actually produced the bill. I was actually amazed that such anachronisms still exist today. Councils are far more than just the rubbish, rates, and roads organisations they once were, and, as much due to central government devolution as anything, any absentee owners are likely more interested in lower rates than libraries and supporting local events than the local residents. It’s also important to remember local residents who don’t own property will be paying rates vicariously through their rent. They, arguably, have equal rights with the property owner.

One reservation I did have about this bill is that were it to fail, it may just alert more absentee property owners to their ability to enrol on the ratepayer roll. In that case, we would see an even bigger potential of local voices being subsumed by those out of town. This is unfinished business from the 1890 legislation. Many of the arguments against this bill—mainly, that you should be able to vote where you own property—are very much arguments rejected by that reforming Government. Vote for this bill and you can proudly walk past the statue of “King Dick” on the forecourt, knowing you’ve been part of carrying on the work of that Liberal Government—the same one who initiated the welfare reform which saw us get the pension. I implore members opposite to vote for this bill.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m standing here today to oppose the Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill. The member opposite—Greg O’Connor—advocated for a continuum of change. One thing that he didn’t do was provide an overwhelming amount of evidence that local elections were being skewed in any way by ratepayer roll voters. The member opposite also talked a bit about the American Revolution and the assertation of no taxation without representation, which I will go into a little bit later on in this 10-minute call.

But what I’d like to say is this bill seeks to amend the Local Government Act 2002 to abolish the ratepayer roll. And there are many reasons why the National Party will not be supporting this bill. First and foremost is the removal of property owners’ ability to vote in local elections. This is the core concept of taxation without representation, and it flies in the face of natural justice. It alienates a proportion of ratepayers from taking part in local government affairs and local democracy.

We already have an issue in this country with low engagement in local government affairs, as the member opposite pointed out. Why should we further legislate against community and ratepayer engagement? The member opposite discussed turnout in local elections and how it was so low, and his answer for low turnout was to reduce the number of eligible voters, which doesn’t make any sense at all.

One of the core concepts of New Zealand’s rating system is the link between ratepayers and council accountability. Removing the ability of some ratepayers to vote erodes this crucial part of our democratic process. National believes that all councils should remain accountable to ratepayers. Removing the ability of those ratepayers, who do not live within the jurisdiction, to vote erodes this accountability.

We have always had a proud history in the National Party of supporting localism and devolution, demonstrated by our policies such as Local Water Done Well, which restores local ownership and control of water assets. It is paramount that councils are accountable for those who fund them: those who are the true investors in projects and critical infrastructure that councils develop and maintain.

In the Waitaki electorate, we have numbers of dwellings that are owned by people who live outside those council areas. And to suggest that those people have less interest or should have less rights than other residents is clearly the wrong approach. Whether you are a ratepayer in Hāwea, Wānaka, Cromwell, Ōmākau, Ranfurly, Twizel, Tekapō, Geraldine, Waimate, Kurow, Oamaru, or Palmerston, you deserve to be able to have a say in the way your money’s spent.

Rawiri Waititi: Gosh, where are those places?

MILES ANDERSON: Come down and visit. It is not as if people are having multiple votes in the same jurisdiction. It remains the concept of one man, one vote.

Celia Wade-Brown: What about the women?

MILES ANDERSON: And one woman, one vote—there you go. It is much the same as New Zealanders who live in overseas jurisdictions, such as Australia or the UK, who are still eligible to vote in our general elections here in New Zealand.

As the deputy leader of our party, Nicola Willis, had so rightly put, the principles of one person, one vote is critically important. What we are seeing with the issue of people who are resident in two jurisdictions is that they are not being afforded any more vote in that jurisdiction than anybody else.

So the question remains: how much of an influence are these ratepayers actually having on voting outcomes? We would be far better as a country to get more engagement in local and regional government processes or elections than trying to penalise those who demonstrate an active interest in their community.

Arena Williams: Give the 16-year-olds the vote, then!

MILES ANDERSON: No, not at all. So, as I said earlier, the American Revolution was a—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Good segue.

MILES ANDERSON: Yes, good segue. The American Revolution—

Arena Williams: Do anything to avoid that one!

MILES ANDERSON: Thank you very much. The American—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you to the member for sticking to this piece of legislation.

MILES ANDERSON: Yes. The American Revolution was a revolution that was fought over the concept of no taxation without representation. And here we have something very similar today that’s been proposed by the member opposite. The idea that somebody who is a ratepayer in one jurisdiction and a property owner in another is somehow—

Rawiri Waititi: Get it out, man!

MILES ANDERSON: —“Get it out”; yes, I am—screwing the scrum when it comes to democracy is a nonsense. So the—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, this is painful.

MILES ANDERSON: Ha, ha! It is really, isn’t it? It was supposed to be five minutes to start with.

Hon Member: He’s doing a good job.

MILES ANDERSON: Thank you very much.

Tom Rutherford: Tell us about the towns in your electorate again.

MILES ANDERSON: Which one do you want to hear about?

Hon Member: Wānaka.

MILES ANDERSON: Wānaka is a beautiful place. Right on the shores of Lake Wānaka.

Reuben Davidson: Well, your voters would be proud of you.

MILES ANDERSON: Thank you very much. So, however, long story short: we oppose this bill.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Well, I will briefly go back to 1852, where the franchise was based on property—but we have moved on. I want to start with a quote from the Dominion Post, 8 June 2010: “A voting loophole that could give property owners multiple votes has been labelled undemocratic by a Wellington mayoral candidate”—couldn’t think which one. “The Wellington branch of the Property Council has sent a letter to property investors urging them to sway local body elections by utilising the little-known ratepayer roll. The Property Council letter urges members to register a nominee for each of their property interests. ‘Often the sway of elected representatives can be a matter of only a handful of votes’, says the letter, signed by branch president Ian Cassels, who lives on the Kāpiti Coast.”

Well, if we go to the most recent by-election, as the member said, that was 45 votes. That was 0.5 percent. It wasn’t even 1 percent of the votes, so it could make a huge difference. So it’s something to take seriously. But who pays the rates? Is it the property owner or is it the person renting? Excuse me, but we expect, generally, that the rents would cover the costs of the house, including the rates. So I say the citizenship, the residency is what matters.

The UK, the USA states that I’ve been able to look at, France, Switzerland, Denmark—there’s a fairly random set of countries we call democratic; none of them—none of them—have got a ratepayer roll. So voting should be based on residency and citizenship, not property ownership. I don’t often quote David Farrar, but he did say, “I hope the bill passes first reading at least, as it would be good to have a select committee process.”

Give it a chance. Have a think. Don’t let those margins be caught up by a narrow pressure group that cares more about the value of their property and low rates than for libraries, community services, swimming pools, roads, cycle lanes. Whatever is done or not by the local council should be a matter for the people living in that area. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this member’s bill. Now, we’ve heard an argument put forward tonight that one person, one vote means you should only get one vote. But, really, what it means is that all votes should be equal. I’m sure the member opposite wouldn’t want to see a situation where a New Zealand citizen, who also has voting rights in another country, forfeits their voting rights in New Zealand, because that is the level of analysis being done on the other side tonight. If you own a property outside of the rating area in which you reside, you should have a right to vote in that, because you have a vested interest in what happens in that community, what happens with the debt levels, what happens with the rates, and what happens with your investment in a town, which means a person who invests in a town would like to see a town get better. I do not think that the level of analysis has been properly applied by the members opposite tonight.

A better principle which we could use, which has been spoken about by my learned colleague Miles Anderson, is: no taxation without representation. Now, Tauranga residents have had a long time of being rated without representation. We are waiting. And thank you to the Minister of Local Government for declaring that we will be having an election in July. Finally, the people of Tauranga will get to enjoy that privilege, which is one of being a free citizen in a property-owning democracy: the right to vote in your local body. As I say, we know what it’s like to go without it, and I would not want to be on the side removing the right to vote from somebody.

Now, we should have a say in the use of the rates which are charged on a property which we own. I’ll address the member across the House saying that it is the renter that pays for. Well, that is not always the case. Sometimes, when your property has been left in a state of disrepair and you must go through the process of renovations, because of a leaky-home crisis or some such, you’re still paying rates. So it’s not always on the renter. I grant that is a minor case, but what you are doing is—sorry, Madam Speaker; what a purchaser of a property is doing is investing in the long-term prosperity of a community and wanting to have a say, because they have a vested interest. If the community does better and people would like to move to said community, then the property value will go up and that is where the property owner will benefit.

So, I think, another benefit on that train of thought is that people who have worked hard, started businesses, provided goods to the community, have used their skills and whatever natural endowments they have, talent wise, to produce wealth and have been able to invest it in more property—what we want to see is those people investing in areas perhaps outside of their immediate neighbourhood, spreading the wealth and the knowledge around the community. They may take governance skills, business skills, even the skills of being able to swing a hammer or roll on some paint, to another community in which they can provide benefit, if we were to remove a current situation, that is another hurdle which someone would have to cross when completing an investment in a property outside of their immediate neighbourhood.

Now, another thing that comes up quite often when we’re talking about local government and local democracy is we hear people decrying the low voter turnout, and specifically in the Tauranga area—[Bell rung] Oh, I didn’t realise that the call was only five minutes, but cool—we hear of sub 40 percent voter turnout. Now, why would we want to do another? Why would we want to do another thing to put a hurdle in the way of people getting involved in local democracy? We want more democracy, not less. The ACT Party opposes this bill. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Given this is a five-minute call, I’ll get straight into it. Look, we fundamentally disagree with the premise of this bill. You don’t get extra votes; what you get is one vote in each separate election. The introduction to the bill talks about—[Interruption] Be quiet; you might learn something. The introduction to the bill says that, in respect of the country as a whole, the practice of voting in multiple elections was abolished for general elections in the 1890s. Why was that abolished? Because that was multiple votes for one electorate, and that electorate was this electorate: Parliament. But when you’re talking about local government, we have 67 separate territorial authorities—67. They are each, effectively, sovereign—sovereign under Parliament, but sovereign. They are separate elections.

Eleven regional councils—look, I’ll take this for one more, and that is, Greg O’Connor, in introducing this, talked about two examples: a property in Auckland and a property in Wellington. You own both of those. Those are two separate elections; you get one vote in each of them, if you’ve got properties in each of them.

You then used the example of a property in Wellington and a property in Masterton. In that case, you get one vote for the Wellington City Council, you get one vote for the Masterton District Council, but you get one vote for the regional council. One vote for the regional council because that is one election that you’re voting in—one, in that case. That is one vote because—and everybody who is involved in Wellington City will get one vote for each of those, everybody involved in Masterton get one vote for each of those, but if you have a property in both, you’ll get one vote for that regional council.

What happens if you have two or three properties in the same jurisdiction? How many votes do you get?

Cameron Brewer: One.

ANDY FOSTER: One—one vote. Now, of course, you could get some other people to help you. We had that example that Celia Wade-Brown was saying. What about these big property owners? Well, what about the person who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a commercial property? Do you think that they should be able to find somebody to vote on their behalf? I think that they should. In Wellington City, close to 50 percent of the rates are paid by about 18 percent of the value of the city. They cross-subsidised, big time, the residential sector. Should they have the right to have a say? I think they should have a right to have a say, and, at the moment, they do.

This bill is about trying to take that right away. I guess, what it brings to me is it says to me that it questions the very basis of local government funding, because, at the moment, the bulk of local government funding comes from a rate on, what? It comes from a rate on a property. Why would you then take away the right for property owners to vote? If you don’t want that, the logical approach to take is to arrange things in a different way, arrange the funding base in a different way. I think Maggie Thatcher tried to do that, and I don’t think it was terribly popular.

But what you’re trying to do is you’re trying to disenfranchise people who contribute to that rating base. It is, as we’ve already heard, no taxation without representation. And what you want to do, on that side of the House, is you want to give people who contribute, essentially, virtually nothing to the cost of running a city—you want to give them the vote, but you want to take it away from people who contribute an enormous amount to the running of a city. I think that, while this bill is intended to try and be more democratic—and I think that the intention is a good thing to do—the reality is it is doing exactly the opposite. It is taking away people’s franchise that they’ve had for many, many years.

I also would say, how do you determine that a person who has, say, a holiday home in one place and lives most of the time in another place—maybe who represents a part of the country in one place and maybe has bought themselves a property in this place—how do you determine which one they’ve got a foot in? How do you decide that they have no stake in both of those places? I think that’s quite wrong. They should be entitled to have that stake in both places. So I think the intent of the bill is an honest one, but the effect, to me, is an anti-democratic one, and we will be voting against this bill. Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I’d like to talk to this bill about the American Revolution—was that what we were talking about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been brought up in speeches before.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Three hundred years of black slavery. They didn’t get the right to vote until 1965 through the civil rights legislation. Let’s really talk about the American Revolution. Anyway, it’s very similar to what’s happening here.

We heard all of this talk about universal suffrage—one law for all; one person, one vote—during the debates for the Māori wards. Like Māori were going to get these extra votes—what a whole lot of rubbish! That was a whole lot of rubbish. Co-governance, the Māori wards, the Māori seats—Māoris were going to get these extra votes. In actual fact, what we’ve heard from this side of the House is an admission that universal suffrage actually doesn’t exist in this country, is that there is privilege in this country—there is privilege in this country where people get more than one vote. If you own one house in one city, and you own another house in another city, you get two votes.

Now, just say, for instance, you’re the Prime Minister and you have seven houses—you own seven houses in seven different cities—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me—not me.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Not you; you’re not the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. Apologies for that. But you imagine if you’re the Prime Minister. I’m not talking about any Prime Minister; I’m just saying, if any Prime Minister owned seven houses in seven different cities, he gets—

Hon Member: Or she.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —seven votes, or she gets seven votes. This is not universal suffrage; this is not one man, one vote. This is privilege—this is privilege, absolute privilege. Christopher Luxon said he would not work with Te Pāti Māori because he believed in one man, one vote. He shouldn’t be working with himself if it’s one man, one vote, because you get the opportunity to vote in two spaces. This is a matter of fact. People should not determine or influence or gamble with the lives of others that live in other cities. You should not gamble with the lives of others. You should not be able to vote in other towns if you are privileged and rich enough to own a holiday home.

I live in a very rural area called Whangaparāoa or Cape Runaway—a beautiful place; beautiful place. There are holiday homes there. And you’re going to tell me that those people that own those holiday homes get a right to determine what happens with the people who were born and bred there, who live there, who contribute to the economy, who have lived there for many, many years, post- and pre-colonisation, that we’re going to allow people to determine what happens in our particular area. That is absolutely unfair. They are paying for a holiday house; they are not paying for anything else. They’re not paying for anything else; they’re paying for their holiday house. So this is the break of a privilege that rich people have because they get more than one vote.

It was admitted by New Zealand First—they admitted that. You get one vote here, you get one vote there, here a vote, there a vote, everywhere a vote, vote. That’s “Old MacDonald Had a Farm”, not “Old Rangi Had a Farm”; it’s “MacDonald Had a Farm”. And this is the problem, and this is the privilege that this side of the House, the Government, drowns in. They drown in their privilege, and they make admissions that they get more than one vote. This is not universal suffrage; it’s not one man, one vote.

So we will be supporting this bill because, Labour, this is not about politics; this is about doing what is right. And we’ve got to do what is right, and that’s to ensure that there is a fairer—absolutely fairer—voting system here in Aotearoa. That universal suffrage is an institution that should be valued in any democracy—any democracy. The problem is that you do not believe in true democracy, you do not believe in universal—they do not, Madam Speaker. We commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m pleased Mr Waititi has a loud voice, because he certainly needed it for the competition. The Hon Kieran McAnulty—we’ll see how loud your voice is.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s absolutely extraordinary that there are members in this House, who, in the last campaign, rallied vigorously up and down the country, on the basis of a principle that they said they held dear: one person, one vote—any change to that would be an affront to democracy!

As my colleague Greg O’Connor pointed out, the leader of the National Party expressed support on behalf of his party for the idea of removing the ratepayer roll. But it’s important to understand that the only reason Christopher Luxon said that is because he was under the pump on his position on co-governance, in terms of the Treaty. It is very clear to me that if the National Party were today debating the concept that rural people got two votes in rural areas, they would be defending it; if it was Māori people with two votes in their areas, they would be opposing it. It is very clear to me that they are motivated by the idea of property ownership.

They scoff, but I’ll put their arguments back to them. They stood there tonight and justified that someone who owns a property in this district should get a vote and also get a vote by owning a property in that district. What about renters? What if someone owned a property in one district, but, for their work purposes, rented a property in another? They wouldn’t support that, so what’s the difference? The difference is property ownership, and that is the guts of this issue. Now, all they need to do—

Andy Foster: Wrong, wrong.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —is vote—listen up; you might learn something, Andy Foster! All they need to do is put this through to select committee and allow the people to have their say—allow those renters who are part of a community who take an active role in those communities, and if that was their sole point of residence, they would have a vote, but because they rent a property and don’t own it, they therefore don’t get a vote, but they have just as much to do with that community in that district, that council, as someone who is an absentee ratepayer who happens to own the building.

“No taxation without representation” is another saying that the Government has clung to tonight. So I would put to them: what about teenage workers that pay tax? Are they going to advocate for them to have a vote on local councils? What about immigrants who pay, through a work visa, work hard for our economy, contribute to their community? They pay tax. Is the Government going to advocate for them to have a vote in this community? No, they’re not. None of them own property. None of them are able to vote. That is the key here. None of them can vote. None of them own property, so they don’t care. It is inconsistent to their position. They are sticking up for their mates. They are sticking up for people that own property.

It is actually an affront to the basic principle of one person, one vote—the very principle that they used to oppose the opportunity for tangata whenua to have a say in their customary rights. There is a word for that, I will not say it; people can draw their own conclusions. But to stand up during an election and say that “We hold this principle dear” and then, confronted with an opportunity to apply that principle, they have backed away—every single one of them have backed away.

New Zealand First campaigned on this vigorously. They have mentioned me by name. What I said as Minister for Local Government to defend co-governance, they opposed that on the basis that people should get the same level of democratic participation. Oh, no, not today, because they are looking after those that own property. They are looking after those that own businesses—it might be fisheries or forestry, or whatever.

Their interests are not aligned to the general public. Their interests are not aligned to renters and people who otherwise only get one vote. They had an opportunity today to stand up to their principles, and they have folded like a piece of origami. They should be standing up here today and backing Greg O’Connor—at the very least, backing the select committee and letting the public have a say; the public they say they represent and the public they’re letting down today.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. Madam Speaker, I don’t want to tell you how to do your job, but the House has absolutely turned to custard. I don’t know who’s instigated it, but I like to hear the speakers, if that’s possible. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, thank you. It has been a very vigorous debate, and perhaps we can still have interjections, but just keep the noise down a bit. It’s a fair point, because the speakers are having to yell.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): There’s been a lot of supposition as to who this side of the House is actually representing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, we know.

CAMERON BREWER: We are representing, Mr McAnulty, people like those that were victims of the Christchurch earthquakes, for example, that might have moved out to other suburbs beyond Christchurch and are in a fight with the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurance and the Christchurch City Council and they’ve been forced out of their homes. Why can’t they have a say? Why can’t they have a say on who governs and how their property taxes are spent?

Why can’t the people of Muriwai that have been forced out of their houses and moved into other parts of Auckland—why can’t they have a say on how their property taxes are governed and how they are spent when they are forced into another house in Auckland, when they’re up to their eyeballs with EQC, with Auckland Council, and with insurance?

Why can’t the people of Esk Valley that might have moved out of the Napier electorate and moved to Tukituki—why can’t they have a say in their abandoned house with EQC, with the council, and with the likes of insurance companies? Why do they have to forgo their say?

Why do the people of Coromandel after Cyclone Gabrielle—some of them were forced out of their area. Why can’t they have a say with how the territorial local authority spends their money?

Why can’t the people of Kaikōura have a say—those that were forced out of Kaikōura in 2016 after the Kaikōura earthquakes? Why can’t they have a say on how their district council spends their money while they face abandonment on their home ground?

We are representing people from all over New Zealand who can’t live in their houses for whatever reason but who need to have a say. They’ve got a vested interest in their property, and so that’s why we are not supporting this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Referring to the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, most of those people could still vote if their primary place of residence was still where they’re not currently living. If they’re currently displaced from their house and their primary place of residence remains their old home, they can still vote there. So that’s a nonsense argument. Who pays the rates? [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, just calm it a little bit. Mr Parker hasn’t got such a loud voice as everybody else, so just take the level down a bit.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t have a very loud voice, but I don’t think I should have to shout in this place to be heard.

We’ve heard the argument about rates. Well, in effect, it is generally the tenant who pays the rates, as Celia Wade-Brown and other speakers have said.

What is wrong with limiting the right of people to vote in a local election to the people who live there? What’s wrong with that? It’s a pretty simple proposition. It’s what happens overseas. In most jurisdictions, they seem to operate fairly enough. Who suffers the lack of services if, on a close vote, the candidate who wins the election is, effectively, voted in by a small number of people who are voting in more than one locality? The people who live locally; the people who pay the rent, who pay the rates.

Andy Foster: There’d be a whole lot of other people who voted for them to even get to that point.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yeah, I know. But in the end, if it’s one person, one vote, and one extra person gets to vote in an area and sways the election because they’ve been able to vote from outside the district, that does affect the outcome. I would’ve thought even Mr Foster would be able to count and work that out.

This is an anachronism in today’s world, and I don’t think we need property owners to have a right to vote outside of the area in which they live. If they want to move to an area and live in their house that they own in another area, well, they can vote there, but until they do, they should not be able to vote there. I think this bill should be supported through the House.

I don’t want to take this so close to the night that we’re not going to get a vote tonight, so—

Greg O’Connor: Keep going—keep going.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, he tells me to keep going. [Interruption] Well, he’s thinking that maybe if he exercises his power of persuasion, he’ll be able to cause enough people to vote for this to go to select committee.

I really think that if the National Party and ACT and the New Zealand First Party let this go to select committee, they’d hear that most people in New Zealand don’t think that there should be a right that is accorded to an owner of property who doesn’t live in an area to vote. They would find that most people think that the people who live in an area, who suffer the lack of services if a council comes in on an austerity vote and shuts the libraries, shuts the pools—it’s the local people who suffer those consequences, and they’re the people who should determine what the rates are. They’re the people who pay if they own and live in a property, and they’re the people who pay if they rent a property off a landlord. I don’t support this bill, and I do note the—

Tom Rutherford: You don’t support it?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I do support this bill—I’m a bit tongue-tied tonight. I do support this bill—you see, I’ve just used up another 15 seconds there. Only 54 seconds—I’ve only got to make another 10 mistakes and I’m there!

In terms of the one person, one vote, I do want to disagree with something that the Māori Party representative Rawiri Waititi said. I did think that the Rotorua bill was wrong. I do think it is important that suffrage be on the basis of one person, one vote, and I did think that having wards that had different numbers of voters in them were wrong. I extend that same principle to here, where if you have a ward that, effectively, doesn’t have voting that is in proportion to the number of residents that live in an area, that, to me, is a distortion of the voting system as well. I support this bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was intending to take a very, very short call to allow the member whose bill this is before the House, Greg O’Connor, to actually have the vote take place prior to the House suspending, but he’s given quite clear guidance that he’s actually not keen to have a vote on this bill at all tonight. Actually, I’m not going to even drag this out, because, actually, I want to have the vote on this bill tonight—and I’ve got a vote and I want it to count. So we are not supporting this bill.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Well, this has been a very interesting debate tonight. I’ve watched particularly the speakers on the other side stand up, and you always know, and as you’ll know yourself, Madam Speaker, when someone’s standing up, they actually don’t believe what they’re saying. You can tell that they’re actually—they’ve read the notes, they know what they’ve been told to do by the party whips, they hunt for little examples that might be the pièce de resistance that will get them across, but, actually, they don’t really believe it. I’ve sat through just about all of your maiden speeches, and what you did in your maiden speeches—there have been magnificent maiden speeches this year. What they’ve done is outline—some of your soul is actually exposed during a maiden speech, a real part of what you are. Most Kiwis are very fair-minded. Most Kiwis understand something that’s not quite right.

I’ll tell you what, I’ll give a good example at the moment—Mr Mitchell’s sitting over there—the police pay. One thing about police: police know what’s fair, as much as they know an amount. And what’s happening at the moment is unfair. In fact, the police are a good cross-section of society—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we go back to the member’s bill, thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR: Coming back to this bill—because everybody gets a vote, and they should only vote once.

But what I’ll say to those opposite is that, deep down, you know that this is a country that was built on egalitarianism. We escaped the sort of stuff, the sort of arguments that you’re putting up. We escaped that when we left that terrible class system of Europe, the class system that meant you were what you were born. The whole system entrenched privilege. We don’t want to entrench privilege. All that entrenched privilege that we escaped was all about ownership. It was all about those that owned the estates, whether you were up in the Scottish Highlands, whether you were on those estates in Devon that were taken away from people—they are the things that, actually, we knew were wrong.

I’ll tell you what, too—and, Mr Anderson, you should know this. There’s a man called McKenzie—Jock McKenzie—who was part of this Government that actually made the changes that we talked about. Have you heard about the land reforms—the McKenzie land reforms? New Zealand was nearly like a South American nation, the South American nation where it would have been owned by about 200 families. What did Jock McKenzie do? Jock McKenzie—we’ve got the statue out the front of Richard John Seddon, but it could well have been the statue of Jock McKenzie, because he was responsible for the land reform that meant the estates were broken up. Those estates, basically, if you lived in the Wairarapa, if you lived down there in Central Otago, it was virtually owned by three families. The reason why the estates were broken up was because those big landowners, all they did was grow wool. They didn’t need to grow meat, because they were wealthy enough without it. So when we needed the good intensification of farming, coming from Europe, we had to break up those estates, so that those coming from Europe could actually farm, and farm intensively—and I note there are quite a few farmers on the other side, and you, yourself, Madam Speaker. So understand the history of how we’ve got to where we are. That history is an incredibly important part.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill.

GREG O’CONNOR: There we go, Mr Patterson on his beautiful bit of land down there in West Otago, a great bit of land. That piece of land was all owned by one big family, basically everything west of Balclutha today. But it was broken up so that people like you could do this.

So bringing this back, this allowing a vote around landowning, it’s just wrong. You—sorry, Madam Speaker, not you, although I suspect being a fair-minded person, you probably do.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order.

GREG O’CONNOR: But the rest opposite, I know that you know that this is actually—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a point of order.

GREG O’CONNOR: Sit down, please, Mr Rawiri. So before we go to this vote—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

GREG O’CONNOR: Can I just ask you, I know—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a point of order from Rawiri Waititi.

GREG O’CONNOR: —what you’ve been told what to do by your whips. I’m hoping that perhaps—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr O’Connor! We have a point of order from Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes?

Rawiri Waititi: When that member is the Speaker of the House, he always reminds us: stick to the bill. I’ve always wanted to say this to him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So I—

Rawiri Waititi: Mr Greg O’Connor: stick to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I actually have been listening, and Mr O’Connor has been talking about landowners who have more rights on voting than other people, which is exactly the intent of his bill. So carry on, Mr O’Connor. I think you’ve got 29 seconds left.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to sitting in the Chair next time that member’s speaking. But I do leave this: I know you’ve been told what to do by your whips. I also know that each one of you knows inherently that this is a right bill; this is the right thing to do. I’ll invite just one of you to come across and vote for this bill. I thoroughly recommend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to put the vote on this bill in the next members’ day. The reason for that is that party whips cannot be sure that they are casting their votes after 10 o’clock with the right number of votes when there was no intention to vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. See, leave has been sought for that purpose. I want to ask if there’s any objection. We do have discretion to run till 5 past should we need to. There is objection. So we’ll take the vote and I’m going—

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Madam Speaker. By my watch, it actually is 5 past.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it’s 22.04 [Interruption] and I’m going to take the vote in silence. The question has to be determined. It was not 5 past and it’s still not on my clock, and I’ll remind people, seeing as we’ve had a noisy night, that votes will be taken in silence.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the House. The House is adjourned until 2 o’clock tomorrow, and Mr Shaw may want to adjust his watch so he arrives on time.

The House adjourned at 10.06 p.m.