Tuesday, 30 April 2024

TUESDAY, 30 APRIL 2024

TUESDAY, 30 APRIL 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Visitors

Ukraine—Parliament

SPEAKER: Members, I’m sure that you would wish to join with me in welcoming a Ukraine parliamentary delegation, led by Dr Galyna Mykhailiuk MP.

Motions

Clerk of the House—Doctoral Dissertation

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice, without debate, to congratulate Dr David Wilson on the acceptance of his doctoral dissertation and the awarding by Victoria University of Wellington of a PhD.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that?

Hon Members: No.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That this House congratulates the Clerk of the House, Dr David Wilson, on the acceptance of his doctoral dissertation on Influences on parliamentary procedure in New Zealand 1935-2015, and the awarding by Victoria University of Wellington of a PhD, making him the first Clerk of the House to receive his PhD while holding the position.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab requesting that the House call for an unconditional and internationally monitored ceasefire in Gaza; and note that 15,814 people have signed a similar online petition

petition of Peter James Cullinane requesting that the House urge the Government to put additional pressure on Israel to end the conflicts in Gaza and the West Bank

petition of Holly Brooker requesting that the House require Internet Service Providers to filter objectionable material

petition of Sharon Shaw requesting that the House urge Auckland Council to review the consent granted to Kiwi Waste & Recycling because of concerns about dust pollution.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Government response to the referral of the petition of Millicent Dickenson: Subsidise degrees that lead to mental health jobs

report of the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill

report of Mana Mokopuna Children and Young People’s Commission Statement of Intent 2024 - 2027, and

Whakaata Māori - Māori Television Service Statement of Intent 2023 - 2026.

SPEAKER: I present the 2024-25 draft annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill, introduction

Contracts of Insurance Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the statements and actions of all his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I have confidence in all of my Ministers.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with comments from the Auditor-General on the Fast-track Approvals Bill that, “conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, can create public concern around the integrity of decision making.”, and, if so, has he sought any advice on how to manage conflicts of interest for ministerial decision-makers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is why we’ll manage conflicts of interest and that’s why we have an independent panel to make assessments around the economic and environmental impacts.

Hon Marama Davidson: How many of the companies that Minister Bishop wrote to on 3 April about the fast-track bill are the subject of conflicts of interest that any of his Ministers have declared?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Minister did a great job reaching out to 280 organisations, many of them iwi-led organisations that actually want to participate in getting things built in this country. What I’d just say to that member is we are going to get things built in this country and we are very, very proud of that fast-track legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There wasn’t any addressing of the question at all. I can repeat it if the Prime Minister would prefer.

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is that the first question was “Does he have confidence in the statements and actions of his Ministers?”, and he said, “I have confidence in all my Ministers.” There really aren’t too many more questions that can flow from that, so I’m letting it go, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to start pulling up the Prime Minister when the question’s actually been answered.

Hon Marama Davidson: Speaking to the point of order, please, for genuine guidance, the exact question was “How many of the companies that Minister Bishop”—

SPEAKER: No, I’m talking about your primary question. So once you’ve got an answer to the primary question, supplementaries should relate to it. Where they don’t, then I don’t have much jurisdiction.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. On what date did he become aware—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question asked was actually a very broad question. It’s absolutely legitimate, then, to probe into the statements and actions of Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Government, and the only Minister who can answer questions on conflict of interest is the Prime Minister. The supplementary question asked does directly relate to actions taken by Ministers, it therefore flows logically from the primary question. It is absolutely within the Prime Minister’s responsibility, and he hasn’t even made any attempt to address it. This is a matter that is of significant interest to the overall integrity of Government and democratic processes, and it’s not unreasonable to expect that the Prime Minister will make an attempt to answer it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No—I’ll call you in a moment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I give you some help here? I’m sure I can.

SPEAKER: Away you go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, there is no company out there with a conflict of interest, and if there is, it requires the question—

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order.

SPEAKER: When a point of order is being taken, nobody else speaks.

Hon James Shaw: It’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There is no company out there with a conflict of interest—

SPEAKER: Sorry—somebody over there has something to say. Well, you’re getting your last say tomorrow, so we’ll just leave it for now.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, we’ve got a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There is no company out there with a conflict of interest, and if there is, I call to that member, then please name them, rather than have this innuendo and implied breach of parliamentary—

SPEAKER: That’s enough, because it’s actually not a point of order.

Hon Marama Davidson: Really not a point of order.

SPEAKER: [Interruption] Woah, we’re getting well out of control here. This hasn’t happened to me before.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You get used to it. Point of order. What was that point of order? Why was it not stopped? Or is it now legitimate for us to stand up, raise a point of order, and say whatever we like as part of a broader debate?

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, an awful lot of people do that, but to be honest with you, I couldn’t hear the first part of it, because there was a lot of noise coming from down the back end of the House. So we’ll just calm everything down. I think the best way through this would be for the Hon Marama Davidson to ask her question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: How many of the companies that Minister Bishop wrote to on 3 April about the fast-track bill are the subject of conflicts of interest that any of his Ministers have declared?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No projects have been selected yet for the fast-track process. So the question is moot.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there a ruling that understands that the Prime Minister did not address my question for the New Zealand public?

SPEAKER: I think it would be appropriate to ask that question again, and to just pick up a couple of words that are in the question. Away we go.

Hon Marama Davidson: How many of the companies that Minister Bishop wrote to on 3 April about the fast-track bill are the subject of conflicts of interest that any of his Ministers have declared?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member is not understanding where we are. The bottom line is that there have been no projects that have been selected yet, right? What we’re saying very clearly is—[Interruption] Would you like the answer? We will make sure that conflicts of any interest are managed well, and we’ll make sure that we’ve got an independent expert panel considering all things related to the project. But the member is well ahead of herself, because there have been no projects selected at this stage.

Hon Marama Davidson: On what date did he become aware that at least one company in contact with his Ministers about applying for fast-track approval had donated to a coalition political party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not aware of that, but I know that we will manage conflicts of interest incredibly well with this process.

Hon Marama Davidson: Did Minister Jones disclose donations of $50,000 to New Zealand First from entities with a connection to Kings Quarry before—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Surely we’re not going to have this process where someone so ignorant of our electoral law thinks they can come to this Parliament, when disclosures required to the Electoral Commission and to every other legal body, and get away with that allegation?

SPEAKER: Look—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, they don’t know what they’re doing here.

SPEAKER: Well, sorry, I just want to say this: a point of order needs to be a point of order. It can’t be a point of political rebuttal. So that’s the last of those we’ll have today. Point of order, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: As I think the member Marama Davidson knows, the Prime Minister is not responsible for electoral law donations made by political parties.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is absolutely responsible for conflicts of interest that flow from that. Where members are making decisions that relate to parties who have made donations to their campaigns, any conflict of interest that flows from that is absolutely the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: And I think the Prime Minister has answered by saying that those conflicts, where they occur, will be properly managed. I don’t think he can say much more than that to the House. The Hon Marama Davidson, you have another supplementary.

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, I hadn’t got to the end of that question, so I will repeat that question because it wasn’t answered.

SPEAKER: Hang on, I think—actually, that’s fair enough. You were interrupted. Carry on.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. Did Minister Jones disclose donations of $50,000 to New Zealand First from entities with a connection to Kings Quarry before Minister Bishop wrote to Kings Quarry inviting them to apply for the fast-track process?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to be any more clear with the member, but there are no projects that have been approved under the fast-track provisions at this stage. All that has happened is a form letter has gone out to a series of organisations making them aware of the process and the application process.

Hon David Seymour: Does receiving one of 280 letters, saying that there will be a fast-track process to get more stuff finally built in New Zealand actually entitle anyone to any kind of consent to build anything?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, if I can again—point of order please, on that previous question.

SPEAKER: You can give it a go, but it better be a point of order.

Hon Marama Davidson: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was: “Did Minister Jones disclose donations?”, and that was not at all addressed by the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, I would assume that you know about the donation, because it was disclosed. So there’s no point for me to rule on here.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will he commit to providing an opportunity—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, there are two processes here that may be being confused. Ministers still have to declare political donations relevant to their responsibilities to the Cabinet Office under the conflict of interest process. That is a different process to an electoral return declaration, and, once again, the Prime Minister is responsible for that and there are different time frames associated with that. For example, donations that may not yet have been declared in an electoral return still need to be declared to the Cabinet Office if a Minister is making a decision about a related entity. So, therefore, that question is both within order and also something the Prime Minister should be expected to answer.

SPEAKER: Then ask the question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. Did Minister Jones disclose to Cabinet donations of $50,000 to New Zealand First from entities with a connection to Kings Quarry before Minister Bishop wrote to Kings Quarry inviting them to apply for the fast-track process?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in response to the later part of that question—I’ll answer that leg—I’ve said very clearly, no projects have been confirmed. All that has happened is a form letter has been sent out to a series of organisations—many of them iwi-led organisations—a range of corporates that actually want to participate in fast-track legislation. But the bigger point is very simple here: we are going to get things built in this country and we are not apologising for that. We believe in fast-track legislation because we want modern, reliable infrastructure in this country so we can become more productive; we can get a higher standard of living.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to providing an opportunity for public scrutiny of projects before the bill is set down for third reading, to ensure transparency in light of the real risk of conflicts of interest?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, projects haven’t been determined yet. We have a clear process that involves an expert panel that will weigh up the economic considerations, the environmental considerations, and Ministers will make decisions. And won’t that be great? Because we’ll finally get some stuff built in this country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister agree with Chris Bishop, that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She was last? Because on that side, they were last; not us. That side got the last question; why isn’t it over here?

SPEAKER: Your side got the last answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister agree with Chris Bishop that Shane Jones should have been sacked when he usurped an independent regulator to benefit a donor—a donor who is now the director of one of the companies invited to participate in the fast-track consenting process?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll say to that member as well: we have a fast-track process which we are incredibly proud about. We will manage any future perceived, real conflicts of interest—don’t worry about that. We’ll make sure we have a strong expert panel that can deliver the economic environmental considerations. We are going to get things done, unlike that member’s last Government, who just talked and talked and didn’t do a thing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the fast-tracking process, which is of such great interest today, has the Prime Minister and his Cabinet found it of use that there was a precedent of 19 fast-track projects under the former Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think David Parker, potential future leader of the Labour Party, along with Phil Twyford as his deputy, actually put a good thing in place—and we’ve taken that and we’ve built on it and we’re making it work.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. I have seen a report from the OECD on fiscal drag and indexation of personal taxes. It explains how, in a progressive tax system, nominal wage growth leads to larger tax burdens. This includes wage growth that simply reflects inflation. If personal income tax thresholds are not adjusted over time, workers end up paying more and more of their income in tax.

Stuart Smith: Can the Minister give an example of fiscal drag in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The example I like to use in New Zealand is the median full-time wage and salary earner. In 2011, that person earned $48,000 a year and paid 15.5 percent of their income in tax. Today, they earn $73,400—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: John Key’s fault.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and pay 20.6 percent of their income in tax. This is the consequence of not adjusting tax thresholds for 14 years. The average tax rate for someone who is, by definition, right in the middle of the income distribution has gone up by more than 5 percentage points. The Leader of the Opposition seems very concerned about the lack of adjustment to tax thresholds. Well, he had six years and he ignored working people and made no adjustment.

Stuart Smith: How do other countries deal with fiscal drag?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: More than half of OECD countries index their personal income tax thresholds. The report I referred to in my primary answer shows that of the 38 OECD countries, around 17 automatically adjust thresholds for inflation or some other index. Those countries include Canada, the United States, Denmark, France, Norway, and Sweden.

Stuart Smith: What do other OECD countries do about fiscal drag?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, most OECD countries index tax thresholds. Of the rest, most have decided on a discretionary basis to adjust thresholds and/or rates over the last decade or so to provide tax relief, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Only a very small minority of OECD countries have decided not to provide personal income tax relief since 2010, and, in fact, have raised taxes. Those countries include Portugal, Greece, and New Zealand.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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. In particular, I stand by this Government’s action to ban mobile phones in schools. Officially kicking in yesterday, the ban is already helping young Kiwis focus on learning the skills they need to succeed, and schools across the country are reporting more engaged kids, louder playgrounds and sports fields at lunchtime, more positive interaction, and less cyber-bullying. We’re committed to delivering better public services for Kiwis. This is just one part of our plan to do exactly that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What additional factors was he made aware of between 4 March, when he expressed full confidence in Melissa Lee, and last week, when he dismissed her from the broadcasting portfolio?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I discussed last week, Melissa Lee, and Penny Simmonds, for that matter, are hard-working, good Ministers doing an excellent job, but those portfolios became more complex and more complicated, and I want them managed by senior Ministers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What additional factors was he made aware of between 26 March, when he expressed full confidence in Penny Simmonds, and last week, when he dismissed her from the disability portfolio?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as I said, the agenda in disability issues became more complicated and complex, and I want that managed by more senior Ministers. But what I’d just say is that that’s the same leader who was a Prime Minister, along with Grant Robertson, his former Minister of Finance, who actually got advice about the problems in that department, agency, and their management of their money and their budget and did nothing about it. It was typical of his Government to not face up to issues, to not deal with them. We’re doing that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In reference to the last segment of the Prime Minister’s answer, it neither related to the question nor is anything that the Prime Minister has any responsibility for. Will you give me a couple of extra supplementary questions in compensation for that?

SPEAKER: One.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with David Seymour and Shane Jones’ criticism of the Waitangi Tribunal; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what I’d say to you: I have strong Ministers doing an excellent job, and both those Ministers are doing exactly that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the criticism that David Seymour and Shane Jones have made of a Government entity—the Waitangi Tribunal—and, if he didn’t, why he didn’t agree with them. He didn’t even address that.

SPEAKER: Have another go.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I wouldn’t characterise it that way. What I would say is that I’ve made my statements on that, and you saw that in the media last week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Public statements that Ministers make—certainly, the subject can be the subject of questioning, but they’re not read into the record of the House. A Minister—any Minister—being asked a question shouldn’t be referred simply to public statements that have been made. The Minister has an obligation to answer to the House.

Hon Shane Jones: No, no, to address the question.

SPEAKER: The obligation is in fact—thank you, Mr Jones; I’ll do this on my own, if that’s all right—to address a question, and by saying that he refers to public statements he’s made, he’s addressing the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that David Seymour’s and Shane Jones’ criticism of the Waitangi Tribunal breaches the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I wouldn’t characterise it that way, and you’ve seen my statements on the issue.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does it not breach the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because I don’t believe it does.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he’s told his Cabinet—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on. When questions are being asked, they’re asked in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister told his Cabinet colleagues to concentrate on great principles and great political programmes rather than venal, vicious personal attacks?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think all my Ministers are very clear we are here to get things done for New Zealanders, and they’re doing a great job doing that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Prime Minister take disciplinary action against ministerial colleagues like David Seymour and Shane Jones attacking the legitimacy of the Waitangi Tribunal, in breach of the Cabinet Manual; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I have to say the sanctimony from that member is quite outrageous, because it took him longer to sack Michael Wood than it will take for the backbench to sack him.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only does the Prime Minister not have responsibility for that, he hasn’t addressed the question that was asked.

SPEAKER: Well, he did by saying that he didn’t agree with the sanctimony of the question, which is kind of a dismissing, but it’s none the less addressing the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is right: the Prime Minister, who said that ultimately he determines the performance of Cabinet Ministers, or David Seymour, who said that the Prime Minister sacking an ACT Minister would be a breach of the faith of the coalition agreement and would be a major problem?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Prime Minister.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

SPEAKER: Now, can I just make a point? I’m not going to stop the questions, but when you ask a question like that—“stand by all his Government’s policies and actions”—and he says yes, how many more questions can there be? So I think we just need to all think a little bit about question time and its purpose.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What opportunity will the public be given to weigh in on projects that will be approved in their community as a result of the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what I’d say is that we have a great fast-track process. It’s designed to get things built in this country, but a key component of it is an independent expert panel that will weigh up considerations economically, environmentally, and socially, and inform Ministers.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can the public have confidence in this Government’s Cabinet overseeing the decisions of the hundred projects in the Fast-track Approvals Bill when Ministers are not disclosing their conflicts of interest?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there are no projects that have been approved.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What actions will the Prime Minister take to ensure that his Cabinet Ministers will adhere to the Cabinet Manual around the conflict of interests, if given, for the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have well-established processes on managing perceived or real conflicts of interest, but, again, we make no apologies about introducing fast-track legislation. It is important that we get things done in this country. We are over the talk and discussion; we need to get things built.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Prime Minister got any register of current conflicts of interest before the beginning of the Fast-track Approvals Bill as it hits the select committee, or after the select committee process?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we have well-established processes for managing ministerial conflicts of interest, the Cabinet Office, and Ministers, but, again, we have not yet got a full set of projects. We haven’t got any projects that are approved yet. That’s the point of introducing this legislation: so we can get some projects approved and done and building.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—sorry, point of order. That questioner said that Ministers are not disclosing conflicts of interest. Now, sir, that is a very serious allegation. There’s not one shred of evidence to back it up: no proof whatsoever; just an insinuation of deceit by parliamentarians in this House. That, sir, is not acceptable under Standing Orders. It’s going to lead to a serious disorder and a few armed troops if she goes any further down that track.

SPEAKER: The Standing Orders you refer to are “dishonourable allegations made against members”; I can’t remember the number.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. At no time did I make any allegation; I was seeking clarity of process, but I do seek guidance on your ruling and then am quite happy for Hansard to be checked—i.e., I think Te Pāti Māori needs to and deserves to clear their name if we’ve been alleged of making some gross untruth.

SPEAKER: Oh, good. Well, I’ll have a look at the Hansard and just come back to you. Do you have another supplementary?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is the response to the Waitangi Tribunal’s urgency on his Government’s plan to repeal section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, released yesterday, which stated it would cause “actual harm” to vulnerable children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government is going to make sure that the wellbeing of children comes first, but that issue is before the courts and it’s inappropriate for me to comment.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with Tama Potaka on 26 July 2023, regarding the repeal of section 7AA, that “It would be contradictory of us to dismiss this provision entirely, which is intended to be a genuine option to address and meet the best interests of the child in State care.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, this Government is focusing on making sure the wellbeing of a child comes first and foremost as the important thing that we have to do, but this matter is before the courts and I won’t be commenting any further on it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with Harete Hipango on July 2023, regarding section 7AA, that “If the National Party gets into Government, we would not be repealing it,”, and, if so, what has changed since then?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are going to make sure that we prioritise the welfare of our most vulnerable children so they end up in loving homes. That is job number one. But I will not be making any further comments, given that this is under appeal through the courts this week.

Question No. 5—Education

5. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she seen about the “away for the day” cellphone policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): There have been overwhelmingly positive responses to our “off and away all day” policy to ban the use of cellphones in schools. The Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand said that schools who started the year with a ban are reporting less distraction and more interaction in the playground, with a lot of children out playing sport or heading to the library. I am proud of this Government that we are prepared to take decisive action, and that’s why, from the first day of term 2, all schools were required to implement the cellphone use ban to ensure every student has the same opportunity to succeed at school.

Katie Nimon: What evidence has she seen to support New Zealand’s cellphone policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: A recent study published by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health wrote that banning smart phones significantly reduced bullying, improved the grades of students, and significantly decreased the number of visits students made to see mental health specialists. The study also found that schools that implemented a policy removing phones for the whole day—not just class time—experienced a larger increase in student educational performance. That is why it is our expectation that cellphones are off and away all day, so we can get back to basics and ensure our kids are literate, numerate, and aspirational about their futures.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has she seen from school principals about the “away for the day” cellphone policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Principals from across the country continue to write to me to tell me how wonderful it is to hear the noise in the playground, with more students talking to each other, playing games, and connecting. One Dunedin secondary school principal reported that restricting pupils’ cellphones had resulted in a massive drop in harmful social media incidents. The Hornby High School principal said he wished they’d done it five years ago. He said, “We’re seeing kids … outside … playing games, throwing balls, reading books and generally interacting more positively rather than having heads down on a phone.” This policy is part of our wider plan to lift student achievement and wellbeing.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has she received while recently abroad about the cellphone policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Last week, in Singapore, I had the opportunity to meet with many of my international counterparts. The number one thing I was asked about was cellphones. Education Ministers from around the world asked me to share our approach and why it had been so successful. Other countries are also making changes. The UK Government has also taken steps to prohibit cellphones in their schools. The UK Secretary for Education explained that “By prohibiting mobile phones, schools can create safe and calm environments free from distraction so all pupils can receive the education they deserve.” This Government is committed to getting the basics right, supporting Kiwi kids to succeed. Getting cellphones out of schools was just the start and there’s a lot more to come.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “We will … both [be] sustaining front-line services and, in the cases of the areas … I outlined in my opening remarks, increasing funding for those services.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by my full statement in the context in which it was given. In my opening remarks to the Finance and Expenditure Committee about the Budget Policy Statement, I said, “front-line services like health, education and law and order will get more funding.”, and I’m proud to say that in Budget 2024 they certainly will.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What directions does she give to Ministers or chief executives in avoiding cuts to front-line services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I said that when agencies were putting forward savings proposals, they should apply good judgment and be careful that proposals should not put front-line services at risk.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it good judgment for the Department of Internal Affairs to make cuts to the child exploitation team, cuts to care or support funded through Whaikaha—Ministry of Disabled People, and Customs cutting its border services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In what has become a habit from that member, she tends to paraphrase and summarise a series of loosely connected facts and make assertions about them. In the case of what I think are restructuring proposals that the member is in this question referring to, I would note that they are under consultation and, therefore, no final decisions have been taken.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she believe she can commit to her commitment of no front-line service cuts when she is doing nothing to enforce her expectations as part of Budget 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, I’ll tell you how we roll over here: we enforce our expectations.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has Cabinet signed—

SPEAKER: Hang on—just wait for your own colleagues.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has Cabinet signed off this year’s Budget, and, if so, on what date was it agreed to?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Cabinet processes are not something that I think is in the public interest to divulge at this time. But I am pleased that the member opposite is obviously as excited as I am about the 2024 Budget. You’ll have to wait until 30 May when I deliver it, and, I’m sorry, you’re not going to get first dibs on the content.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the reason she is so committed to delivering her tax cuts as part of Budget 2023 because protecting her own job is more important than the jobs of front-line workers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Why it’s important to me to provide tax relief to working people is that, unlike the members opposite, I don’t think it’s the man in high-vis or the woman in the nurse’s uniform that should always be the last to get relief. Unlike the members opposite, I’m not going to continue on a path of low-value spending, of wasteful programmes—like merging TVNZ and RNZ, and three waters reform—when there are working people paying more and more of their income in tax, who’ve had to endure a cost of living crisis that her party fuelled. We are delivering them tax relief. They’ve worked hard and they earned it.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially this Government’s action to bring back three strikes. Communities across New Zealand are sick and tired of seeing what happens when a Government spends years embedding a “soft on crime” approach that prioritises offenders over victims, and that’s why we’re making the changes, because New Zealanders expect this Government to restore law and order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the cost of a two-zone fare on the bus for a teenager in Auckland today, and what will it be tomorrow when the Government cancels half-price public transport fares?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If you’d like to put that in a specific question, I’m sure we can get an answer for you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How—[Interruption]—Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yeah, regardless of what people think of the question, we’ll hear it in silence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does doubling the cost of public transport for teenagers help families with the cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’ll still be support for those that are on community services cards and mobility services; obviously, student discount rates. But what’s important, and what this Government’s working incredibly hard to do, is making sure that we support low and middle income working New Zealanders by giving them tax relief. It’s been 14 long years. It’s been a 40 percent increase in the cost of goods through inflation. They deserve tax relief. They work incredibly hard. We’re going to deliver it to them, and that will help them navigate the cost of living crisis.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is Trade Me’s national median rent price today, and what was it when his Government was elected last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, if you’d like to put that as a specific question, I’m sure we can get you an answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if ever, will the $2.9 billion landlord tax cut trickle down to the 1.5 million renters in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to this member before, we have a problem with housing in this country, and it has not been solved by the previous administration over the last six years, but we are determined to work hard at solving it. The problem is a supply challenge. It’s a supply challenge—you can’t buy a house; you can’t afford one. Supply challenge on the rental market; supply challenge on the State housing market. We are working incredibly hard to make sure we get the settings right to put downward pressure on rents, because we’re not having a $170 per week increase in average rents. We are working hard to make sure we put downward pressure.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister, then, commit to rent prices coming down under his Government, or is that all hot air?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re putting downward pressure on rents, and we’re doing that by restoring interest deductibility—a legitimate business expense, we’re making sure we bring back the brightline test, and we’re balancing the laws between tenants and landlords.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “We stand by our commitments, that we won’t be reducing the front line, that we will continue to deliver services as effectively as we can, and that the cuts that we’re talking about are mostly back-office cuts”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, I stand by my statement. This Government is absolutely committed to delivering services as effectively as we can to ensure that New Zealanders can access the healthcare they deserve.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can it be true that front-line services aren’t being reduced when hospitals are under instruction from Health New Zealand leadership to reduce the use of casual nurses who cover roster gaps across a range of services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This is a reflection that in the calendar year 2023, I am informed that 2,500 nurses entered the workforce. As a consequence of that, we are needing to acquire less penal time and less overtime.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why are doctors being told that they cannot fill vacant specialist roles in hospitals, even when they have identified appropriately qualified doctors in what is still a globally tight market for specialists?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is a globally tight market for specialists, and I am informed that 200 fulltime-equivalent specialists joined the health workforce in the calendar year 2023. Having said that, I am reassured by Health New Zealand that health services are safe and they are simply looking for efficiencies, such as the $2.75 million that they found in one hospital in the past three months for more efficient procurement of consumables.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about—

SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah—OK. I’ll call you for a point of order.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: My question was a very practical question about why doctors couldn’t appoint to roles, and that was not addressed in the question.

SPEAKER: Well, ask the question again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why are doctors being told that they cannot fill vacant specialist roles in hospitals, even when they have identified appropriately qualified doctors in what is still a globally tight market for specialists?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said, I am informed by Health New Zealand that 200 fulltime-equivalent specialists were entered into the health system in calendar year 2023, and sometimes this is simply a matter of timing. We look forward to employing more senior medical officers as we are able to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he deny in a statement to Radio New Zealand that there is a hiring freeze in public hospitals when Health New Zealand wrote to health unions on 17 April to say that all unfilled roles were being reviewed and considered for removal?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: People are currently being hired today.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he understand why health workers are angry that after he campaigned on a workforce crisis, the Minister is now blocking hospitals from filling gaps through a hiring freeze in public hospitals?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I do understand is that during the campaign, I said the health workforce was a number one priority; that member did not.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won’t he admit that six months in, his Government has already broken its promise not to cut front-line health jobs and it’s taking the country backwards?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I won’t take advice on broken promises from a member who said that non-orthopaedic wait-lists of more than 365 days would be met by the end of last year, which was a terrible failure.

Question No. 9—Disability Issues

9. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements, if any, has the Minister made?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): This morning, I announced an independent review of Disability Support Services. Our Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled New Zealanders. This review aims to ensure that support services enhance the lives of disabled people in the long term. We’ve already committed additional funding this financial year to ensure disabled people get the services they need.

Paulo Garcia: Why is the independent review of Disability Support Services needed?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Substantial challenges have been encountered delivering support services. Despite the hard work of many, the current track is unsustainable. Something has to be done. The review aims to ensure that support services enhance the lives of disabled people and gives them certainty about access to support. Whaikaha - the Ministry of Disabled People welcomes this review and I look forward to working with them.

Paulo Garcia: How long will the review take?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I should review recommendations within four months. Once the review is complete, I will consult the disability community, seeking their feedback. I’m committed to listening to the views of disabled people, their families, and their carers before making changes.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon—oh, sorry—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Priyanca.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Priyanca.

SPEAKER: Priyanca Radhakrishnan. I was going to call you Krishna—Radha—Priyanca. Sorry, apologies.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can I go now?

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Will this review, which was already announced on 26 March this year, include the option of reversing the changes to disability support funding that were announced and implemented on 18 March?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The terms of reference of the review are now public. We want to ensure that we understand the issues that were created when the ministry was set up; to understand the issues they face today; but, more importantly, what we need to do to fix these challenges so that disabled New Zealanders get access to the support they need.

Paulo Garcia: Is this the first time in recent years Disability Support Services have been reviewed?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. The ministry was created to improve Disability Support Services and it was established quickly, which meant longstanding challenges weren’t addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: We get things done on this side!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The latest Government’s implementation unit—you might want to listen to this. The last Government’s implementation unit raised red flags in 2023 about the viability of Disability Support Services. Clearly, challenges were always known and the last Government did not address them. Our Government will confront these challenges so disabled people are assured that there is ongoing support for years to come.

Question No. 10—Health (Pharmac)

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): My question is to the Associate Minister of Health, and asks, what recent announcements [Interruption] has he made about improving—

SPEAKER: Hang on, just hang on. Just wait. Now you can start again.

TODD STEPHENSON: Oh, I’ll go again. Great! Minister, what recent announcements—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. I’m sorry, questions are going to be heard in silence.

10. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac): I’ve spared the House by singing my question! What recent announcements has he made about improving Kiwis’ access to medicines?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)): I’d like to acknowledge the presence of the Rt Hon John Key, who’s clearly at a loose end! In respect of pharmaceuticals and medicines for New Zealanders, I announced yesterday that we will have a budget of nearly $1.6 billion a year for medicines for Kiwis for the next four years. For many New Zealanders, funding medicine means life or death, or the difference between a life of pain and suffering or living freely. This Government has managed to make the sacrifices in other areas by cutting waste to fund these vital medicines, so they don’t get cut.

Todd Stephenson: Why was there a need to announce this package?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The previous Government talked a big game about care and kindness, but when it came to funding medicines—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How’s that in order?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —they budgeted $1.4—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think that’s a fair point. Just start the answer again without the political attack—I’m sure the member’s capable of doing that.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I make only the most factual statements, and I was trying to compliment them. But, nevertheless, in spite of the rhetoric surrounding medicines, the previous Government forecasted for four years, $1.5 billion this year and only $1.1 billion for the coming three years. That meant when this Government came into office, Pharmac—who buy medicines for New Zealanders—said if you don’t do something about this, we will spend the next year not funding new medicines but deciding which patients to exclude from existing medicines and which medicines to take off the list. As a result, this Government has had to find another $455 million a year, or $1.774 billion in total, to fill in that fiscal cliff where the previous Government had not put the money aside to fund the medicines people need. In doing this, we faced three options: we could tax overtaxed households and businesses more, we could borrow another $1.774 billion, or we could find savings of waste in other areas to pay for the medicines people need. We’ve done the third one, and that sums up how this Government is taking on this Budget.

SPEAKER: Just make sure the answers are a bit more concise.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think it is a prudent way to manage New Zealand’s fiscal situation to leave critical medicines unfunded in the Budget, such as the last Government did in Budget 2023, so that those medicines would have to be delisted if it weren’t for the prudent decision of this Government to fund them?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I have no responsibility for being—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Given the ruling that you’ve just given in this series of questions, the House, I believe, needs to understand how that question was allowed. It gave reference specifically to the previous Government in the question. This is a dance that we have to have every single question time, it seems, that Government Ministers are repeatedly ignoring your instructions.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but what I also said—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: OK.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: How is it possible that we, as a Government, find ourselves with a $1.8 billion hole of negligence left by those guys and we’re not allowed to talk about it in question time?

SPEAKER: My point in response to the Hon Kieran McAnulty is that there is a difference between an outright attack and a reference to actions of a previous Government. Actions of a previous Government are not ruled out and have not been ruled out. The reference to the Budget of a previous Government, therefore, is in order.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, far be it from me to be the Minister of Finance’s thesaurus, but I would say that setting up expectations amongst New Zealanders of something as vital as medicine and not actually putting aside the money to pay for it is not only imprudent but it is, frankly, dishonest and misleading to the New Zealand public. I’m proud to say that this Government has funded—

SPEAKER: Yeah, no—that’s enough.

Todd Stephenson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, it might be the last one.

Todd Stephenson: How will this announcement help to support New Zealanders’ healthcare?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We are, at the moment, in a time of extraordinary technical revolution when it comes to medicines. The question is whether New Zealanders can keep up with the First World expectations that they have for themselves and their families. This funding means that many medicines that would have been at risk of delisting will continue. That includes 30 new medicines funded since 2022; 31 with widened access to more patients; and decisions that have been recently made or are in progress, such as funding continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and myeloma treatments. Those would have been at risk under the Budget this Government inherited. They are now viable because we’ve found the savings of waste elsewhere to put the money into medicines Kiwis need.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister seen comments by a member of this House who referred to his decision to rescue Pharmac through this funding boost as “fiscal jiggery-pokery”, and does he think the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall was wrong to suggest that funding medicine is anything but good policy?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question for answer.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I’d love to answer the first part.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a question. I haven’t called you. No, you need to sit down.

Question No. 11—Children

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement that there will be no front-line cuts to services providing care and protection to children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she assure the House that the International Child Protection Unit, that focuses on cross-border issues like child labour exploitation, sexual exploitation, and child trafficking will not be disestablished, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don’t have ministerial responsibility for some of those.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am referring to the International Child Protection Unit within Oranga Tamariki. She does have ministerial responsibility for Oranga Tamariki.

SPEAKER: The Minister might like to elaborate on the answer.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There is a restructure going on right now, and there is a proposal that has been put before Oranga Tamariki. No final decisions have been made, and consultation is happening at the moment.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why does the Minister endorse disestablishing the unit that plays a crucial role in preventing and addressing child labour exploitation, child sexual exploitation, and child trafficking and smuggling?

SPEAKER: It’s a bit hard to say that the Minister’s taken a position when the Minister’s just actually said that the matter is under review.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the Minister, then, proposing to disestablish the unit that plays a crucial role in preventing and addressing child labour exploitation, child sexual exploitation, and child trafficking and smuggling?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what: why don’t you have another way of asking the question that you’re wanting without the accusation at the start of the question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does the Minister support the ministry’s proposal to disestablish the unit that plays a crucial role in preventing and addressing child labour exploitation, child sexual exploitation, and child trafficking and smuggling?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki is currently going through a restructure. All this is still under proposal, and consultation is still happening. Oranga Tamariki has my expectation that the best interests of our young people are at the forefront of all their decision making. That is my expectation.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order. The Minister didn’t answer my question. My question was: does she support it?

SPEAKER: No, the Minister did answer your question. The Minister said that the matters were under review, and then she stated what her expectation was from that review. I don’t think you can get better than that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: As the Minister for Children, why is the Minister standing by cuts to agencies and services that are dedicated to the protection of children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki needs to get back to its core focus, which is care and protection of our young people. We are streamlining the organisation to focus on the care and protection of our young people. We need to get back to the basics and do it better than we have been.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister agree with the statement by the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki in relation to the restructuring proposal that it was developed with the care and protection of children at its centre, with reductions and changes focused on reducing and streamlining the back office, keeping the roles of the front line out of the scope for change so as not to affect the services we provide on the ground to tamariki, rangatahi, and whānau?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. Stakeholder groups, Opposition parties, Governments, iwi, and hapū have all been asked for real change in Oranga Tamariki. This is what real change looks like.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, you’ve run out of them even with the extras that were offered earlier.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made regarding regulations in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The coalition Government recently announced two important but related announcements relating to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), which has plagued personal and mortgage lending over recent years. Firstly, we are removing 11 pages of overly prescriptive affordability regulations to consumer and mortgage lending so people can more easily borrow money when and if they need it. And, secondly, we’re streamlining and enhancing dispute resolution services so Kiwis are properly protected if they are subject to poor lending practices.

Cameron Brewer: Why were these reforms a priority for the coalition Government?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: First of all, these changes were part of the National-ACT coalition agreement, but, secondly, they were a priority, because the regulations introduced by the previous Government were so bad that they harmed the very people they were meant to protect. This coalition Government is committed to cutting red tape, and these regulations were a handbrake and did more harm than good.

Cameron Brewer: How will removing 11 pages of regulations from the CCCFA help people get a mortgage or personal loan?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: By removing these regulations, it will bring back more balance to the need to properly assess affordability with the need for Kiwis to access finance when they need it. At the moment, many reputable lenders simply do not offer small personal loans, because of the overbearing compliance cost. It is families who have worked hard to buy a house who can’t actually get a mortgage, because they have to jump through unnecessary hoops.

Cameron Brewer: Does the Minister have any further plans regarding the CCCFA?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In the coming weeks, we’ll begin consulting on the legislative changes to the CCCFA reforms. But I’ll just say this is just the beginning of reforms that will help improve Kiwis’ access to finance, cut red tape, and help rebuild the economy.

Urgent Debates Declined

Removal of Ministers—Prime Minister’s Decision

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Prime Minister’s decision to remove the Hon Melissa Lee from a portfolio and from Cabinet and to remove the Hon Penny Simmonds from a portfolio. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Generally, Speakers have allowed debates on the resignation or removal of Ministers where matters of probity were involved. That is not the case in this instance. I do not think that the reallocation of ministerial portfolios or the removal of a Minister from Cabinet in these circumstances as set out in the application warrants the setting aside of the business of the House. The application is declined. Members—[Interruption] Yeah, I’m on my feet; it doesn’t happen very often.

Acknowledgment of Death of Member

Fa’anānā Efeso Collins

SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, we come now to the acknowledgment of the death of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. I call on the Green Party of Aotearoa to open that debate.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I’d like to begin my speech with acknowledgments to the whānau; to Vasa Fia Collins and her sister Jodie, who I’ve spent some time with over this last weekend, and all of your family and friends who are here; to māmā Lotomau Collins and Efeso’s sisters, you’re also here, including from Australia; and your wider Collins whānau and community. I also would like to pay acknowledgments to the Ō-Rākau iwi who are here today to have their settlement heard, and another reminder of how important it was for Fa’anānā Efeso Collins to honour Te Tiriti. It matters to this House greatly that you are all here as this Parliament stands with humility to attempt to recognise your husband, your son, your brother, your deeply beloved family member and friend, your inspiration.

I want to start my tribute with the words of Vasa Fia Collins, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins’ wife. It was at the enormous public funeral service held in Manukau that Fia staunchly and correctly proclaimed that Efeso was indeed bigger than any political party or movement. The Green Party knew and loved that about him the most. He was focused on being a pallbearer of neoliberalism. That vision of an Aotearoa where everyone, including the square pegs, the misfits, the forgotten, the unloved, and the invisible were cared for; an Aotearoa where our living systems, our natural wildlife, our whakapapa and generations of mokupuna are cared for—not just today but for the many, many generations to come. That vision of an Aotearoa—his kaupapa—is always bigger than any political party. He had a job to do, and he deserved the platform to do it, and the Green Party are deeply honoured in a way that we will never truly be able to fully give words, to give justice to—that it was the Green Party who were able to give him that platform because it was about the kaupapa.

Ngā mihi nui ki a koe, e te tungāne, ki a koe Fa’nānā Efeso Collins.

[I’d like to acknowledge you, dear brother, Fa’nānā Efeso Collins.]

The baton, as Fia also rightly proclaimed at his funeral service, is now firmly in all of our hands. Many of his attributes were spoken about at the public funeral service and over the weeks after Efeso died. It was widely recognised that he had a particular passion, commitment, and aroha for upholding rangatahi, for understanding the strength that we all can learn when we are working with them, understanding what they bring to the work, and to actually support rangatahi, especially the misfits, especially the square pegs, especially those forgotten and those unloved. That baton is one that we all here in the House should be holding with pride and determination, and I thank Fa’anānā for the opportunity to highlight his kaupapa once again, here today.

It was a big deal for Fia and for Efeso’s family to share him with us and with the world. They were never under any pretence that that was what happens when you are married to, or when you have given birth to, a leader and someone who will serve—and literally to his dying day.

Today I wanted to acknowledge also my Green MP colleagues, many of whom had the privilege of just getting to know Efeso over the recent years and over the recent months, especially since he was elected and came in with a whole lot of other new MPs. Teanau and I have talked about the privilege of having known Efeso for decades, right back to when we were at Auckland University together, but everyone in this House needs to know that he had an impact on his newer friends as well. Our friends and my colleagues here, who only got to know him more recently, are still devastated to this day and feeling rightly ripped off by what was to come from him, by what was on promise. I had the incredible opportunity to offer my thoughts on his contribution at the big public service in Manukau. There are not words that I can express for how grateful I am for being given that honour that day.

Among our caucus, it became quickly widely known that Efeso was going to be one of the leaders of our tall caucus, and Fia spoke to that a little bit in her speech, where she talked about him constantly trying to humble himself, constantly trying to go to the back, constantly trying to not be in the front—that was his constant humility at all times. And yet he was the biggest-smiling, warmest, cuddly, and most welcoming giant we could have imagined.

The beauty of the girls standing with Fia that day at the funeral service is something that we will never ever forget. And, Fia, that day—I know you talked about being an ordinary woman who married an extraordinary man, but your leadership, your grace, your humility, and your strength have been nothing but extraordinary. I haven’t had a chance to speak publicly to your speech and to that day since then, and I am taking this moment to do that.

In these moments, I really also wanted to thank the broader members and the wider members of this entire House. We received love and warm wishes, and your speeches in the aftermath—the very immediate and quite painful and shocking aftermath that very day that he died. The ongoing love and support that we have received from across the House is something that I wish we saw more of and is something that Efeso inspired us to do more of: to work together and build genuine bridges.

We also saw incredible generosity. I want to thank you directly, Mr Speaker, the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee. Your staff: Rafael, David, and I think Tim, Dwayne, Roz, and the travel team—they all went very quickly above and beyond what any staff should ever have to do and should ever have to contend with. They were dealing with an entire Green caucus in deep shock and trauma and did what they could to move mountains. Mr Speaker, I know you are very proud of your team across the House, and we cannot thank you enough for what you also had to do.

That humanity across the House is probably what I did want to focus on in my contribution today. We saw shared grief because he had an impact on all of us, not just the Green Party, not just his Labour colleagues who he has worked with for years and years. We shared moments of actually just remembering who we are as humans, that the loss for his girls, for his wife, for his māmā, for his sisters, and for his community was a human loss that we could understand. I wish it didn’t have to take such tragic circumstances for us to be able to share human moments together. I think there’s far more commonality to those humanity moments and I think Efeso was a shining example for us to come together on those very moments.

I have just seen that my time is running out here today. There are a few more acknowledgments that I wanted to talk about. I do want to acknowledge that, sadly and tragically, this is not the first time the Green Party have lost a beloved MP in service. That day, and this day, I really have been thinking about Rod Donald and his entire family, especially his girls, and Holly, who reached out to us during that time. This is not something that any political party should want to go through, but it’s pretty heinous and we are going through it again. I want to thank everyone for your love, and I appreciate the time that has been given today for all of our tributes. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Not quite.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry! The Hon Dr Shane Reti.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister for Pacific Peoples): We’re not in the Pacific just now, Mr Speaker! On behalf of the National Party, New Zealand First, and the coalition Government, and as the Minister for Pacific Peoples, it is a privilege to be able to speak today and to offer thanks.

It has been two months since the sudden passing of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, and the void he left is still deeply felt here in Parliament and across the country, particularly in his hometown of Ōtara in South Auckland. Today, we take time out of the business of the day to pay tribute to a remarkable man who dedicated his life to serving New Zealand with kindness, compassion, integrity, and dedication. Fa’anānā Efeso was not just a politician of Samoan and Tokelauan descent; he was a proud son of the Pacific, a community leader, a father, a husband, and a strong advocate for justice, fairness, and equal opportunity. These are all values that are echoed across this House, no matter which side of the aisle we sit on.

His absence is felt here in Parliament. Fa’anānā Efeso dedicated his life to serving the public and making a difference for his communities. For this, I know that he was held in the deepest respect by members from across all political parties. Fa’anānā Efeso was very much a man of the people. He dedicated himself to tackling issues that he was passionate about, and the waves he made were felt by Pacific peoples not only in New Zealand but also across the Pacific region. He proudly held the Samoan chiefly title of Fa’anānā from the village of Satufia on Sava’i.

His political career began in local politics in 2013, when he was elected as chairperson of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board. In 2016, he then became a councillor for the Manukau ward. During his three terms at Auckland Council, Fa’anānā Efeso spoke up on issues that Pacific communities were facing. After being one of the leading contenders for Auckland’s mayoralty in 2022, he most recently joined the Green Party and was elected to Parliament during the 2023 election.

In his maiden speech to Parliament, which he delivered only a week before his tragic death, he reminisced about his humble beginnings, growing up in Ōtara, where his father worked as a taxi driver, and his mother worked in a factory. We greet the family here today and acknowledge your loss. Efeso spoke about how his achievements were the results of the sacrifices his family made for him and a system that looked to assist those less fortunate in life. In his maiden speech, he spoke about coming to Parliament to help, saying that helping was a deliberate act. He told us all that he was here to help this House create a better New Zealand for all its people, to open doors that may otherwise be shut to our communities, and to help New Zealanders to connect with their Government.

Fa’anānā Efeso spoke about his hope to inspire the square pegs, the misfits, the forgotten, the unloved, and the invisible during his time in Parliament. Speaking to the values, advocacy, and leadership he will always be remembered for, he added, “It is the dreamers who want more, who expect more, who are impatient for change and have this uncanny ability to stretch us further.” Fa’anānā Efeso’s passing felt like a sudden stop to a political career that was just starting to gain momentum. He, as an individual, had already made an impact for the people he served. As the Prime Minister said, we have no doubt that he would have been very successful and very good for this Parliament in this place.

My personal interactions with Efeso were few but meaningful. Most days when I left the Chamber, I would catch his eye to the side and we would smile together. That was it. But in that shared moment, we were both saying, “I see you, my Polynesian brother.” And that was enough for us.

Fa’anānā Efeso had an unwavering belief in the potential of Pacific communities, particularly Pacific young people and what they could achieve with the right attitude and support. This is a belief that I also hold and will seek to honour as the Minister for Pacific Peoples. Fa’anānā Efeso used his own experience of being the first in his family to attend and graduate from university with a Master’s degree in education to resonate and positively influence youth in the community. We all grieve his loss, not just for the man he was but the man that he was going to be. He was unapologetic and proud, and he represented the dreams and aspirations of his ancestors with wisdom and kindness. Although his full potential will never be known, he is an inspiration for what our Pacific young people have the potential to become.

Despite leaving us too soon, Fa’anānā Efeso lives on through his wife and children, the Pacific youth who he held close to his heart, and in the communities he dedicated his life to advocating for. The thoughts of this coalition Government remain with his wife, Vasa Fia, and their two children; extended families; communities he advocated for; and our Green Party and Pasifika parliamentary colleagues.

While we have lost the pillar of the Pacific community in New Zealand, he has left behind a legacy that will continue to inspire us all to do better for each other. His impact extended far beyond the walls of his office, leaving a significant mark on the hearts and minds of all who had the privilege of knowing him. I was privileged to join family and friends in a more intimate farewell at the funeral home and then join the Prime Minister and a crowd of more than 2,000 as we gathered in Manukau to farewell him. This was a touching moment of reflection. Efeso, fa’afetai lava for all you have accomplished. For all our communities, we say thank you. Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Collins family and all those who will be acutely feeling, still now, the loss of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. There are no words that we can express in this House to adequately describe the aroha that we send your way or that would in any way compensate for the sense of loss that you will still be feeling.

I want to acknowledge my colleagues in the Green Party for the loss that you have sustained, and I want to acknowledge my Labour whānau, particularly those in Auckland who worked so closely with Efeso over such a long period of time. As my colleague Teanau from the Greens described on the day after Efeso passed away, he was a son of the Labour Party who wandered over to the Green Party, and we all feel his loss very much. But my good friend Carmel Sepuloni also noted that he had simply moved to the whare next door. So we grieve with you and we feel this loss as well.

I wanted to use one or two quotes from Efeso Collins himself in remembering him. In particular, just before Christmas, he was asked by Radio New Zealand what he wanted for Christmas. He said, “My hope for the community is that we as a nation settle on some basics, that every child will wake up and know that they’ve got three meals [a] day, [and] that they’ve got somewhere safe and warm to sleep at night”. I know that that is what he dedicated his life to. That very much speaks to the values of Efeso, the values of the Green Party, and the values that we all share. I know that those are values that he lived his life by. I also noted that, in his maiden statement, he made the statement, “No one stands alone, no one succeeds alone”. For him, it was important that no one should suffer alone. Again, this was a sentiment that he not only expressed in this House but that he gave life to in his actions.

But I don’t believe that we should only be reflecting on the loss that we have sustained and the potential that we may have seen in this House, because Efeso Collins, in his life before entering Parliament, had already done so much in the community, and supported so many people. His life was a full one. He was a community builder. Samoan born, Ōtara raised. Three terms on the Auckland Council. A passionate advocate for his communities. Before politics, a lecturer in teacher education. He consulted in leadership in cross-cultural communication. He published research on youth gangs and he developed youth-mentoring programmes. He was the first in his family to attend and graduate from university, and he had a Master’s degree in education.

My first interaction with Efeso Collins was as a students association representative back in 1999, when he was the newly elected president of the Auckland University Students’ Association. I was attending one of my early meetings in student politics. At that time, there was some conflict involved. Some great future parliamentary heavyweights were knocking about student politics at the time, including Peeni Henare, Erica Stanford, me, and of course Efeso Collins. It was a tense meeting, but I saw firsthand then what I saw many other times: Efeso’s belief in being the last to speak. Through a very tense conversation where lots of people were criticising each other, he sat and listened, and, at the end of the meeting, he was the last to speak and he broke all of the tension and brought everybody together. That was his style. It was what he believed in. He believed that you could have a disagreement and that you could still bring people together at the end of it, and he exemplified that in all of his actions.

We will miss Efeso Collins, but, in our grieving for him, we also want to always remember the enormous contribution that he made throughout his life.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Ou te faatalofa atu ma le faaaloalo, malo le soifua maua ma le lagi e mamā. E momoli atu la‘u faafetai i le faletua ia Vasa Fia, ma le fanau, Kaperiela ma Asalemo, aiga ma uō. E fai a‘u ma sui o le vaega a le Pasefika, mo lenei avanoa e fai ai sina upu ia Fa‘anānā Efeso Collins.

When we as members of Parliament come to this House, we come holding the voices of many and carry the responsibility to make decisions for future generations. When we come as Pacific members of Parliament, we come holding the voices of our nu’u—our villages—and our ancestors who travelled the Pacific Ocean. Today, we honour, as Karlo Mila has eloquently stated, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, the ancestor we always knew he was.

My earliest account of being in the presence of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, or “Fes”, as we knew him, was at that same hui at the University of Auckland in the marae. As members of the Auckland University Pasifika students association, we were called to a meeting at the marae to help carry a vote, actually against the Māori students association. So I trotted along to hear a line-up of speakers, first with the Māori speakers advocating for the vote. I had no idea who these guys were: Peeni Henare, Shanan Halbert, and Tāmati Coffey. But from the back of the room, in the quiet, came the final speaker, Efeso. I’ve come to learn that the strategic tactic of Efeso being the last and strong and powerful voice was enough to sway the vote towards our side. If you ever wondered who was tuakana and teina, that hui was very clear. He was formidable in his oratory and persuasiveness, and I left that hui with an immense respect for him. To say he was the man on campus undersells his skills and his mana.

I then officially met Fes one to one when we were introduced through a close mutual friend, Asilika Aholelei, who was working with Efeso on one of the many projects that Efeso became involved with over the years to empower youth, the Dream Fono. Fes’ passion to ensure that Pacific youth, especially youth from South Auckland, had pathways to better education and lives will be one of his enduring legacies. He knew the importance of bringing people up no matter their backgrounds, but, more importantly, he made space for others when it was clear his work was done.

So, today, I want to share with the House the voice of some of those who Efeso was pivotal in providing space for. The voice of Lotu Fuli, a long-time friend of Efeso who succeeded him as the Manukau Ward councillor when Efeso stepped down off the seat. Lotu cannot be here today, but she wanted to ensure her lofa was shared today. The voice of Asilika and Leo Aholelei who wanted to thank Efeso for giving them the courage each day to stand up for what is right and to love and serve with a grateful heart, for bringing the lift down to bless others with opportunities within their communities. They will never forget his love and sacrifice. And, finally, the voice of one of our Pasifika youth Mariner Fagaiava, who was with Efeso on the day he passed. Maz says, “I’m surrounded by fierce dreamers, staunch tusitala, glass ceiling breakers. Me and my generation dream freely because of Fes. I was once asked to perform a laoga, or a speech, to a crowd of esteemed dignitaries, iwi community leaders, and diplomats. Fes, standing from the back of the crowd, gave me a look as to say ‘You’ve got this.’ We’re led to think leadership is a Pālagi man in front of the room, suit-wearing and number-crunching. I know that leadership is actually standing at the back of the room, guiding from a distance, and he wears an ula fala with a look of pride, so as to say, ‘You’ve got this.’ ”

So, today, Vasa Fia, Kaperiela, Asalemo, aiga ma uo, and to our Green whānau, I say, “We’ve got you.” Together, we will continue the work of our brother, our ancestor. We miss and love you, Fes. Ia manuia lau malaga Fa‘anānā Efeso Collins. Back to Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pāmamao—back to the home of our ancestors.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with a heavy heart that I stand here today to acknowledge the passing of our colleague and friend MP Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. He embodied openness, humility, and strength. His life was a testament to the values of peace, love, and service—he embraced that wholeheartedly every day. He was fundamental in shaping the social and cultural landscape of any space that he was in.

Fa’anānā Efeso Collins was a central pillar in his community. Born and raised in Ōtara, he had humble beginnings in a religious family—the youngest of six children. He viewed the world as fundamentally full of grace and compassion. He understood the importance of collaboration and often referred to himself as the bridge between the Pacific Island community and the rest of New Zealand.

Efeso often found himself encouraged by his community to step forward to inspire and advocate for them. From his time as a youth leader in the church all the way to Parliament, he actively inspired change and collaboration for Pacific communities and around New Zealand. He was a man of action and improvement, always making sure he took action when he saw the need. He was an adviser to the Minister of Education for Pasifika learning and to the Ministry of Social Development on Pasifika youth development. He wrote blog posts for the Daily Blog. He sometimes was found hosting segments on radio shows on Radio 531pi and Radio Samoa.

Something Efeso and I had in common was our love for the work that local government does, having both served Auckland Council. He saw the way local government could make a difference in people’s lives, and his focus always remained on serving the community. I was lucky enough to attend an event with Efeso just a few weeks before his passing. It was an event hosted by Local Government New Zealand, where members of Parliament who had either served in local government or worked for local government had an opportunity to get together—out of the spotlight of politics and Parliament—to share our ideas, our values, and our aspirations for what local government could do for communities and New Zealanders. We shared pizza, some of us drank a beer, and we told some stories about all the things that we loved and some of the things we loathed about our time working in local government. It was a really special time and reminded me of all the good things we can do when we find ways to collaborate together in politics.

When we left the event, I looked at my watch and thought, “Excellent, my taxi will be here in a minute. I will make it back before the end of the dinner break. I won’t end up in trouble again.” I said to Efeso, “How are you getting back?” He said, “I don’t know.” I said, “Well, you’d better jump in with me, because you’re new here and you don’t know how dangerous being late back to the House can be.” So that gave us another opportunity to have a chat and share some of the things that were important to each other. Efeso talked about his family, how much he was missing his children, and how much he looked forward to getting home at the end of the week in Wellington to spend time with them.

Efeso wanted all New Zealanders to better understand the concerns and aspirations of his local community, his friends and his family, and those who supported him to be here as a member of Parliament. What I hope is that we can work together and continue to build those bridges and to form those friendships that underpin the best work that we do as members of Parliament. Efeso was a deeply religious man whose faith guided his life. He had the ability to listen to people’s stories and connect with them in a way many politicians fall short. He had the beautiful ability to speak to his ever-changing perspectives on life as he learnt, and he had spoken often about his own journey of understanding and empathy.

As we mourn his passing together, I hope we can uphold his legacy by encouraging the spirit of unity and sympathy that he exemplified. May we always strive to recognise the interconnectedness of our roles and the lives of those that we serve. In honouring his memory, let us work together for a future where we feel compassion, ensuring that his impact endures in the foundation of our shared history. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege and an honour to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First as we pay tribute to Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the loss of the Green Party, the Labour Party, to his family gathered in the gallery today, but also to his two daughters, and I’m going to speak more to that in just a moment. Others in this House have spoken so eloquently today of the incredible values and the essence of this man, and so I want to do something a little bit different with my contribution. I want to talk to his daughters, and I do that with lived experience, which I’ll mention at the end of my contribution.

But first, I’d just like to mention a couple of times—a very few brief times—that I had met and had the privilege of meeting Efeso. It was back in 2022. There was a mayoral debate going on in Warkworth. It was a really horrible night. The weather was just atrocious, but Efeso made the trip up to Warkworth, and it was a very prickly crowd. He opened his mouth and he got attacked from the floor, but he carried on delivering his speech, because that was politics and he was doing his job. After the debate, I felt a bit awkward for him, so I made a point of actually going up to him and introducing myself and acknowledging him for just turning up to the area of the Warkworth region.

I next came across Efeso once the election had happened and I got transitioned into the mayor’s office as part of his transition team and Wayne Brown was the mayor. One thing that Wayne would always talk about was his fondness of Efeso and how much they had become friends over the course of the election campaign. Well, it might have just been in Wayne’s mind, but he certainly articulated it on a regular basis, so I just thought I’d mention that. We used to chuckle, because a lot of the councillors would come up to the mayor’s office and they would say, “Well, actually, we knew Efeso and we loved him dearly.” He was definitely missed from no longer being a councillor at Auckland.

I would like to dedicate the next part of my contribution to Efeso’s two daughters and also to his wife, Fia. Shock waves happen when there is a sudden death. Those shock waves, they ripple through the family, they ripple through a community, and they ripple across all of your tomorrows, and you don’t know it until you get to tomorrow, the impact of the death, of the passing, particularly when it’s really sudden, when it’s someone who’s young, and it just feels like you have been ripped off.

For his little girls to share their deep grief in public, that adds another layer to it. So what I say to your little girls is: take care of each other. Keep your daddy’s memories alive. Keep talking to each other as you grow up, and make sure your special memories that aren’t public memories, keep them alive between you, because that way you hold your father close.

Now, you might be able to google stories. There have been a lot of news stories about Efeso. Those would be great to be able to tap into as the girls are growing up, but it’s those special, quiet, private family memories that really will just keep you warm as you think of your father. Every event that happens in your life; every milestone that you celebrate, whether it’s a birthday or graduating school, maybe getting a degree, getting married one day, maybe the first boyfriend—those are going to be times when you are aware that your dad is no longer with you, but you need to keep those memories alive.

Grief is a little bit like a tide. Sometimes it’s in full; sometimes it is ebbed. But take heart that wherever you are, your father will be with you. Every day for the rest of your life, you will have at least one memory every day of your dad, so hold fast on to those memories. It’s natural to feel sadness, grief, and the pain of missing someone. The death of Efeso, and the pain that his girls will go through will not determine their future. There is a shattering change that happens when you lose someone. We become someone different, but we transform through that pain, through that grief, and then we can live our lives from a much deeper place because of that healing that happens afterwards. Such are the lessons of grief. I’m so sorry that you have to learn this lesson. My aroha to you, you two beautiful little girls. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I call on the Hon—I call on Rawiri Waititi.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Thank you, “The Prophet”.

Hikinuku e hikirangi e,

Hīkina te toki e hahau atu nei e hoehoe atu rā i te wao tapu nui a Tāne.

Ko toki nui ko toki roa ko toki taruaitū, ko te toki nā wai ko te toki nō aitua, turakina te pou, ka rongo te pō ka rongo te ao.

Apakura tangi te wiwini apakura tangi te wawana.

Tangi kotokoto ki ō tāngata kia hū anga ko te tangi a te Kura kākā

Ko Maiki nui ko Maiki roa ko ia hukahuka

Taparere tū ki te moana ka taparere tū ki a Tangaroa

Tūria te uretapu i Rangitoto

Tūria te tahuna tapu i Rangatatau

Tūria ki pitoria te puna mōteatea

Tūria ki utukina, te puna mārakerake

Ko kokomako e kō ko kokomako e kō

Ko te hautapu ka rere ki te kai ngā Matariki

Ka tapa reireia koiatapa

Ka tapa konunua koiatapa

Ka tapa tukuna ki te kawa tapu a Rangi e tū nei a Papa e takoto nei

Whāno whāno haramai te toki ō haumi e hui e taiki e

Ko te wehi ki a Īhoa ora o ngā mano. Nāna hoki i tīkaro i tōna pononga kia tau ki tōna uma piri ai. Nōreira e te Rangatira, e te hoa Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, haere. Haere atu koe i runga i te ara kōrero kua parangia e te tini e te mano. Ki ō mātua tīpuna kua taka ki te pō, ki a rātou kei te marae nui o te rangi e whanga mai nā. Whoatu rā koe ki tua o reitū ki tua o reiao ki te huinga o te Kahurangi, ki te kāhui Matariki. Ki a Rēhua kaitangata, ki a Autahi hupenui. Ko koe tērā e whakatete mai ō mātua tīpuna e pōhiri nei i a koe, waiho mātou ki muri nei e tangi nei e hakū nei e mōteatea nei. Haere e te hoa. Ka noho au ki roto i taku reo, te reo e kawe nei ōku mātua tīpuna i te moana nui ā Kiwa.

Kia kauka rawa au e kuhu ki roto i te reo e tāmi nei i a tātou i roto i ngā taumaha. Hakoa kāore koutou e mōhio ki tēnei reo, kei te mōhio ki te wairua e kawe nei e aowa i tēnei wā. Ki tērā o tātou ki a Efeso me ngā honohonotanga ngā tawatawainga kei waenganui i a tātou. Te karakia tawhito i whakatakotoria i mua i a koutou i mua i te Whare i tēnei rā. Ko ngā wāhi kei roto i tērā karakia nō Hawaiki rānō. Ngā wāhi te reo e kawe nei ōku mātua tīpuna e kawea nei mai i Hawaiki rānō. Ae ko te moana nui a Kiwa tēnā, te Hawaiki nui, te Hawaiki roa kei tūa atu, te Hawaiki pāmāmāo kei tua noa atu. Ānei, e mihi nei ki ngā here ki ngā whakapaparanga ki ngā tawatawainga e here nei i a tātou i tēnei rā.

Ki a koe e Fia, ki tō whānau, ki ō tamāhine, nei rā te tangi e hoa, nei rā te tangi. Hakoa kua riro te kikokiko o Efeso, ko tōna wairua ka kawe nei e koutou ko tō whānau ki roto i te whatu manawa i ngā wā katoa. Ki tōna māmā ki tōna kōka, ka tangi hoki i runga i te āhuatanga i tāhaengia te rā a tō tama. Wērā kōrero ehara i te kōrero whakaparahako ēngari he kōrero whakanui a ōku mātua tūpuna, nā tō tama tō rā i tāhae. Nōreira e moe, Efeso, nei rā te iwi e tangi nei e hakū nei. Ki te whānau o ngā Kākariki, nei rā hoki te mihi ki a koutou. Reipa tēnā anō hoki koutou, ngā manuhiri kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā tēnā koutou tēnā koutou kia ora tātou katoa. 

[All glory to the almighty God. It was he who plucked his descendant and placed him in his embrace. And so, dear esteemed leader, dear friend, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, farewell. Go well with the sentiments that have been expressed by the multitudes. To your forefathers who have passed, to them that are awaiting your arrival in the heavenly skies above. Go well beyond the skies to the star constellations, to Matariki. To Rēhua Kaitangata, to Autahi Hupenui. Your ancestors will be there to welcome you, leave us behind to mourn, to cry, to grief. Farewell, dear friend. I will remain in my language, the language spoken by my ancestors of the Pacific Ocean.

I will not speak in the language that supresses us. Although you don’t understand my language, you understand the nature of what is being said. To that of us, Efeso, and the relationships and connections between us. The incantation of ancient times that I chanted in this House before you mentioned sacred places of Hawaiki. The places, the language of my ancestors brought here from Hawaiki. Indeed, that is the Pacific Ocean, Big Hawaiki, the great Hawaiki which is further out, and then the Hawaiki Pāmāmao speaks of even further out. Here I stand and acknowledge the relationships and genealogy that tie us together.

To you Fia, and your family, your daughters, I express my sentiments, dear friend, here I mourn. Although Efeso’s physical manifestation is gone, his spirit will remain with you and your family always in your thoughts and hearts. To his mother, condolences, your day has been taken away from your son. What I say isn’t to degrade but it is an expression of honour by my ancestors. It is your son who stole your day. And so sleep well, Efeso, here is the nation in mourning and in grief. To the Green family, I acknowledge you as well. Labour, I honour you. The visitors who have arrived here today, thank you all once, thank you all twice, and kia ora everyone.]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koe, e te whanaunga, Rawiri, mō tērā kōrero ataahua, me Te Pāti Māori; e mihi ana ki a koutou.

[Firstly, I acknowledge you, my relation, Rawiri, for that beautiful speech, and the Māori Party; I acknowledge all of you.]

It’s a privilege and an honour to speak in this debate, and I want to mihi to the whānau of Efeso—lovely to see you all here today. On behalf of the Māori caucus and Labour and the Labour Party, it’s just a privilege to say a few words today about my old friend Efeso Collins.

I’ve been listening to some of the beautiful kōrero today from all sides, and I was thinking: how would you sum up Efeso? For me, I was thinking about three terms, and I thought: proud, brave, and brilliant.

He was so proud of his whānau. I’ve never seen a man who was doing just the most magnificent speech and then, in the middle, he would talk about Fia and the girls, and then break down in tears. He loved his whānau so much—so much. He was so proud of his family and so proud of his heritage, and we heard that in his maiden speech. He spoke about how important the language was for him, speaking the reo in this House. It was wonderful to watch and wonderful to listen to.

Efeso was so brave and so courageous. It’s not easy to call out racism. Efeso called out racism all the time—all the time—and sometimes when you call out racism, you get called the racist. That was the sacrifice that Efeso made.

It didn’t help him a lot in terms of his political aspirations. I remember when he came over and he talked to me about standing for the Auckland mayoralty. He said, “Matua Willie”—and I hated him calling me Matua Willie. I said, “That’s only Matua Shane, as far as I remember.” But he said, “Matua, what do you think my chances are for the Auckland mayoralty?”, and I said, “Zero.” He said, “Why is that, Matua?”, and I said, “Because the racists—they’re not going to vote for you in Parnell, they’re not going to vote for you in St Heliers, they’re not going to vote for you in Remuera.”, and that never deterred him at all. That takes courage—that takes bravery. So few people show that type of bravery and that type of courage.

And brilliant—oh, was he brilliant. One of the greatest communicators of our time, of our generation—a wonderful orator. Just so good—so good.

I was thinking about him, and I was thinking was there anything negative about the brother? I didn’t think he was that politically savvy, sometimes. That wasn’t one of his great strengths. I was charged with sort of facilitating and mediating on behalf of the Labour Party, because I had to remind him that he was a Labour Party councillor. Sometimes he would say, “Well, I don’t get that, Matua Willie. What about my conscience and what if it’s wrong?” I said, “You’re a Labour Party councillor; I think we all get that.”—“Oh.”—“So when you’re there, you vote according to the Labour lines.” It didn’t always translate for the brother.

It didn’t help him a lot in his real aspiration of being a Labour MP and Labour Minister, although we loved him—didn’t we, Barb? We loved him dearly. He said to me, “You know how I’ve been voting—do you think it’s going to help me with the list?”, and I said, “Oh, I’m not too sure about that.” “But the sisters love me,” he said, “The sisters Barb and Carmel and Jenny, and Aupito.” I said, “They all love you; I don’t know if you’re going to get that vote for the list, though.” But we loved him and they loved him very much.

We loved him very much in the Māori caucus, too, and that he didn’t become a Labour MP and a Labour Minister—well, we were sad about that, but we were so happy that the Greens took him on. He talked to me about joining the Greens. I said, “Oh, I don’t know, brother—I don’t know, brother.” He said, “I can make it work.”, and he certainly did—he certainly did.

So I mihi to the Greens for embracing our brother. We missed out on an incredible career. He was one for the generation—one of the greatest of the generation. I mihi to you; I mihi to his whānau. We will all remember and love Efeso Collins. Kia ora tātou.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): To the family and friends of Efeso Collins, thank you for being here today. On behalf of the National Party, I’m really honoured to be asked to speak.

My time with Efeso Collins, I thought it was about 30 years ago, but, actually, now I realise it was slightly longer—I’m older than I realised. It was at Auckland University. He was the president of the student association, and I was brought in on a by-election as the international affairs officer—don’t ask me what I did; I don’t remember if I achieved anything. But I do remember Efeso, and we stayed in touch over the years.

My time with him, as I say, was so long ago, but I remember his smile. He always greeted you with a hug. I always remember he—and he still does—he cared deeply about his community and he was the wonderful connector and such an incredible orator. I mean, he was born to be on stage. He was born, I think, with a microphone or a megaphone in his hand either at a protest or behind a lectern. But the thing is, when you met him you wouldn’t know about that, because he was a listener. He was always interested in what you had to say and you felt like you were the only person in the room when you spoke to him. He was curious and interested and humble. He’d always ask you about your family and your kids over the years.

As I say, he was a gifted orator, chairing those meetings at Auckland University—and I can tell you, they weren’t easy to chair. I’m not sure if you know, but student politics is much like politics in this House, possibly even a little bit more fearsome—certainly back in the 1990s, anyway! But he was so excellent at being a wonderful person who brought people together. He didn’t just represent one community; he represented so many communities. He represented everybody at Auckland University, as well as the Māori and Pasifika students. I was so happy to see him being elected.

I have to say, though, in response to Willie Jackson, I think we got played. Because, actually, to get what he wanted, which was the best for his communities—I mean, I was talking to my husband; he was flicking through his texts that he often got from Efeso, I’ll tell you that story shortly too. One of the things he said was, when I became elected, he goes: “Oh, you know, maybe I could join together with that party as well.” But he did that for a reason, because he wanted certain things for his community and he knew how to get them and he knew how to play the game and he knew that he needed to be really well connected into all of our parties, and indeed he was, because he cared so much about his communities and advancing things for his communities.

I didn’t know him well enough to know why he got into politics, but I get the feeling that, in his heart, he wanted a country that he was proud of and excited about for his daughters to grow up in, because, for him, everything—as we’ve heard today—everything always came back to family. He talked to my husband regularly, because my husband was the president after Efeso, and Kane said to me that they would talk briefly about politics and reminisce and then, immediately, Efeso would always say, “Mate, how are your kids? How’s Erica doing? How’s the family?” And he would talk about his own family, and he was so very, very proud.

Over the years, he always stayed in touch with me. It was over 30 years ago that we were at university together. I might be the Pākehā, Tory girl from the shore, and he was the liberal, Samoan bloke from the south side, but he always stayed in touch. I always got texts and messages from him when something happened throughout the last 30 years, congratulating me—whether it was the birth of a child, or something Kane had done, or the birth of my second child, or being elected—and we always stayed in touch.

I told this story on The AM Show, but there was a bit more to it; I didn’t tell the whole story. Before my husband was president, he was campaigning for the person who was going to be running against Efeso Collins. So he was helping Graham Watson—for those of you who remember Auckland University—and Graham was running against Efeso. My husband, Kane, went into the largest lecture theatre in the whole of Auckland University to tell everybody why they should vote for Graham Watson, and that was about democracy and freedom of speech. My husband said to the audience, “What would you rather have, democracy and free speech or what Efeso Collins is promising you: a pizza parlour on campus?” Every single person in that entire room said, “A pizza parlour on campus.” And he was duly elected. But the part of the story I didn’t tell on air was, like all of our student politicians, he never did get that pizza parlour on campus. But I can say that he worked with my husband and inspired my husband to run for politics the very next year. But the one thing we learnt from Efeso was: know your audience.

Can I just finish by saying that we will miss his huge smile and the fact that he got on with everybody so well. He was so loved. He will be missed by all. I’m just so, so sad that we didn’t get to see him fulfil his immense potential in this House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Kia orana tātou kātoatoa i te aroʻa rānuinui o to tātou nei Atua. Talofa Lava. Let me begin by acknowledging Fia and the whānau—Fia and the family and friends as well. And just to say that we miss him, I miss him; we as a movement, we as a party, miss Efeso deeply and think about him every day, and I want you to know that.

I want to acknowledge all the contributions around the House, acknowledging the comments made by the National Party. The next time I do have a pizza, I will be thinking about Efeso, so thank you for that contribution. And also the comments around recognising that connection between tangata whenua and tangata moana—the connection between Māori and Pasifika; that is so important for us to remember that we are in the Pacific, so thank you for those comments as well.

Also acknowledging the spirit of collaboration that the ACT Party brought up as well, and how important that is in terms of the work that we need to do as parliamentarians.

New Zealand First emphasising the important role that family has and the commitment that Efeso had to his family, to his daughters as well—something for us to be mindful of as parliamentarians.

To the Māori Party, tautoko katoa ana au i ngā kōrero, ngā mihi kua mihia. [I support absolutely the comments, the acknowledgments that were made.] And I was thinking one of the phrases that they often say on TV is that they are unapologetically Māori, and I was just thinking, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins was unapologetically Pasifika—that’s who he was. Proud to be from Ōtara, proud to be from the Pacific, and proud to represent his communities.

To our Labour Party whānau, your grief is our grief. We grieve together. Yes, he did move next door to the fale, but let me confirm for the Labour Party, it wasn’t because of the gluten-free, vegan pizzas. And I was just reflecting on the comments by the Hon Willie Jackson, where he outlined some of the tensions that he had with the Labour Party. He would actually ring me up and he would say, “Bro, I’m getting told off for being outspoken.” And I said to him, “Oh, come to the Greens, mate, because you get told off if you’re not outspoken.” So just wanted to acknowledge that important connection as well, and when he did pass, the humility and speed of which you guys came together to grieve with us together.

I went through Auckland University—the greatest university in Aotearoa New Zealand, let me say that—with Fa’anānā Efeso Collins and with Marama Davidson. We were young South Aucklanders, going to university—just a few years’ ago, aye, Marama! No, it was actually over 30 years ago. And I was calculating, I think it might have been around about 1992, 1993, and then I turned to Chlöe Swarbrick, and I said, “What year were you born?” And she said, “1994”. So mine and Marama’s friendship with Efeso Collins transcends the lifetime of Chlöe Swarbrick.

I have many memories, and I was just picking up with one of the comments around him being an activist. And one of my memories of Efeso is we were going down Queen Street and we were protesting about something—I can’t remember; it was 30 years ago—and he was on the back of a truck with a speaker, and, for some reason, the truck went on to one of the sidewalks, and he nearly canned over. But that was just one of the enduring memories that I have of Efeso.

He was a fellow political traveller. When I was a young person from South Auckland, there weren’t that many Pacific Islanders, weren’t that many Māori that were passionate about the sorts of politics that we were passionate about. Over the years, we would check in with each other. I’d see him on TV and go, “Oh, that was awesome what you said.” He’d see me on TV, text me and say, “Get a haircut and a better suit.” Honestly, I thought he was talking to my mother sometimes.

But I have many, many memories and reflections of Efeso, but there were three things, I think, that stand out, Efeso, for me. One of them was his wicked sense of humour. What an amazing sense of humour, being inclusive and engaging—something that is so important. He’d have a laugh, whether you agree with him or not, next thing you know you’re having a kōrero with him, and being able to actually open up and have those sorts of conversations is so important. Those are leadership materials.

The other reflection I have is his commitment to community—his commitment to Ōtara, his commitment to South Auckland, and commitment to our Pasifika communities—always steadfast. He would challenge his own if he thought it was necessary. Often, people have talked about his political acumen, and we could see that in the way that he would move and connect with people as well.

Let me end by thanking his daughters. Gabriella and Asolemo, thank you for sharing your father with us—thank you so much. His contributions will ripple through the generations. Let me end by thanking Fia. Thank you for being that force for Efeso. I remember having discussions with him when he was thinking about moving to the fale next door, and I said to him, “Well, you better check with Fia, bro, because if it ain’t green there, it ain’t going nowhere.” So I want to thank you and acknowledge the family today and acknowledge all the contributions of members from around the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, fa’afetai tele lava.

SPEAKER: As this tribute to our late colleague comes to an end—our colleague Fa’anānā Efeso Collins—I hope his family and friends who are here today will appreciate that our collective grief is very much born from his love for you, his family, and for all those that he served. May he rest in peace.

Bills

Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I present a legislative statement on Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill.

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill be now read for the first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill.

Tahi ka riri, toru ka whā. Matamata hopukia, homai rā to whiri kia hatoro kaha, kia wetewetea, wetewetea, wetewetea. Ara tū ara te ara tau.

Kingi Tiare te tuatoru kia piki te ora ki a koe. Kingi Tūheitia Pōtatau Te wherowhero te tuawhiti, kia tau te tōmairangi o te atawhai a te wāhi ngaro ki runga i a koe. Kei ngā ruruhi koroheke, hungawai hungarei, tāokete, auwahine, tuakana tuahine me ngā ranga takapū kua ahu mai kua kawe mai i ngā pōtae maha o te rohe pōtae. Nau mai haere mai tomo mai piki mai ki tō koutou Whare, tēnei te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa Niu Tireni.

[King Charles III, speedy recovery to you. King Tūheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero the seventh, allow the love and light of the spirit realm to be placed upon you. To the elders, the in-laws, the mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and the multitudes who have brought the many hats here from the region of hats. Welcome, welcome, welcome to your House, this House, the Parliament of New Zealand.]

In October last year, the Crown, together with Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui, signed te Whakaaetanga Whakataunga mō Ō-Rākau, te Pae o Maumahara/the Deed of Agreement Relating to the Ō-Rākau Site near Parawera Marae and Kihikihi. That deed set out that the Crown would transfer the Ō-Rākau site to ngā tūpuna Ō-Rākau, the ancestors of Ō-Rākau who were either present during the battle or had prior connections to the whenua. I attended the 160th year commemorations at Ō-Rākau earlier this month. The depth of feeling, the wairua, expressed by tangata whenua and others who were at that event underscores the importance of the legislation now before the House.

I acknowledge the names of the many wreaths that adorn our walls today and our celebration, last week, of Anzac Day. Throughout 2024, events have also commemorated other battles, including Rangiaowhia, Pukehinahina, and soon Tauranga. These commemorations are important to note as a reminder that Ō-Rākau sits within the broader story, history and herstory, of the New Zealand Wars—places like Te Ngutu o te Manu, Waitara, Te Pōrere, Rangiriri, Waerenga-a-Hika, Moutoa, Puketutu, Ōhaeawai, Kororāreka, Ruapekapeka, Wairau, and Ngātapa.

The Battle of Ō-Rākau was a pivotal moment in Māori resistance to Crown military action and a significant event in the story of our nation. Three hundred iwi defenders occupied Ō-Rākau when it was encircled by 1,400 British troops, and, of course, the architect himself, Hitiri Te Paerata and his whanaunga, Te Manga, and others. Millions of people know about the Spartan 300, and I hope more people come to know about the Ō-Rākau 300. The attack lasted for three days. Estimates are that half of the pā occupants were killed. In the face of difficult odds, those remaining refused to surrender and instead made a daring escape from the pā in the midst of the afternoon. The courage and sacrifice of those at Ō-Rākau indicates the strength of the Kīngitanga and whanaungatanga between those iwi and other iwi who came to tautoko at Ō-Rākau. The British Army, te ope kātua o Piritine, stopped its advance at the Pūniu River just to the south of the battlefield.

Three Treaty settlements have recognised the battle of Ō-Rākau—Raukawa, Tūwharetoa, and Maniapoto—and the Crown actions in the Waikato which caused the loss of life, the confiscation of land, often referred to as the “raupatu”, and intergenerational pain were unjust, in a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, its principles, and its promise. Returning the Ō-Rākau whenua recognises its importance to the many iwi who have connections there, and of course its importance to the nation.

The battle has often been remembered as an example of heroism and sheroism and courage against the odds. The release of Rewi’s Last Stand, both in its silent and talky version, glossed over the significance of this battle and the impacts longstanding on our whānau. Many remember the fine kōrero, kīanga, of Rewi Maniapoto:

E hoa, ka whawhai tonu mātou. Āke! Āke! Āke!

[Friend, we will fight on for ever, for ever, and for ever!]

And also the declaration from Te Ahumai Mai, when offered safe passage for the wāhine and tamariki rangatahi, that they would die alongside their men, their whānau. These compelling stories have often meant that we have largely overlooked the broader impact of warfare and raupatu and the intergenerational responsibility that we have, to never forget what happened. The importance and gravity of what happened at Ō-Rākau was not lost, is not lost, and will never be lost. Important stories about the battle have been cared for, stored in the homes of descendants like Aunty Bubbles and others, spoken on the marae of groups who have fought, and composed and performed in waiata and haka across stages throughout the motu. I just want to say a big mihi to Mōtai Tangata Rau and others at the Tainui kapa haka festival over the weekend, especially Te Pae Kahurangi.

Until recently, at a national level, few students have learnt about the New Zealand Wars, but curriculum, media, and new film coverage are pathways for our tamariki, for our rangatahi, for our rangatakapu to understand the importance of Ō-Rākau and the impact it had locally and nationally. And I cannot go without mentioning and acknowledging the kōtiro and the rangatahi of Ōtorohanga College for their mahi over a decade ago to bring the petition forward and bring these kōrero to life for the nation.

E mihi ana ki ērā rangatahi i tēnei wā. Ā, tēnā pea kua mātua haere kua ranga tapu haere.

[I acknowledge those esteemed leaders. And maybe they have reached their zenith.] 

The petition’s goal: educating the history. I wanted to acknowledge the Battle of Ō-Rākau Heritage Society, and particularly Te Kaawhia Muraahi koutou e taku matua, your whanaunga, that in 2011 established the society to commemorate the 150th anniversary—I acknowledge your mahi.

At the 150th-year commemorations 10 years ago, Prime Minister John Key—and it was serendipitous to see John Key here today; Sir John Key was here this afternoon—said that the Government would investigate a purchase of the land. The Hon Kiritopa Finlayson and others ensured that in 2015 that purchase was undertaken. Labour-led Governments over the past few years have progressed this mahi.

E mihi ana ki a koutou Peeni, koutou ko tō koutou tira nā koutou tēnei waka i whakaputa ki waho moana. I tēnei wā kua riro ki ahau kia kore e riro mā te korokoro o te Parata. Mā Tukuroirangi tēnei Kaupapa e heke. Engari kia hoki ki uta. 

[I acknowledge you guys, Peeni, you and your group who brought this canoe out to the sea. At this stage it is up to me to ensure it doesn’t end up in the great throat of the Parata. Tukuroirangi will cause this matter to drop. But to return to shore.] 

It is now my privilege and responsibility to tautoko with the coalition Government and further implement the prophecy: mā te ture anō te ture e āki—only law can correct the law. This coalition Government, hopefully with the support of all the other parties, will take and carry this legislation through to its denouement. The bill will create the title and record the names of tūpuna who were part of the battle or part of the whenua. It will return the site under a tūpuna title, in those tūpuna names, with the management and administration and executive rights to be exercised by Ngā Ahi e Toru, Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui.

Tangata whenua will care for this land on behalf of all New Zealanders. As an important part of our shared story, history and herstory, this legislation will help Ō-Rākau gain and attain the prominence it deserves, and demonstrate the ability of our rangatira, our kāwana, our rangatahi, our rangatakapu, the Crown, and others to come together in a brilliant and fabulous kotahitanga moment.

Over the next few months, the Māori Affairs Committee will continue to hear and consider submissions for this bill. I look forward to helping to progress this bill through the House—preferably quickly—at this and subsequent readings. I consider this bill should proceed, without delay, to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Kei aku rahi, kei aku nui ko koutou ā runga. Ko au, ko mātou ki raro. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. E taku Rangatira, Tuku, koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. 

[To my esteemed, my formidable, you are on top. I am, we are below. Thank you, thank you. My dear leader, Tuku, all of you, thank you all.] 

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, e te Māngai. Kāti, ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Maniapoto, o Raukawa, o Waikato whānui. Tāpirihia mai ō koutou mate ki te tāhūhū kōrero o tō tātou whare e tū nei. Ko ngā aitua kua rangona e te Whare i te rā nei, nā ko tōku tuakana Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. Ko ngā mate katoa e karapoti nei i tō tātou whare tēnei ka tangi tēnei ka mihi atu ki a rātou, haere mai haere.

Nā e tū ana au ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero a tōku tuakana, te Minita, te ōnore a Tama Pōtaka. Kua roa rawa tēnei Kaupapa e kōkirihia nei e ngā mano e ngā tapu i whawhai ki runga i te whenua ki Ōrākau. Kua roa rawa rātou e hiahia ana kia whakahokia mai taua whenua ki ngā mana, ki ngā tapu, ki ngā uri whakatupu o rātou mā i whawhai i hinga ki runga i taua whenua rā. Ā, i pērā katoa ngā wāhi pakanga huri noa i te motu whānui. Nō reira e tino mihi atu ana ahau ki ngā uri o tēnei pakanga, ā ko te pakanga i Ōrākau. Me te hiahia kia tautoko ake i ngā kōrero a tōku tuakuana te Minita, ko te hiahia kia tere ake te haerenga o tēnei pire. Kia whakamanahia, kia whakahokia atu te mana whakahaere o tō koutou whenua ki a koutou. Nō reira he Kaupapa pai tēnā ki ahau nei. Me taku harikoa ka rīkoatahia ki roto i tēnei pire ngā mahi Tūkino a te Karauna ki a koutou e ngā uri o rātou mā i whawhai ki runga o Ōrakau.

Kua kī mai te Minita mō te āhuatanga o ngā mahi hītori, kia kohikohi haere i ngā kōrero ngā hītori a tēnā whānau, a tēnā whanau, a tēnā pakanga. Mō te aha te take? Mō ō tātou uri whakatupu. Mō te mātauranga ka whakaakohia ki ā tātou Tamariki ki ā tātou mokopuna haere ake nei. Kaha tautoko tātou katoa i tērā tū āhuatanga. Heoi anō tāku atu ki ōku whanaunga ka noho mai ki runga nei. Kia matāra tonu tātou. Kua kite atu ahau ki roto i ētahi kōrero a ētahi o tēnei whare, ko te hiahia, e hoa, kia hoki mai anō, mea nei, te balance o ngā mahi hītori ka whakaakohia ki ō tātou Tamariki mokopuna. E hoa, ki te hītori pākehā. Kua roa rawa tō tātou hītori Māori kua tāmia kua pēhi nei ki raro. Nā, kua rongo atu ōku taringa ki te kī a ētahi. E hoa, kei te hiahia rātou kia whakapai ake te terenga o te waka mō ngā āhuatanga o te ao Pākehā me te ao Māori. E hoa, koinā tāku e mea atu ana ki ngā uri o Ōrākau e noho mai ana ki runga rā. Kia matāra tonu tātou.

E te tuakuana, e Paraone kua rongo atu ahau i tō reo. Tekau tau ki muri tahi anō ka uru atu ki tēnei whare. Ā, me te kawenga mai o koutou i te petihana i kōkirihia e ngā Tamariki kei roto i a koe ki runga i te mahau ki runga i te marae kei waho rā. E hoa, kua kite atu ahau ki roto i ngā tau tekau kua pahure ake nei ngā Kaupapa katoa kua kōkirihia e koutou. Anā, ko taua petihana i whakaritehia i tētahi rā whakamaumahara. Nā, mai i taua petihana i whakatūngia tētahi tohu maharatanga ki runga i te kuaha o tō tātou whare nei. Mā taua petihana, e hoa, ka whahokia ko ngā wāhi pakanga ki ō tātou iwi. Ki ngā uri whakatupu. Mai i taua petihana kua rīkoatahia e mātou, e tātou ngā hītori a te ao Māori. Ngā hītori o te taima o ngā pakanga i tau ki runga o Aotearoa. Koinā ko ngā hua i puta mai e kare e Paraone. Ko koe tēnā ko koutou tēnā e te pāpā, e Te Kawhia. Anā, i mau mai taua petihana ki runga i te marae o te Whare Pāremata ki waho rā. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ki a koutou.

Me te hiahia a taihoa ake ka haere ake tēnei pire ki te komiti whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori. Kāore e kore ko konā anō ētahi wāhanga kōrero e hiahia ana kia kōrero mai e koutou hei whakaaroaro mō te komiti hei whakaaroaro anō hoki mō tēnei whare. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ki a koutou. Me taku harikoa kua tae mai koutou, e ngā rahi, e ngā tini o te hau kāinga ki runga ki tēnei whare o tātou. Ka tautoko tonu mātou o tēnei te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei pire. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou, mā te atua koutou e Manaaki e tiaki.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well then, my kin of Ngāti Maniapoto, Raukawa and all of Waikato. bring forth your departed to the ridgepole of this House. The departed that has been felt by the House today, I mention also my brother Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. All the departed that surround us in this House, I cry, I acknowledge all of them, farewell.

I stand to support what my brother, the Minister, the Hon Tama Pōtaka has said. This matter has been advocated for a long time by the many who fought at Ōrākau. They have for a very long time wanted to bring the mana and sacredness back to that land, to the descendants of those who fought and died on that land. Also, that is what happened on all the battlegrounds throughout the land. And so, I whole heartedly respect the descendants of this battle, the battle at Ōrākau. And also I want to support what was said by my brother, the Minister, wanting to expedite this bill. To return the mana of your lands to you. And so I support that. I am delighted to know that the wrongdoings of the Crown will be recorded in this bill for the descendants of those who fought at Ōrākau.

The Minister has spoken about the history, to collate the history of that family, of that family about the battles. What for? For our next generation. For the knowledge that will be imparted to our children and their children further into the future. We all support that notion. However, what I have to say to my kin who are sitting up here. Let’s tread carefully. I have heard some talk in this House about wanting to bring back the balance to the history that will be taught to our children. Gees, to the history of the Pākehā. Our Māori history has been suppressed for a very long time. My ears have heard from the grapevine that 5hey want to sail the boat easier in regards to the Pākehā world and the Māori world. That is what I am trying to say to the descendants of Ōrākau who are sitting here today. Let us tread carefully.

Dear brother, Paraone, I hear your voice. Ten years ago I entered this House. And, when you brought the petition that was initiated by your people at the mahua, on the marae, out there. Bro, I have seen in the last 10 years all the matters that have been pushed forward by you all. Also, that petition to commemorate a particular day. And from that petition, a memorial was erected on the entranceway to this House. With that petition, dear friend, the battlegrounds will be returned to our people. to the descendants. From that petition, we have recorded our history of the Māori people. The history of when the land wars took place in Aotearoa. Those are the many benefits that took place, bro, Paraone. That was you, that was all of you, sir, Te Kawhia. That petition was brought to the courtyard of the Parliament House out there. And so I salute you all.

Soon this bill will be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. No doubt that is where more elaboration will be made and where you can speak your thoughts to the committee for the House to hear. And so I respect you all. I am also delighted you have arrived here, in multitudes from your area to this House of ours. We the Labour Party still support this bill. Thank you, thank you, and may the god almighty look over you and protect you.]

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge all those in the House today—Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, Raukawa, and all the iwi impacted at Ō-Rākau.

“E hoa, ka whawhai tonu mātou. Āke! Āke! Āke!” These are now so famous words in the resistance of Māori against colonisation, but I want to speak to that first term, “E hoa”, because the starting point for Māori is manaakitanga. It is, first of all, friend. It is, first of all, “haere mai, haere mai, haere mai”—“welcome”, three times, and if there is not reciprocity, if there is not respect in kind offered, then, rightly, Māori stand for their tino rangatiratanga. They stand for the dignity of their place in their land. “E hoa, I will fight you for ever and ever and ever.”

I cannot but be moved at the determination, in this particular instance that we acknowledge today, because Rewi Maniapoto did not want to fight in the peach grove. The context was the brutal invasion of the Waikato, the shameless invasion, where Cameron’s troops bypassed the warriors and went to Rangiaowhia and killed children and women and elderly people, and two days after that atrocity, Rewi Maniapoto’s house was looted and burnt. These battles that we mark are days of infamy in our national history.

And when the suggestion of surrender was made at Ō-Rākau, first those famous words that surrender was refused, and then it was suggested the women and children could leave, and Ahumai Te Paerata replied, “If the men die, the women and children must die also.”

And, for shame, the British soldiers made it so, because when people departed in an orderly column, Cameron sent the cavalry to pursue them and to kill them—the men, the women. And in the most great atrocity that can be committed in war, the British cavalry killed the children. This is a battle in infamy that we mark. There is no dignity for the Crown. There is nothing, no morsel of honour, but only shame for the Crown in this battle—and for Cameron and for Governor Grey and for von Tempsky, that ruthless murderer.

So I thank you here today for you coming to do what they call “restore the honour of the Crown”, though this is not a deed of settlement, in allowing us to acknowledge what happened at Ō-Rākau and that history. We cannot achieve that “E hoa”, that “haere mai”, that reciprocity, until we acknowledge what has happened in our history and what happens still today.

For context, the Waikato was the food bowl of Aotearoa New Zealand. Even Governor Grey himself visited in 1849, and he said, “Never have I seen a more thriving and contented population in any part of the world.” And the invasion of the Waikato was explicitly to take that abundance from Māori. And the redoubts in the block houses that were built in Hamilton and Cambridge became the nodes from which the very soldiers who had committed those atrocities were given land, and those nodes were the means by which the Waikato was settled. Within 10 days of the attack—on that day of “terrible savagery”, as O’Sullivan calls it—Kihikihi was divided up by the military surveyors into acreages to be given to the soldiers who committed the atrocities. This is our history, and we must mark it and we must honour it. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on this bill. We welcome everyone from Ngā Ahi e Toru, the ancestors you represent, and the whānau around the country watching today. We mihi to all of you on the long journey to reconciliation and recognition.

I stand here today on behalf of the ACT Party to acknowledge ngā tūpuna ō Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui, and all the iwi, hapū, and whānau who are connected to this pā site who fought in the battle of Ō-Rākau. We all acknowledge the Kīngitanga’s role in protecting the people of Ngā Ahi e Toru and the people who constructed Ō-Rākau pā. I understand the pain and grief involved in recounting these events, and I commend you for your bravery and compassion in coming forward with all the parties in this situation.

The battle of Ō-Rākau was the last major battle in Waikato. It was not merely a clash of arms; it was a clash of cultures, ideologies, and aspirations. It serves as a poignant reminder of how complex our shared history is. It is a history marked with moments of strife and now reconciliation, triumph, and unbelievable tragedy.

Ō-Rākau pā was constructed in March 1864 after many months of war between Māori and British soldiers. The elders from Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāi Tūhoe, and Ngāti Raukawa reached an agreement with the leaders of Ngāti Maniapoto to fight the British at Ō-Rākau near Kihikihi. Three hundred people were present at Ō-Rākau pā, which was encircled by 1,400 British soldiers. The battle lasted for three days, and it has been estimated that more than half of the pā’s occupants were killed. Seventeen British soldiers were also killed in the battle.

The battle of Ō-Rākau was a tragedy—a tragedy born out of misunderstanding, mistrust, a clash of conflicting world views. The battle has left behind a legacy of sorrow and loss that continues to resonate to this day. Sadly, Ō-Rākau is not the only battle to have left these legacies in New Zealand. We acknowledge the Crown’s unjust actions caused loss of life and devastation of property. Land confiscations that were punishment for iwi that argued and fought against the Crown left a legacy of true grievance.

ACT commends this bill. We also wish to acknowledge the soldiers who were involved in the battle. As we pay tribute to all those involved in the Battle of Ō-Rākau, let us reaffirm our commitment to understanding, reconciliation, and mutual respect. Let us strive to build a future where the lessons of history serve as a beacon of hope, guiding us towards a more inclusive society. Let us honour the memory of those who fought and fell on both sides of the conflict, recognising that their sacrifices have helped shape this fabric of our nation. I hope that Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill paves a path for all generations to have a fuller understanding of our shared path. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): E kara, Manga, maranga mai. Me tēnei te rā ka whakatinanatia ngā moemoeā, ngā wawata roa noa e tārewa ana i roto i tō rahi. Tēnei anō te rā ka mātakitakina ngā tapuwae, te wāhi i mura ai te riri, te wāhi i maringi ai te toto, te wāhi i taotūngia ai te tangata, ka hemo, ka mate, ka ora mai anō.

E kara, e Manga, nāu ngā kupu; kua oti noa atu te whakakōhatu i te kapu o te pepa i roto i te rārangi o tō tātou tātai kōrero, te hītori o Aotearoa. Tērā te kōrero, “ka whawhai tonu mātou mō āke tonu atu”. Ahakoa puta i a koe i runga i te whenua e kōrerongia ana e tātou i tēnei rā, ahakoa puta ki hea rānei.

Kua oti noa atu i tēnei ‘hakatupuranga ōku te ako, nāhau i whakaputa ā-ngutu i ēnā kupu. Nā reira, e kara, koutou ko tō reanga, e moe, e moe, moe oti atu e.

Tā Tūrongo ko Raukawa, tā Raukawa ko Rereahu, tā Rereahu ko Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ko Tūrongo, kua oti te whakakanohi i a ia me tana kuia ki roto i a Tūrangawaewae. Ko wai te tangata o te ao Māori pēnā e tū ana hei kaikōrero mō tana iwi e kūare ana ki te tokorua nei? Mēnā ko tēnā tangata e tū ana i runga i ō tātou marae, meinga me noho.

Ko Raukawa, ahakoa nō nākua tata ake nei i roto i te huringa o te tai ā-kōrero, ā-whakapapa, ā-paringa tangata, ā-timunga moana, ko tōna tino tangata e mōhiotia ana ko Te Whatanui, ahau e kōrero ana mō te Raukawa ake, me te kakara kei muri i te tikanga o tērā ingoa. Nā reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ahau e tū ana ki te kōrero, te whakaputa i te reo tautoko mō tēnei pire. Ēnei waewae ōku kua tae noa atu ki tēnā whenua. Ahakoa mātakitaki, i a mātou i te tamariki he mea mau haere e tō mātou pūkenga, e te ruanuku o Te Taitokerau, a Māori Marsden, ki ēnei wāhi. Tangata i whakatau i a mātou i aua wā, horekau he tangata i tua atu i a Tūwhāngai ake. I tērā wā i te noho ki roto i a Ōtaki, haere ake kia kite i tana whānau i reira.

‘Tahi mātou ka tūtaki, mātou i muri i tō mātou pūkenga a Māori, te wāhanga rerekē ka kōrero Māori mai ai tō koutou mārohirohi, tō koutou ruanuku, a Tūwhāngai, kūare ana wēnei taringa o tō mātou whakatupuranga. Horekau e tino kapo i te hōhonu me te ataahua o tana reo. Otirā tāna ki a mātou, “kia kaha mai e ngā pīpī Tararā o Ngapuhi”.

Nā reira tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou i roto i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire. He pire ka whakapūmautia te rārangi o ngā ingoa o ō koutou wheinga. Ka riro ko te pīkauranga kia tū hei tuari, hei kaitiaki o tēnei whenua, hāunga anō te whenua ā-oneone, otirā ko te whenua ā-tātai, ko te whenua ā-tūpuna, ko te whenua ā-toto.

Me te mihi atu ki ngā tamariki nā rātou te kaupapa nei i whakakorikori i te tīmatanga. Kātahi ka mau haeretia ki waenga i a koutou. Nā ka tae mai, ā, i tēnei rā kua pari mai te tai ki waenga tonu i a mātou ngā kaitōrangapū.

Tēnei tangata e tū nei, nāku anō i whāngai te pūtea ki a Rangiriri kia whakakanohitia mai ai te wāhanga e rerekē ana. Horekau koutou i pōhiri i ahau kia haramai ki te kaupapa mō te huakitanga. Hei tā koutou, pēnā kei te korohā tēnā korokē, waiho ki reira. Engari kia tūpato, kua hoki mai.

Kia ahatia, e kore ēnei mihi, tēnei reo tautoko ōku e rahi atu, engari Waikato, Raukawa, Maniapoto, tamariki mā, tūākana mā, wāhine ma, e tautoko ana māua ko taku rangatira kia whakapūmautia ai tēnei taonga, tēnei kōrero i runga i te mata o te ture. Kei warewaretia, kei whakatahangia ā ngā rā e haere ake nei. Tēnā tātou.

[My friend, Manga, arise. This is the day that the dreams, the aspirations that have stagnated for a long time are realised among your people. This is also the day that the footsteps will be observed, the place where battle raged, the place where blood was spilt, the place where people were injured, died, deceased, and came to life again.

My friend, Manga, the words are yours; what has been well established on the surface of the paper in the succession of our historical narratives is the history of New Zealand. As the saying goes, “We will continue to fight for ever and ever”. Despite it being said by you on the land that we are discussing today, no matter where indeed. This generation of mine has already learnt it well, and you were the one to produce those words from your lips. So, my friend, and those of your generation, rest in peace, your eternal rest.

Tūrongo’s offspring was Raukawa, Raukawa had Rereahu, Rereahu had Maniapoto. Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato, greetings to you all.

Tūrongo, him and his wife have been well represented at Tūrangawaewae. Who is the person of Māori society if he should stand as a speaker for his people but be ignorant of these two? Should that person stand on our marae, tell him to sit down.

Raukawa, even though it was only very recently with the changing of the tides of discussion, of genealogy, of rising humanity, of outgoing ocean tides, his principal figure that is widely known is Te Whatanui, I am talking about Raukawa himself, and the pleasant fragrance that surrounds the significance of that name. And greetings to you, greetings to you all.

I stand here to speak, and to offer a voice in support for this bill. These legs of mine have been to that land. Even though it was to observe, while we were children, we were taken by our lecturer, by our warlock of Northland, Māori Marsden, to these places. The person who welcomed us at that time, it was no one other than Tūwhāngai himself. At that time, he was living in Ōtaki, and would go there to see his family.

Then we met, us following behind our lecturer, Māori, and what was strange was your powerful man, your wizard, Tūwhāngai, these ears of our generation were ignorant of his words. We didn’t really grasp the depth and the beauty of his words. Indeed what he said to us was, “Be strong, the fledgling Croats of Ngāpuhi.”

So greetings to you, greetings to all of us with respect to the paradigm of this bill. It is a bill that will immortalise the list of names of your relations. This burden will then stand to be shared, and to be a custodian of this land, not only the soil of the land but indeed a land bequeathed, ancestral land, and land in the bloodlines.

The children who were the ones to initiate this action in the beginning must be recognised. It was then brought amongst you. It then arrived, and today the tide has now risen to its peak among us, the politicians.

This person that stands here, it was me that provided the funding to Rangiriri so that the distinct part therein could be represented. You didn’t invite me to attend the event for the opening. According to you, if that old man is out in the desert, leave him there. But be careful, I’m back.

Anyway, these acknowledgments and this supportive voice will never suffice, but Waikato, Raukawa, Maniapoto, children, seniors, and ladies, my leader and I support that these treasures and statements be immortalised on the surface of the legislation. Let it not be forgotten, let it not be set aside in the days to come. Thank you.]

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka.

Kuīni Wikitōria, he aha taku hē

i muia ai aku whenua tūpuna i te riri Pākehā?

“Queen Victoria, what have I done wrong for you to confiscate my ancestral lands to the greed and anger of the settler? I hold you to your word for my generations and grandchildren to come.”

Āio nuku, āio rangi, āio te pou herenga tangata o te motu a Kīngi Tūheitia me tōna whare kāhui ariki. Rire rire hau, pai mārire.

[Peace on earth, the peace of heaven, peace of the pillar to which all people of the country are bound, King Tūheitia and his royal family. Bring calm, goodness, and peace.]

Ki ngā ruruhi, koroheke, ngā uri whakaheke kua whakarauika mai ā-kikokiko nei i rō Pāremata, tēnei te reo owha, te reo whakamiha ki a koutou. Waikato, Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tainui, Mataatua, Takitimu, Te Arawa, tēnei au ka tūohu.

[To the female and male elders, the descendants who have gathered here in the flesh within Parliament, this is the voice of generosity, the voice of welcome to you all. Waikato, Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tainui, Mataatua, Taitimu, Te Arawa, I bow before you.]

I vividly remember 10 years ago at the 150-year commemoration at Ō-Rākau. I was 11 years old, standing, doing the haka, as Prime Minister at the time, John Key, arrived. Ten years on, I am honoured to be speaking on the first reading of Ō-Rākau in Pāremata on behalf of Te Pāti Māori and as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but, most importantly, as a mokopuna of Raukawa and Waikato. The most emotional haepapa, or responsibility, that comes with this role, for me, would be the day I would speak on a bill or reading for the Land Wars, ngā take raupatu mō tōku iwi ake [issues of confiscation for my own people].

It’s 1863. War was coming to my people of Waikato, at the hand of the Crown, Queen Victoria, and Governor Grey. The warning reads: “To the Natives who reside in the Manukau District in the Waikato frontier, you are hereby required immediately to take your oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to give up your Arms to an Officer appointed by the Government for that purpose. Natives that comply with this order will be protected. However, Natives who refuse are hereby warned to leave the district aforementioned and retire beyond Waikato past the Mangatāwhiri River, or you will be ejected”—I repeat—“ejected.”

This was the beginning of the biggest campaign of the New Zealand Wars, the invasion of the Waikato. Dawn, 12 July 1863: hundreds of troops crossed the Mangatāwhiri River, which declared war both on land and water. Storming bloody and devastating wars to Waikato, Kopuera, Rangiriri Pāterangi, Rangiaowhia, and Ō-Rākau, ā, puta noa i te motu [and all around the country].

1864 te tau i whakawhiti mai te kāwana o te ope taua, Kāwana Kerei, i te ope taua o te Karauna ki tōku iwi ake, o Waikato, hei aha? Hei raupatu, hei muru i ōku whenua ake. Ka tukuna te karanga a Rewi Maniapoto e ngā iwi, waka maha o Tūwharetoa, Whanganui, Te Rau Takitahi a Tūhoe, Kahungunu me Te Arawa.

[The year 1864 was the year that the Governor of the army crossed over, Governor Grey, of the army of the Crown to my own iwi, of Waikato, for what purpose? To conquer and confiscate my very own lands. The call of Rewi Maniapoto was put out by the many peoples and waka, Tūwharetoa, Whanganui, Te Rau Takitahi o Tūhoe, Kahungunu, and Te Arawa.]

Three hundred people to defend Ō-Rākau against 1,500 soldiers. This war lasted over three days and it was the confiscation of 12,000 square kilometres of land.

Ki te mate ngā tāne, me mate hoki ngā wāhine me ngā tamariki, ka whawhai tonu āke, āke, āke.

[If the men die, then the women and children should also die, we will continue to fight for ever and ever.]

Ahumai Te Paerata, stating that if the men die, so would the women and children. She was then shot four times and seriously wounded. Ki ngā mātua tūpuna o te pō, hoki wairua mai rā koutou.

[To the ancestors of the night, return to us in spirit.]

Rewi Maniapoto’s uri live on 160 years on. We have been subjected by the Crown to be ejected, but we still live on. To this day—actually, just last weekend—our iwi still haka, waiata, mōteatea about this event and raupatu. I can’t help but acknowledge our Tainui Waka kapa haka regionals in the weekend. Our culture is alive and strong, and the waiata “Poutini, Poutini” has been a non-stop waiata in our Te Pāti Māori caucus today.

We are moving forward. We will be guided on the wise words of pāpā Tom Roa: “Utua te kino ki te pai.” [Respond to evil with goodness.]; Kuia Rovina: “Ka noho ko ērā āhuatanga, kāore koe e kite i te whiti o te rā.” [If those circumstances remain, you will not see the light of day.]; ā, te rangatira, a Rewi Maniapoto: “Ka whawhai tonu mātou. Āke! Āke! Āke!” [And the leader, Rewi Maniapoto: “We will continue to fight for ever, for ever, and for ever!”]

Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

[Greetings to us all in this House.]

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): E te Māngai, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, tēnā koutou katoa. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere.

Nau mai, haere mai. Ko Tainui te waka, ko Waikato te awa, ko Kakepuku te maunga, ko Ngāti Huiao te hapū, ko Ngāti Maniapoto te iwi, ko Te Kauae te marae. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The Speaker, all authorities, all representatives, all peoples, greetings to all. The House that stands here, greetings. The land that lies here, greetings. To the deceased, rest in peace. Welcome, welcome. Tainui is my waka, Waikato is my river, Kakepuku is my mountain, Ngāti Huiao is my hapū, Ngāti Maniapoto is my iwi, Te Kauae is my marae. Thanks and greetings to you all.]

I’d just like to start by acknowledging everybody who has come from Maniapoto, Raukawa, and the Waikato-Tainui today, and for putting on such a wonderful commemoration nearly three weeks ago. You hosted a fantastic commemoration—160 years. Well done to you all. I really enjoyed attending the commemoration, and I learnt a lot during the process.

We’re here today and the kaupapa of what we’re here for is to acknowledge the tūpuna and the ancestors who were lost in the great battle of Ō-Rākau—a brutal and tragic event. I’d like to tautoko what’s been said, of course, from across the House today about just how brutal that was. Rewi Maniapoto, a great leader, a warrior, whose father signed the Treaty—who signed the Treaty because they believed that their rights and their values would be upheld, and they weren’t.

The battle of Ō-Rākau was, of course, a bloody battle—300 versus 1,400, with about 150 casualties from the pā. It was the final stand for the Waikato Wars. It stands as a significant moment, as Minister Tama Potaka mentioned, alongside many other battles in New Zealand’s history.

It is a great moment to be here to speak to this bill that offers a way forward for the iwi to move forward to look after the land of Ō-Rākau that was fought on, and also to, I think, forge a way forward for this country and for our communities to learn more about Ō-Rākau. I’d like to acknowledge Ōtorohanga College and the work that they’ve done over many years, and the kids from that college, to make sure that history is built into that curriculum so that the future generation can continue to understand and acknowledge the significance of such an event in New Zealand’s history.

I am the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and it’s my privilege to welcome this bill to the select committee. I would encourage members of the audience to submit on this bill, so that myself and other members from across the House can learn your stories and your tūpuna stories and the significance of the battle of Ō-Rākau and what this bill means to you. Of course, we want this bill to go as quickly through the House as possible, but we also want to hear from you. So I’d certainly encourage you to make a submission. We will be calling for submissions very shortly.

Again, the battle was hugely significant for so many reasons. I think it shows a huge amount of courage and sacrifice that Rewi Maniapoto and the people from the Kīngitanga movement at the time showed to defend their whenua, their values, and what they stood for. It is my privilege to be here to commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā anō tātou katoa. I want to just add a little bit of kōrero to today’s kaupapa. I want to commend the Minister for his tautoko in terms of this kaupapa. He knows more than anyone else how incredibly important this is to our people and to our iwi—to our different iwi, I should say.

I just wanted to quote a couple of things here: “The battle of Ō-Rākau took place from 31 March to 2 April 1864 near present-day Kihikihi. The battle saw more than 150 men, women and children killed by Crown forces as colonial troops pushed deep into the Waikato, attacking pā sites and villages along the way,”. It’s that type of history that is incredibly important for our people and for all New Zealanders to know.

I know that these debates—well, not so much debates. These types of kōrero that we have with regards to Treaty settlements and whatnot are very bipartisan, and I acknowledge that and I’ve always acknowledged all sides during this type of debate. But I do worry when I hear backwards steps, sometimes, from this coalition Government in terms of their commitment to the history of this country.

I know that they tautoko—and I say this to the Minister because I know he’s a hugely strong advocate for our people. But he’s got his work cut out, because when I hear people talking about balancing history, sometimes that sounds to me like they don’t want to talk about our history, and when we set this up, alongside the Greens and with support from Te Pāti Māori, we were clear that our history had been hidden. We were clear that our history was not being told in the schools and that our babies—and, you know, I was never brought up knowing about this type of kaupapa, and I’m older than most people in this country. I’ve of course got to know about it as I got older—well, I’m not older than Gerry Brownlee, anyway, or Shane Jones.

But anyway, coming back to something serious. You know, when you’re brought up, you’ve got generations brought up not knowing about this. This has come to the fore only recently, and that’s why it’s so incredibly important for this House to understand what this means to our people. The mamae, the hurt, the anger is still relevant.

So that’s why I’m complimenting our Minister over here, because he is our Minister. He’s in the wrong bloody party, but he’s still our Minister—he’s still our Minister. So we want him to carry our dreams, carry our moemoeās, carry our kaupapa, challenge his friends, challenge the ACT Party.

We understand where some of this kōrero comes from, and I think that everyone Māori on this side respects everyone’s history. But we are tangata whenua. We are, in our views, a priority and we can’t apologise for that, and the ACT Party has to understand—particularly the leader—that our history has been hidden. Our history has not been told to people like myself as we grew up, but these kids now coming through—all New Zealand kids—should learn what happened down there. It’s a magnificent kaupapa and I still fear not enough people know about it—I still fear not enough people know about it.

I say to our good friend the Minister of Māori Affairs and, oh yeah, Minister of everything Māori, from what I’ve seen. Shane Jones runs away from that—he’s too busy doing his fast-track stuff. So I’ll say to our Minister that it’s on you—it’s on you—to whakakotahi i ngā iwi katoa mō tēnei kaupapa, so e mihi ana ki a koe, e Tama, mō tō kaha ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa [unite all the people for this initiative, so I acknowledge you, Tama, for your strength in advancing this initiative].

Koutou katoa i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[All of you who have arrived here today, thanks and greetings to us all.]

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. “It takes a special brand of courage to take a stand when you know the odds are stacked against you.” These were the words of Sir Jerry Mateparae that he made 10 years ago in his speech at the 150th commemoration of the Battle of Ō-Rākau. The odds were indeed stacked against the warriors of Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato back in 1864 as the last battle transpired. It may have been the last battle of the Waikato Wars, but the battle of the heart, of the grief, of the pain of confiscation, lives on.

I rise in support of this bill, the Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, along with my colleagues both on this side of the House and around the House, and I’d like to just quickly encapsulate, in the short few moments I have, what the purpose of this bill is that we discuss here today. In essence, this legislation will give effect to certain provisions of the deed of agreements relating to the Ō-Rākau site, dated 31 October 2023, when the Crown and Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato signed this deed. Essentially, this bill enables the record of title for the Ō-Rākau site to be held in the names of the ancestors who fought at this battle, this horrific battle, or had other connections with the land. And so it enables Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato to jointly have and exercise the rights and obligations of the registered owner of the Ō-Rākau site.

Furthermore, there are some key messages that we’re hoping to transpire with this bill. This bill will underscore the importance of the Battle of Ō-Rākau and the ancestors connected to the site. It will honour their legacy in a formal and a public manner, and that’s very important. It will facilitate joint management, as I just mentioned, by the iwi connected to Ō-Rākau. And it will foster cooperative stewardship of the estate, reflecting a unified approach to preserving heritage. It will also enable ongoing adjustments to the ancestral record, reflecting new research and understandings, which ensures the history remains alive and accurately presented—the first of its kind, in many respects. It formally recognises the ancestors who bravely stood at Ō-Rākau.

A few weeks ago, as my colleague here Dan Bidois mentioned, I also joined Minister Potaka and Dan at the Ō-Rākau Pā. I was driving early in the morning. I had just come back from Australia for Easter a few hours beforehand, and very quickly a fog descended—or a mist, if you want to say, descended—as I was driving, so I had to put the hazard lights on. The fog took a long time to dissipate, but eventually it dissipated, and it kind of reminded me of today when I was at the mihi whakatau—thank you to everyone that’s travelled here. It kind of reminded me of the kōrero that was taking place—I understood just a little bit, and thank you to the translator—that things kind of descended very quickly, this fog. And it’s taken a long time for this fog to dissipate. But I hope that today is the beginning of the end of this battle of the heart that has continued. I commend this bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Kei te tū au ki te kōrero mō te pire mō Ō-Rākau. Heoi anō rā, ki a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa me Waikato-Tainui, tēnei a Hikurangi e mihi atu ki a koutou, e tangi atu ki a koutou hoki.

Ko tētahi o ngā hua o te noho ki rō puihi, arā te noho tawhiti rawa, kei a mātou tonu o Ngāti Porou ō mātou whenua. Nā reira kei te tino tangi te ngākau ki a koutou. Heoi anō rā, ahakoa i raupatungia ō koutou whenua, kei te mau tonu, kei te tū tonu te whenua.

I rongo mātou i ngā kōrero kei konei tonu koutou ngā uri. Nā reira tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe, Hana-Rawhiti, ko koe te mema Pāremata mō te rohe e kōrero nei mātou i tēnei ahiahi. Ki tua atu, he uri koe nō te whenua tapu nei e kōrero nei mātou.

Kei te tautoko hoki au i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i tēnei ahiahi. Ki ngā kōrero, ki a ia, te koroua rawa atu o Aotearoa whānui, a Hōnore Willie Jackson, he pai ki te whakarongo i ngā kōrero a ngā pāti katoa i tēnei āhuatanga.

Ki tua atu i te raupatutanga o te whenua, ko te kōhurutanga o ngā tīpuna, ngā wāhine me ngā tamariki. Nā reira kāre e taea te whakatika i taua āhuatanga, engari ka taea te whakatika mā te whakahoki ki ngā tāngata whenua te mana o te whenua e kōrero nei mātou.

Heoi anō rā, kāre au e pīrangi ki te tō roa i ngā kōrero i tēnei ahiahi. I rongo mātou i ngā kōrero a te Minita, a Hōnore Pōtaka, ko te tino hiahia kia oti pai tēnei kaupapa kia hoki te mana ki ngā uri o te whenua e kōrerohia nei e mātou. Nā reira ko tāku he tautoko i tēnei pire. Tēnā tātou.

[Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on the bill concerning Ō-Rākau. However, to you, the descendants of Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui, here stands Hikurangi to greet you, and to grieve for you also.

One of the benefits of living in the bush—i.e., of living far away—is that we, the people of Ngāti Porou, remain in possession of our lands. So my heart truly grieves for you. However, despite the confiscation of your lands, the land remains, the land still stands.

We heard the narratives that you, the descendants, are still here. So this is an acknowledgment of you, Hana-Rawhiti, you are the member of Parliament for the region that we are speaking about this evening. Beyond that, you are a descendant of the sacred land that we are discussing.

I also support the statements that have been made this evening. According to those statements, according to him, the elder statesman of wider New Zealand, the Hon Willie Jackson, it is good to listen to the comments of all parties in this paradigm.

Beyond the confiscation of the land, there was the murder of the ancestors, the women, and the children. So that situation cannot be corrected but what can be corrected is the return to the people of the land of the authority over the land that we speak of.

However, I do not want to drag out the speeches this evening. We heard the statements of the Minister, Hon Pōtaka, whose ultimate desire is the successful resolution of this initiative, that the authority be returned to the descendants of the land that we are speaking about. So I support this bill. Greetings to all.]

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Kia whakakorōriatia te ingoa o te Atua i te putanga mai o te rā tae noa ki tōna tōrengitanga. Korōria ki tōna ingoa tapu. Ki te kīngi, Tūheitia, Pōtatau Te Wherowhero te Tuawhitu, pai mārire.

Hoki mahara ki a rātou mā kua wehe atu ki te pō, haere, haere, okioki atu rā ki te wāhi ngaro.

Ki ngā waka rongonui e uru nei, ko Raukawa, ko Maniapoto, ko Taranaki, nui tōku hōnore ki te tū ki konei, te tū i tō koutou aroaro. I a au e whakaaro ana ki te kaha, ki te mana, ki te kitenga o tō koutou iwi, i huri ōku whakaaro ki ōku hoa tata o Maniapoto, i huri ōku whakaaro ki a Karutahi Bell, kei te mihi ki a koe e hoa. I Waikato, ka huri ōku whakaaro ki a Jade Hohaia, tēnā koe e te tuahine. Ā, i a au e whakaaro ana e pā ana ki te kaha o Raukawa, i huri ōku whakaaro ki tōku tino hoa a Neihana Reihana.

Kei te mihi ki a koutou nā koutou i whakatuwhera tōku ngākau ki te whānui o te ao Māori. Nā koutou i whakatō ki tōku wairua te hōhonu o te Rongopai i kawe mai i te reo me ōna tikanga. Nā reira e kore e ea i ngā kupu te mihi o tōku ngākau ki a koutou.

Ko tēnei te wā kia maumahara, tēnei te wiki kia maumahara. I mua i tēnei i taupatupatu, i maumaharatia tō mātou hoa, a Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. I tērā wiki i maumaharatia e mātou ngā hōia maha i heke i ngā pakanga nui. Āianei, ka whakaū mātou i te maumaharatia o ngā tīpuna i heke i ngā pakanga o Ō-Rākau. Kia anga whakamuri kia kōkiri whakamua.

[Glorify the name of God from the rising of the sun until its setting. Glory to his sacred name. To the king, Tūheitia, Pōtatau VII, goodness and peace.

Memories return to those who have passed on into the night, rest in the peace in the unseen place.

To the famous waka that have entered here, Raukawa, Maniapoto, Taranaki, it is a great honour for me to stand here, to stand before you. As I was considering the strength, the power, and the view of your people, my thoughts turned to my close friends of Maniapoto, my thoughts turned to Karutahi Bell, I acknowledge you my friend. In Waikato, my thoughts turn to Jade Hohaia; greetings, sister. And, as I thought about the strength of Raukawa, my thoughts turned to my best friend, Neihana Reihana. I acknowledge all of you who opened my heart to the breadth of the Māori world. You planted within my soul the depth of the good news that convey the language and its conventions. Words will never truly convey the gratitude of my heart to you.

This is a time to remember, this is the week to remember. Prior to this debate, we remembered our colleague Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. Last week, we memorialised the many soldiers that fell in the great wars. In this moment, we confirm the remembrance of the ancestors that fell in the battle of Ō-Rākau. We move forward by looking back.]

We move forward by looking back. History matters profoundly, and that’s why this bill is so important. It ensures through legislation that the history of Ō-Rākau will also be remembered. It will be a living history, and through the innovation of placing the title in the name of your tīpuna, this history will always speak from the source. It will never grow old.

In my own journey, I have been shaped by the histories of Rangiātea, of Waitara, and of Waitangi, and in each of these places, I have been taught a living history because I have been taught from the descendants of those ancestors whose lives made those whenua sacred. That’s what this legislation will do with Ō-Rākau. Koirā te tūmanako.

[That is the hope.]

It is my honour also to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. When I came to this House, it was the one committee that I asked if I could sit on. I cannot wait to receive this bill in the coming days, and then—as my friend and chair, Dan Bidois, said—to receive your submissions in writing and in person. We cannot wait to come and visit you, and then I cannot wait to stand in your presence again, several months from now, when this House passes this bill into law. Kia anga whakamuri kia kōkiri whakamua.

[We move forward by looking back.]

I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Waiata—“E noho Tūheitia”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Ko te pātai, Kia whakaarohia Te Pire Whakataunga Kerēme a Te Whakatōhea e te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori.

[The question is, That Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.]

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The House is in committee on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees.

This is a 10-hour debate. The time for this debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis. New Zealand National has three hours and 59 minutes. New Zealand Labour has two hours and 46 minutes. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has one hour and 13 minutes. ACT New Zealand has 54 minutes. New Zealand First has 39 minutes. Te Pāti Māori has 29 minutes.

Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside, so there will be no sector-specific debates. Instead, specific Ministers will be available each day to respond to specific portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Climate Change, and the Minister of Health will be available today to respond to members’ questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios. The Minister is here for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

The question is, That the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2022-23 financial year be noted.

Finance

STUART SMITH (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a great pleasure to speak on the annual review of the finance sector. We started on 1 February with the Minister of Finance, the Hon Nicola Willis, who was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee with Dr Caralee McLiesh, the chief executive of Treasury, for 45 minutes. A few weeks later, on 26 February, we followed with a three-hour annual review of Treasury, which, I’d have to say, the select committee found very useful. I was quite concerned that we wouldn’t fill three hours up, but actually we did it with ease, and we probably could have gone longer. The feedback from Treasury was very good as well. I think they found it very useful.

The structured agenda that we had, which the Auditor-General’s office assisted with was very helpful for everyone to guide us through that debate, so it was very ordered and we got through quite a lot. So I’d like to thank all those involved with that.

The Government accounts for 2022-23 showed an increase of revenue to $153 billion, but it also showed an increase in expenditure from $151 billion to $161.8 billion, which I think is quite concerning, and the operating balance before gains and losses, underlined that when it showed a $9.4 billion deficit, which is $2.5 billion larger than the Budget had projected. That is a concern to everyone, I think. Structural deficits are a real problem. We asked the Treasury about that. In their view, they were quite concerned about structural deficits. While our debt level is relatively low internationally, we are subject to quite significant shocks on an ongoing basis, and we are a small economy, and that puts us in a unique position where comparing ourselves to larger economies is not that useful. One of the things that we were quite concerned about was that structural deficit and the ongoing shocks, but we also were really concerned about some of the things that had gone on with the Reserve Bank, which we came to later.

But just before that, we did like to note and we found quite useful the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s attempt at teasing out expenditure based on the agencies that the money goes to. I think that’s a really good thing for us to focus on in the future, because it’s not just about measuring the money that goes out the door; it’s about the effectiveness of it and whether there’s actually been double-up in the expenditure. That’s something we should be very concerned about.

We asked the Treasury about the Reserve Bank running or tightening the official cash rate (OCR) at the same time as running or continuing the funding for lending programme. The official cash rate is raising interest rates to slow the economy down, whereas the funding for lending programme is giving banks cheaper access to money, and, effectively, having the opposite effect of the OCR, and we wondered about the wisdom of that. I think that while they were quite measured in their response, they were concerned about it. I do note that we also asked the Reserve Bank about that. The answers we got were a little bit unsatisfactory, I felt.

I do note, and I’ve since found out that my colleague and friend the Hon Andrew Bayly had asked the Reserve Bank about whether they had a contract with the banks to continue that funding for lending programme. The Reserve Bank Governor’s response was that, well, they didn’t have a contract per se; they had a moral contract. Well, my question, had I known that before, would have been: well, what about the moral contract with the taxpayer? Because it’s the taxpayer that it’s costing. It’s costing people with higher interest rates now than they would have needed to be, had the Reserve Bank not continued to have one foot on the accelerator and the other one on the brake. I think that was pretty poor management on their part, and it was a concern shared across the committee that this would occur. So we now know that it wasn’t a contract; it was a very concerning aspect for us.

So I’ll leave it at that for now, but it was a great pleasure to undertake the annual reviews. Thank you.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to echo the sentiments of the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the Hon Stuart Smith, and thank the Treasury and the Minister for her time in presenting to the committee. One of the things that we talked about, or we asked Treasury questions about, was their performance over the year. They had said that they had met a number of key achievements, including the provision of high-quality advice on tax settings, macro-economic and regulatory frameworks.

They were also very proud to talk about Te Tai Waiora, their first wellbeing report, which presented robust, quantitative evidence and analysis on the state of wellbeing in New Zealand across a range of dimensions. So my question to the Minister is: given that the Budget Policy Statement’s wellbeing objectives have changed, will that—Te Tai Waiora; what is her plan for ensuring that there is robust quantitative evidence; what are the measures she will be using to compare to a previous measure of wellbeing; and what type of statistics will she be looking for to ensure the robustness of that evidence?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the chairperson, Stuart Smith, for his chairing of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and his report. I also thank the member for her first question, which I think is incredibly symbolic, because Governments have a choice about how they measure and how they record their contribution to people’s living standards and wellbeing.

The previous Government made an art of very lengthy, quite glossy, descriptive documents, with huge amounts of words and verbiage about what they intended to do, and the sum of the grand intentions, and how that would sum to wonderful outcomes for New Zealanders. But then, at the same time as having these wonderfully lengthy, descriptive documents—which killed a lot of trees and took a lot of policy analysts a lot of hours—they oversaw a period of some of the highest inflation we have seen in a generation, which delivered, in substantive terms, a cost of living crisis which saw New Zealanders’ real purchasing power eroded, thereby grossly undermining their wellbeing.

At the same time, they oversaw a significant increase in real tax levels by allowing fiscal drag and bracket creep to push New Zealanders to higher tax brackets so that they were, in literal terms, paying a high proportion of their wages in tax, and, at the same time, oversaw the magnificent contribution of increasing Government spending by 80 percent. Yet I am still to find a New Zealander who can point, for me, to an area of public life that they thought got 80 percent better. Because it certainly wasn’t waiting lists for operations, it certainly wasn’t educational achievement, and it certainly wasn’t an 80 percent reduction in crime. And all of this—

Hon David Seymour: What about consulting to Government departments?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, perhaps there may have been, in several agencies, an 80 percent increase in the number of public servants, certainly not on the front line. All of this leads me to this conclusion, which is: you can stamp your Budget with the word “wellbeing” as nicely as you like, and you can write as many pages of verbiage about wellbeing as you like, but if you don’t deliver low, stable inflation, fair tax, and effective spending, then none of that is worth the paper that it is written on. I am proud to be part of a Government and to be a Minister of Finance who is going to cut that crap and focus on results, and isn’t going to focus on pages and pages of reports about wellbeing, because, frankly, it was just talk. We’re going to walk the walk.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Given the Minister has failed to address my question about what are the quantitative evidence measures she’s going to use, I will quote from the Treasury economist Dominick Stephens: “So New Zealand’s been, as identified by international organisations, a top performer on flexibility, business strategies, GDP per capita has lagged, yet outcomes have actually are among the top as well.”

So my question—and I go back to the Minister—what measures will she be using, given she has changed her objectives under the Budget Policy Statement recently? What measures will she be using? What are the statistics she will be using to provide such evidence?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, I will happily direct the member to the Budget Policy Statement, which, on page 1, sets out our Government’s overarching goals for its term of office, being to “Build a stronger, more productive economy that lifts real incomes and increases opportunities for New Zealanders.”; “[Delivering] more efficient, effective and responsive public services to all who need and use them—in particular, to restore law and order and improve health outcomes and educational achievement.”; to “Get the Government’s books back in order and restore discipline to public spending.” Those objectives will guide our Government’s Budget decisions.” And we view that they are therefore “the Government’s wellbeing objectives, [because] meeting those objectives is the most important contribution [we] can make to the long-term social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of New Zealanders.”

So what will we be measuring? Well, we will be measuring the results against the better Public Service targets, which our Prime Minister has set; we will be measuring to see whether New Zealanders are being taxed less or more on their personal incomes; we will be measuring whether we can set out a path to return to surplus; we will be measuring whether we deliver meaningful tax reductions; whether we identify enduring savings across Government departments and agencies; whether we are improving public services by shifting spending to higher-value areas and focusing on results; and whether we are being careful to deliver a long-term sustainable pipeline of infrastructure investments. It’s all set out in the Budget Policy Statement; it’s all very real, tangible stuff. I’m sorry if the member couldn’t quite relate to it because it didn’t have as much verbiage as normal, but we’re focused on things that New Zealanders can experience in their bank accounts, see in their homes, and experience in their communities.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. There’s a number of points that I’d like to speak to in this annual review debate. Just to outline them for the Minister and foreshadow them, they will be primarily on productivity and as that relates to the settings in our tax system, and also on the issue of climate change.

So just firstly to that issue of productivity, and those who are following along at home will find handily in comments from the Minister under the Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2023 page 5, it says here—and I quote—“The Minister said that the question that needs to be asked when taking on debt is whether it is used to enhance productive capacity and grow the economy. Our comments with regard to productivity in general continue to filter throughout and are reflected by comments from Treasury, in particular. The Treasury”, here on page 9—and I quote—“has identified slow productivity growth as one of New Zealand’s long-term economic performance challenges.”

Here we turn to the meat of the sandwich, and that is on page 10 where, I quote, “We discussed a capital gains tax and the possible effects on productivity. The Treasury said its position on a capital gains tax has been on the record for some time. We think that there would be merit in introducing one for a range of reasons, but we acknowledge that successive Governments have determined that there isn’t public appetite for it at this stage.” It said, “The lack of capital gains tax has affected the distribution of investment in the economy and that can only be negative for productivity.” It said, “A capital gains would lead to a different distribution of capital in the economy and lower house prices.”

To that effect, one of my many questions for the Minister, if we are able to engage in this back and forth—noticing that ahead of the May Budget, we have already seen that $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords or those tax deductibility changes—is: what consideration was made, if any, with reference particularly to that weight of importance on productivity, what kind of official work or otherwise was undertaken to ascertain what productivity gains may or may not be made as a result of that $2.9 billion policy decision?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, the member may be of the view that it is proper for Ministers to engage in extensive policy analysis on policies that they have explicitly ruled out delivering on, in explicit contravention of the mandate they’ve been given by the New Zealand people, but on our side of the House, we don’t think that’s OK. So you should not be surprised to learn that we haven’t engaged in extensive analysis or research about the prospect of a capital gains tax. It’s long been our position that you don’t tax your way to prosperity.

When it comes to the question of productivity, I am delighted by the member’s new-found love of Treasury analysis, and I look forward to her similarly embracing the need for more competitive settings for firms, for better consenting and permitting processes for the delivery of infrastructure, to more flexible labour markets, to more competitive delivery of public services, to the role that the private sector can play in all of those, because these are also topics that Treasury through the years has commented on.

When it comes to the question of taxation of property, there has long been a tax principle adhered to by successive Governments in New Zealand that people are taxed not on their revenue but on their profit, and that has meant for many, many years, including during Governments which that member’s party supported, the interest costs are deducted from profitability before taxation is applied, and our Government is returning to that norm.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): With all due respect to the Minister, I appreciate the kind of verbiage, as the case may be, on the issue of tax and productivity, but that, respectfully, was not my question. My question was about what work, if any, had been undertaken on the productivity gains that may be made as a result of the $2.9 billion package to return those tax deductibility rules to where they were prior to the decisions of the former Government.

So I agree with the Minister that there are always going to be trade-offs when we’re making decisions inside of the economy—that is absolutely true—but the point that we’re trying to get to here is: how do we get the most productive economy possible? We have it on the record consistently from Treasury, from her advisers, that a capital gains tax would result not only in a more productive economy but also in lower house prices. So my question for the Minister is: what work, if any, was undertaken to deliver on her election promise of that $2.9 billion restoration of tax deductibility for landlords—what work was undertaken to showcase that that $2.9 billion policy was going to result in a more productive economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I was about to say that I’d be forgiven for having missed the question because it was buried so deeply in the other stuff, but I think that I’m about to do it again, because it was similarly buried this time. I think the member’s question is: did I consider dumping a core election commitment that was also replicated in our coalition agreements? And the answer to that is, no, that wasn’t considered.

I think the second part of the question is do we overlay every single piece of policy decision-making with a view as to exactly what contribution it will make to productivity, and, again, the answer is no. When we determined how much cost pressure funding we will give to the health system or how much funding we will give to early childhood centres, we don’t decide how much that is based on a pure productivity lens. Productivity is a useful concept to consider, because ultimately it is about the efficiency by which we convert labour and capital into products and services, and it is important that we create an economy in which we can enhance productivity. There are a number of factors that contribute to that.

I’d suggest that the member should be very interested in the fast-track consenting regime that this side of the House is establishing, which will significantly increase productivity. We should also be considering education and skills. So the member should be very interested in the charter schools that we’re establishing to lift educational achievement. She should be very interested in the cellphone ban; in the hour a day of reading, writing, and maths; and in our attempts to get people attending school more. There are a number of initiatives across Government which we are taking. I’m conscious, Mr Chair, as I’m taking this call, that I know that my Associate Ministers of Finance are here, and I’m sure that if the member continues in this regard, asking great questions about productivity, they too will want to make a contribution.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I’m glad that we have it on the record that the Minister of Finance undertook no work whatsoever as to ascertain the productivity gains which she said is one of the core kind of things that she wants to get out of the office for our economy when it comes to delivering on an election promise solely for the sake of delivering on that election promise.

So I guess we’re kind of back to that core question that I’m asking the Minister here: what role does she think that the tax system has when it comes to getting more productivity out of our economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, this reminds me a little bit—no, I’m not going to go there. But the member has clearly found a new word and she’s excited by it. So let me talk about productivity. I think it is a drag on productivity when New Zealand workers know that year after year, their Government is prepared to increase the tax they pay on their income by stealth, by allowing inflation to push them into ever higher tax brackets so that every hour they work, they are having to give away more of their money to the Government. There is very clear analysis that says that where marginal tax rates are too high, that is productivity-sapping. So I am proud to be part of a Government that is committed to lowering the tax burden on working people, and I invite the member to join me in that particular crusade.

When it comes to the question of interest deductibility for households, we on our side of the House have a real concern about the extraordinary growth that has occurred in rents in recent years. While we acknowledge that there are a number of factors that have contributed to this, and we are taking steps to address many of them, including making it much easier and cheaper to build homes in this country, we also think that having a situation which places an ever higher cost burden on landlords only increases the upward pressure on rents. And the ultimate people to pay the price for that are tenants. A war on landlords has the collateral damage of everyday tenants who end up paying higher rent than would otherwise be the case. So we are proud to have put our policy settings back on a much more sensible track.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I get the, kind of, theatre of the House, but I am, I must say, a little bit gutted to see in some of that theatre from the Minister of Finance the personal attacks that were veiled in that contribution just then with regard to myself. I would just remind the Minister of Finance that in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we worked quite constructively across the aisle and quite collaboratively on a number of issues.

If I may continue on the issue of climate change in particular, we have here on page 6 a quote—and I will quote from this—“Treasury thinks that there is a larger question about the system for assessing infrastructure and climate resilience. It wants to ensure that all agencies understand the risks to their assets from climate change and that any new Budget bids for infrastructure consider the likelihood of more severe and more frequent weather events.” The Minister herself in her contributions raised the fast-track legislation, and to that I would say that we have put a number of parliamentary written questions particularly to the Minister of Climate Change in which he has said explicitly and on the record that he has not taken any specific advice whatsoever on climate change impacts of the fast-track legislation. As far as that goes, it would seem that the Government is completely at odds with regards to the advice that it is getting and the things that it’s saying and the things that it’s doing on the other hand.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance): I’m happy to respond—I mean, we’re slightly outside the realms of the annual review on finance, but given the member’s finally asked a question around something I’m responsible for, I’m happy to deal with it. In relation to fast-track—well, firstly, just go up a level. We are a Government that is interested in building infrastructure that builds resilience into the economy and deals with the effect of climate change. That is very important, and that is going to be something that we have to view with an intergenerational lens on, because the investments we make now will go for 30 to 50 to 100 years and we want to get that framework right, and the Minister of Climate Change is of course involved in those discussions.

Part of building infrastructure for the future and building resilient infrastructure for the future is not spending a decade consenting the infrastructure, and that’s why fast-track consenting is actually really important. Take a wind farm, for example: two years to build it; 7-10 years to consent it. There are electricity generators out there today using renewable electricity like geothermal and hydro that have been clogged up in the courts for year after year after year just to reconsent an existing power station. Our ports, for example—and this is why the Government is moving to extend out port consents—which are very important to the resilient infrastructure we want to build in New Zealand, many of those ports are going to struggle to get their consents away by 2026 when they automatically expire. Port of Tauranga, for example, is right now engaged in a lengthy battle to add another berth to its existing port infrastructure when 60 percent of New Zealand’s exports by value go through the Port of Tauranga. Now, it’s not as if the Port of Tauranga is going to be lifted up tomorrow and moved. I think I can safely say that Tauranga’s not going anywhere, and so endless time and money.

We know, for example, that $1.3 billion per year is spent consenting alone on infrastructure—$1.3 billion. The amount of time it takes to get a consent doubled in a five-year period from 2014 to 2019. So this is why we are doing the fast-track regime, and I just make the point to the member that it is possible to protect the environment and the values that underpin the environment at the same time as expediting the consent of projects that we need.

The other point I’d make to the member is that if we are serious about our climate goals—and we are a Government that is committed to that—we are going to need the fast-track consenting. It should not take eight years to consent a wind farm. It should not be that hard to reconsent a hydro power station. It should not be that difficult to get solar farms up and running in New Zealand. It shouldn’t take so much time and money to build the transmission lines around the country that we need for the electrification and the distribution network that we need to make sure that electric vehicle chargers, for example, are able to be installed expeditiously and very quickly around the country so we can make that great transition away from a system that is buttressed by coal and gas towards a more electrified system and towards an electricity system that supports the great transition towards the electrification of the economy.

All of that is too hard right now. It’s not just me, it’s not just rhetoric that I’m saying; every electricity generator in the country will tell you that unless you do planning reform, none of those decarbonisation goals are achievable. So it is very important that we sort out our planning regime.

The member talks about productivity. That is the great thing that this country has to tackle, because for 30 years we’ve had a woeful lack of productivity in this country, and I know the member is concerned about it. Efficient, reliable infrastructure that makes it easier to get around our cities, that makes it easier for electricity to get around the network, that makes it easier for us to export our goods overseas—those are all contributors to productivity. One thing in and of itself won’t fix our productivity disease. One thing by itself won’t, but 50 things cumulatively and collectively will make a difference. That’s why fast-track and planning reform is so important and that’s why we’re going to advance it, and that’s why the Budget coming up is so important.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just have some questions around climate change. We heard from the Treasury, when they came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, about the reporting framework that they have for projects in place. We heard from the Secretary of the Treasury about the three-phase role of Treasury in terms of climate change, both in terms of advising the Government on the work programme or the lack of the work programme but also the economic outcomes and consequences of various decisions.

One of the questions that I have for the Minister in the chair is, given that climate change did not feature in this year’s Budget Policy Statement, I’m keen to know the extent to which climate change is going to be a focus for this Government. How it is that we are going to see filling the holes left by the axing of the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund? We know that there’s 3 megatonnes out of emissions budget 2, which is 37 percent of all emissions that need to come from energy and industry sector in emissions budget 2 alone. There’s another 4 megatonnes in emissions budget 3, which is 22 percent, and we also know that this Government has received advice that simply doubling renewable electricity is insufficient to meet the targets that have been set. How is it that the Minister proposes to steward the Government that she is a part of through meeting those targets, given climate change did not feature once in the Budget Policy Statement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, there we are again. If we were to take that member’s comments as a guide, you could measure how well someone was performing on climate change by how many times they used the phrase in a document. And that is actually how the members opposite chose to measure their performance as a Government, isn’t it? The more you say it, the more it’s true. If you say you care about the cost of living, then it doesn’t matter that inflation’s really high and has been for three years. Hopefully, people will just blink and not notice. Just keep saying it, and they won’t notice the reality.

Well, actually, substance is what matters, and I do just quickly want to return to a comment made by Chlöe Swarbrick, who took some personal umbrage. No personal comment was intended. My debate is with your arguments and not with your capability, and I look forward to continuing to have debates about the argument. Now, when it comes to climate change, the approach of our Government is—the member is right; the honourable member is right—divergent from that of the previous administration, who saw fit to use the emissions trading scheme, which, in effect, imposes a cost on all goods and services in the economy by pricing carbon. It means that everyday working people pay more for their petrol, pay more for goods that require petrol to freight it—it requires a higher price across the economy.

The previous administration used that tool, which is a tool that we support and endorse. They used the revenue generated by it for a potpourri of projects of extremely limited value—the largest of which, the one that that member is so proud of, was handing out massive cheques to profitable private, often multinational, companies. Because what that member thinks is the way to solve climate changes is to tax working people ever more, to take that charge and use it to subsidise big corporates. And we on this side of the House say we don’t think that’s really the sensible way to do it, because, actually, we do want profitable companies decarbonising. Absolutely we do. We want them investing in lower-carbon technology, we want them contributing to a lower-emissions profile for our country. But you know what? We want them to pay for it themselves and not make working people pay the price for that, as that member saw fit to do.

So we see the emissions trading scheme as the key tool, and we’re not going to take the revenue from it and fritter it away on the sorts of projects that former Minister used to enjoy where she got to cut a ribbon and say, “Aren’t I great?”, but hadn’t even actually looked at how many emissions the initiative would reduce. That came later to do any of that analysis. There are still a number of initiatives that were funded through the emissions trading scheme for which the Government never identified actually what emission reduction would occur as a result, because what it was about was greenwash. And so, no, we’re not taking that approach.

The emissions trading scheme will put a price on carbon which will incentivise lower-carbon investment and behaviour. We are taking significant regulatory steps—more of which we will say in the next few weeks—to electrify New Zealand, which is about doubling the generation of renewable energy so that users of our transport system and users of our heat and industrial system can use renewable rather than fossil fuel - based energy into the future, and we will be taking a number of complementary measures to support New Zealand meeting its emission reduction goals. The member confuses catchy headlines and ribbon cuttings with actual emission reduction, and our Government is committed to actual emission reduction achieved in an efficient way, using our regulatory, legislative, and other tools to deliver it, but not simply taxing working people ever more so that I can take the credit for writing a cheque for a profitable company. That’s not the way.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’m pleased to hear the Minister in the chair talk about how committed her Government is to actually cutting emissions. So I’m keen to know, given Treasury’s reporting function on what we heard about, what will be the emissions reductions from electrifying New Zealand—in megatonnes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, that will depend on what users switch from other forms of energy generation to using electricity.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Has the Minister sought advice on what the emissions reductions will be and how many companies will switch from using fossil fuels as a source of fuel to electrification in the absence of there being complementary measures, which her Government has received advice on, that are necessary to achieve that? And I reiterate: what will be the emissions reductions that her Government will achieve to leave the holes that have been left by cutting the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry funding?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, I’m not surprised that the member strays so far from the actual matter at hand, which is a debate about the 2022-2023 financial statements. They’re a pretty ugly set of statements, and her Government delivered them, so she’s trying to distract to another discussion.

The short answer to her question is that we have been advised that we are still on track to achieve the emission reduction for the first emission reduction plan, and we are soon to consult on our plan for the second emission-reduction period. And so the member, I’m sure, will read that consultation document with interest, and she can contribute her views. I was going to say we’d welcome them. We may not, but certainly her views will be interesting.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister Willis, I’d like to draw your attention to a considerable discussion that was had in the annual review of Treasury about sustainable public finances. This is an ongoing concern, which I know was addressed in the Treasury’s briefing to the incoming Minister, pointing out that we have a structural problem between the amount of Government revenue that’s collected and the actual expenditure we’re committed to. Now, there’s a lot of expenditure we are simply committed to, such as New Zealand’s superannuation and the like.

So what I want to understand from the Minister—given that we’re looking at personal income tax cuts, which we’ve been told are coming up in this current Budget—how, over time, the Minister is going to ensure not just that the Budget is balanced in this current year, which we’ve heard already is going to be done through a combination of borrowing and cuts, but what plans the Minister has for ensuring that we have a sustainable structure to our public finance over a long term.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the honourable member Dr Deborah Russell for her question. The Government’s goal, as we set out in the Budget Policy Statement, is to return the books to an operating balance before gains and losses surplus in the forecast period. The way that we will achieve that is through an ongoing programme of driving greater value for money for the amount of Government expenditure that already occurs.

What we saw over the past six years was an alternative approach, which saw Government spending increase 80 percent in just six years and yet didn’t see value delivered for those extra dollars. We saw an art form created, where money could be frittered away on the most useless of projects, whether it be, I think, the $1.2 billion—am I correct, members?—that was invested on the three waters reform programme that went absolutely nowhere; the tens of millions of dollars that were wasted on a failed TVNZ-RNZ merger; the more than $100 million that was spent on an Auckland light rail fantasy that was dead on arrival; or a jobs tax proposal that had millions upon millions invested in its development, only to be trashed latterly by Prime Minister Hipkins. Oh, we had the industry transformation plans, upon which millions and millions were spent; the hundreds of millions of dollars that went, across the board, into initiatives that didn’t deliver results for everyday people.

So the answer to the member’s question is this: our Government is going to get better results out of the dollars that are already spent. Those actually are dollars that belong to taxpayers, which we as Ministers take custody of on the proviso that we will deliver a better outcome with those dollars. What that means is that every Minister in our Government knows it is not just their job to come up with a press release with a nice headline saying, “Look how much money I’m spending”; it is their job to look at the spending that is already happening and guarantee to New Zealanders that they are, every week, working harder to drive better results and more value from that spending. Only through that concerted discipline, only by taking the step to reduce back-office spending to get rid of low-value programmes, will we, over time, remove that structural deficit.

I thank the member for her question, but I wish she had asked Grant Robertson that question three or four years ago, so we didn’t have such a big hole to dig ourselves out of now.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I do want to pursue this a little further, because the Minister seems to think that she can cut her way to sustainable public finances. But we are committed to about $30 billion of expenditure on health every year. That’s what health costs us every year. Education costs us about $20 billion a year. Now, here’s the thing, New Zealand super costs us about $95 billion a year. There’s a whole lot of expenditure which people expect in this country. They want a decent health system, they want a decent education system, they want the welfare system there, in place. So the problem remains with the sorts of expenditure that the New Zealand public expects: there is an expectation that Government will find a way to get sustainable public finances.

Now, the Minister has promised tax cuts, but personal income tax delivers about 52 percent of our tax revenue at the moment. What is she going to fill the gap with in order to deliver the services that New Zealanders demand? It’s going to take a substantial effort to balance the books. When is she going to address the structural problems that are predicted to go out to 2060—that are sitting in the briefing to the incoming Minister that is now her responsibility? When is she going to address that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, I thank the member Dr Deborah Russell for her new-found interest in fiscal sustainability. What a shame that interest was missing in the past six years of Government. I think what I take from the honourable member’s comments is that her view is that Government spending inexorably grows and is completely out of the control of Ministers in their daily decisions. It is simply a growing mass over which they have no control, and so the only answer is to tax people more and more and more and more.

What I would say to the member is that if that’s your view of Government—that the costs will just rise, so you’ve got to sweat the workers harder and harder and harder—then I will tell the member what that leads to. What that leads to is a shrinking economy in which no one faces an incentive to invest, to innovate, to work, to grow, because they know that their dollars will be taken by Deborah Russell and her merry band of mates to waste on programmes that are not delivering the value that those New Zealanders could generate in their own homes and businesses.

So what we have here is a fundamental philosophical divide, in which we believe, on this side of the House, that the Government should hold itself as accountable every day for driving more value from Government money, in respect of the hard-working people who generate it, and what that member seems to represent is a view that those who work hard for their money should only ever expect to pay more and more of it out the door to an ever hungrier Government.

Well, our view is, yes, the health system will continue to need more funding, but the health system should also be innovating and coming up with new ways of delivering more and better services that use new technology, new approaches, new efficiencies to deliver better results for people.

The education system will continue to need more funding and we must invest more in it, but we are kidding ourselves if we believe that money alone is what will educate our kids better. Actually, they need structured literacy being taught in their classrooms so that they can read and write properly. Actually, they need to be attending school. Actually, they need teachers who are equipped with the skills to impart knowledge to those children.

So the member is completely wrongheaded in her view that the answer to every problem is more tax being paid by hard-working people.

We on this side of the House understand that we are custodians of other people’s money, and it is our job to generate the maximum value possible with that so that New Zealanders have a little bit more money each week—a little bit more money each week—to meet the costs they face in their own families and their own households. The member spits out the words “tax relief” as if it is dirty. There is nothing dirty about working people wanting a bit more money to pay for the swimming lessons, a bit more money so they can afford a pack of chocolate biscuits, a little bit more money so they don’t need to worry about whether they can afford shoes for their kids this winter. I’m proud to stand with the party that trusts them to make those decisions in their own home and respects them by offering them overdue tax relief.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It’s pretty interesting to hear the Minister of Finance there talking about some of the kind of sociological kind of surrounding issues or cultural issues when it comes to, particularly, the likes of educational achievement, for example. I’m just reflecting there on the cross-party piece of work out of the Education and Workforce Committee in, I believe, the last term of Parliament, particularly on school non-attendance. This cross-party piece of work delved through the evidence and had submissions from many members of the public, and it, basically, settled on the conclusion that the major issue that is driving school non-attendance in this country is inequality and poverty. You can see that in, I believe it’s about, a 30 percentage point gap between those in decile 10 and decile 1 schools when it comes to regular school attendance or non-attendance.

The Minister also just said that working people pay the price. She was referring to that in the context of climate change, she was referring to that in the context of our tax system. As far as that goes, I just again want to reflect on a piece of work that has been undertaken by this Parliament particularly in the last term of Government, and that was the IRD’s high-wealth individuals report. That showed us that the top 311 families in this country pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of average New Zealanders. That is part of the context which forms the basis of the picture that Treasury is painting for us about the fact that we have a lower productive economy than we otherwise could have if we were to, for example, implement a capital gains tax.

I just also reflect on the fact that the Minister today at question time, in response to patsy questions from her own backbenchers, was referring to the OECD and how we’re an outlier with regard to addressing fiscal tax drag. As far as that’s concerned, we’re also an outlier amongst the OECD for not having a capital gains tax, stamp duty, wealth tax, or otherwise, for not having any form of tax that meaningfully taxes those who earn their wealth or their income off of capital gains sole. So, again, to that effect, we actually do have the opportunity here to address these fundamental issues with regard to productivity, but as the Treasury themselves say, and as is reflected in this annual review report, successive Governments have simply refused to pick up that issue and to deal with it properly.

I also just wanted to reflect on some of the comments from the Associate Minister of Finance, who also happens to be the Minister responsible for fast-tracking legislation. He was talking about how fast-track legislation will be great for us getting to our climate goals particularly because it will enable us to fast track, for example, the electrification of Aotearoa New Zealand. He said that we shouldn’t be afraid of it because it’s going to be great for the environment and great for us to fast track projects that are necessary for climate action. To that effect, we would put it to the Minister that there’s an opportunity here for him to outlaw and to say that he is going to rule out any projects that will be detrimental to the environment or detrimental to the climate, because as the Minister of Finance was just speaking before, we had another Minister of this Government—the Hon Shane Jones—heckling and saying that we were going to fast track coal mining and fast track coal. So if you can just try and piece the picture together of what the Government is saying here, it’s pretty damn inconsistent.

I just here, however, wanted to finally get to the point on social investment, because this is something which the Minister and I had a bit of back and forth about, particularly in the last term in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’ve been putting a few questions through her office about whether she had taken a social investment lens to many of the fast-moving pieces of legislation that the Government is currently ramming through our Parliament. To that effect, so far she has said that the Government has taken no advice on those social investment lenses to any of those pieces of legislation that I’ve put to her in those written questions. So I guess the question to the Minister is: when does the social investment ethos come into effect?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance): Well, there’s quite a few comments there, and let me try to respond to them one by one—in particular, the comments about school attendance

There is no question that one of the reasons that children don’t attend school is being unsettled in their housing. I know this from when we were responsible for charter schools. I know this from being the MP for Epsom—that one of the hardest things that students deal with, or at least schools deal with, is kids that get passed from auntie to uncle in different housing set-ups and it’s never quite clear when they’re going to settle at a particular school. But the answer for that, that the previous Government totally failed at, is to create the conditions for people to build more houses. If more houses were built, if the planning was got right, if the infrastructure funding and financing was got right, then suddenly there would be more chance of a kid staying in one place and going to one school in a stable environment and actually attending school more often. So we’re alert that there are other factors to school attendance, and our solution is actually better security of housing.

Now, of course, the previous Government, their approach was that only the Labour Government could build houses. It’s like they had read all those special folklores from the first Labour Government, with Peter Fraser pulling the table through the doorway of the first State house. You know what they did? They spent billions of dollars. They had $2 billion they started with, then they came back to the Government for another $1.2 billion, and they used it to go out and bid up the price of building materials, of land, of project managers, of builders. Only the Labour Government could go out and try and get more houses built and make houses more affordable and spend $3.2 billion of borrowed money, borrowed against the taxpayers’ future incomes, and push up the price of housing.

Now, you have to ask Chlöe Swarbrick: where was she asking, “Had the Government evaluated that policy for productivity?”? But that’s the thing about Chlöe Swarbrick: she’s going to get an Oscar pretty soon for her starring role as the woman who wasn’t there. She wasn’t there when the previous Government was destroying productivity, destroying the cost of living, destroying the soul of New Zealand as people found that there was too much week left at the end of the money, week after week after week, because of the previous Government’s mismanagement. We now have a Government that is going to create the conditions for New Zealanders to build the houses with fast track, with better infrastructure funding and financing, with a new Resource Management Act—and, yes, indeed, that is going to do an awful lot for kids having stability of tenure and going to school.

Then there’s the suggestion—and I think the member Chlöe Swarbrick needs to know that if you could tax your way to prosperity, her side would’ve won the Cold War, but, unfortunately, you can’t tax your way to prosperity, and a capital gains tax is not going to make housing more affordable, for the very simple reason, as Chris Bishop will tell you, housing is about supply and demand. If there are not enough houses for the number of people, you get a shortage and the price rises because demand outstrips supply, and a capital gains tax just makes the Government a silent partner in the speculation. How does that help? If she thinks that, somehow, a capital gains tax will make housing more affordable for the next generation, she ought to travel a bit. I’d be happy for her to go to any of the following, one way or return—because I’m a generous kind of guy, you know—try Vancouver, capital gains tax 10 times income; Los Angeles, capital gains tax 10 times income. Hong Kong, London—you name it. Sydney, Melbourne—they’ve all had a capital gains tax and they’ve all had housing at 10 times income, because it doesn’t work.

That is the dismal view of the Greens and Chlöe Swarbrick. They tell the younger generation, “We’re going to solve your problem by taking off someone else.” Well, actually, this Government says to the next generation, “We’re going to solve the problems by building for everyone.”—building more infrastructure, building more renewable energy, building new homes. We have the policies to reform resource management, to fund and finance infrastructure, to allow people to have a future in this country. We’re going to raise productivity, and, yes, we’re also going to get more kids to school so they too can reach their potential for their future in this beautiful land.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thanks, Mr Chair. Going back to some earlier questions to the Minister of Finance in relation to the Treasury work that they are doing in relation to measurements of productivity—in particular, in reference to the previous speaker David Seymour’s comments—Treasury did confirm under the annual review that they are going through a work stream in a project around the terms of units produced per worker. My question to the Minister is: how is this work progressing? How does she intend the units of measure per worker? What other measurements are there so that this Parliament can hold the Government to account in relation to those measurements?

The Minister said an indicator is results against the better Public Service targets. There is no target in there around increased productivity. She also said one of the other measures was tax less or more—basically, the measurement of the revenue that’s going to be received. So, again, I’m just wanting to understand what the types of measurements are that she will be using in relation to the Treasury work which was covered under the annual review, because they said they were doing a big stream of work in relation to this—in particular, how are they going to measure New Zealand’s productivity in terms of units produced per worker?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m glad to hear another question from the member Barbara Edmonds. For a bit there, I thought she was going to follow her leader’s lead and let Chlöe Swarbrick do all the talking—but a question, none the less. So the question is about productivity, and I am pleased to inform the member that the Treasury will actually very shortly be publishing a working paper on productivity and its analysis of what’s been going so badly wrong with productivity in the New Zealand economy in recent years.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is suspended for dinner and will return at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Climate Change

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the committee is now resumed. The Minister of Climate Change is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

DAVID MacLEOD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): Mr Chair, thank you, thank you. Hey, I’m pleased to provide this opening address on climate change during the committee stage of the appropriations bill. The Environment Committee, in its short time together this electoral term, has performed several reviews of agencies, and I’d like to talk to a few of those in particular that relate to climate change.

Firstly, the Climate Change Commission. We all would have a good general understanding of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and its intent to send price signals that are intended to cause individuals and businesses to change their practices and explore using low-emissions technology. The commission’s review included feedback on the four 2023 ETS auctions, which failed to sell any New Zealand Units. Although the commission is not responsible for setting the price of New Zealand Units, they convey that there appears to be a significant overhang of previously issued emissions rights in the carbon market. The commission went on to say that, evidently, emitters were able to satisfy their obligations by surrendering units without going to auction in 2023.

In the Environment Committee’s review of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), we heard how they support people and organisations to switch to low-emissions transport technology and fuel. In 2022-23, EECA supported 45 low-emissions transport projects and helped fund the installation of 60 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. It’s fair to say that the Government’s commitment to have a nationwide network of 10,000 public EV chargers by the year 2030 will go a long way to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles and give more New Zealanders the confidence to make the switch to electric.

The Ministry for the Environment spoke, during their review, of the work they’re doing to transition to a climate-resilient, low-emissions, circular economy. They conveyed how they were working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to develop a standardised emissions calculator for the agricultural industry. The Ministry for the Environment believes that both individuals and organisations will act voluntarily to reduce their emissions if their choices are supported by good data. The work being conducted by these two organisations will go some way towards setting up a pathway to price agricultural emissions by 2030, as agreed by this Government. Also, it is essential to reforming the biotech industry so its potential can be unleashed and assist in harnessing emissions reduction technology.

One area I’d like to talk to that’s significant in the emissions reduction debate is all the extra electricity the country needs and we will need. It is estimated New Zealand will require approximately double the amount of electricity we currently generate to satisfy the demands by the year 2050. It could be more. Just think about that. All of the current hydro dams, geothermal plants, wind farms, solar arrays, gas generators, and occasionally the coal generation at Huntly would need to double by 2050. Clearly we want any new generation to be green, but if we think we can achieve building these very important infrastructural projects with our current consenting and permitting regimes, we’re dreaming. We are already at risk of having the lights go out every winter. And yet every year, the consumption of electricity goes up without arguably the commensurate required increase in generation capacity.

We are also very exposed by not having enough peaker plants. These are the electricity generation plants that can turn on rapidly when peak generation demand requires it. Peak electricity is currently provided by hydro and gas generation, so if we’re in a low hydrological year and we don’t have enough water in the lakes to turn on hydro, we’re left with gas peaker plants to fill the gap—hence this Government’s propensity to encourage gas exploration in New Zealand. Gas is nowhere near as bad as coal, emissions-wise, and we should understand that clearly.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr MacLeod, by convention, this is usually a non-political speech by the chair of the committee, but I’ll leave you to finish.

DAVID MacLEOD: I think it’s very important for the climate change, though, to understand our challenges as a country. It’s not perfect in a green sense, to your point, but it is a necessity while transitioning our country to our green electricity goals that we have. You can perhaps tell that I’m from Taranaki, but I don’t say this out—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member’s time has expired.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I have a series of questions for the Minister of Climate Change. One of the things that I’m keen to hear from the Minister on is that we’ve heard extensively from the Climate Change Commission around the need for reform of the emissions trading scheme (ETS). It’s a work programme that was under way for part of the period that was under review in the annual review, but that work programme isn’t continuing. I’d like to know what the Minister’s plans and time lines are in terms of reform of the ETS.

We also heard extensively from the independent Climate Change Commission around their role not only in setting targets but part of their role in terms of monitoring how the country was tracking towards targets. Of course, most of the work that was needed under way to reach emissions budget 1 was work that has happened way before today, or at the time of the hearing—that time has passed.

We also heard in terms of emissions budget 2 and emissions budget 3 that it’s very difficult to introduce new initiatives to achieve savings in those Budget periods, and given the hole that has been left in the emissions budgets by the mini-Budget in the year under review—3 megatonnes by the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund alone in emissions budget 2; 4 megatonnes in emissions budget 3; not to mention the cancelling of the Clean Car Discount and other transport initiatives—there’s quite a gap there that needs to be made up. Given it is so difficult to put in place those initiatives with enough lead time, I think the committee would benefit from hearing what the Minister’s plans are to plug those gaps, and not wait until the end of the year for him to say, “We’ll give that when we give advice later in the year.”, when the House needs some indication on that now.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak, and I’ll take the two questions from the member in order. The first aspect that was raised was in regards to the broader emissions trading scheme (ETS) model. I think it’s important to recognise that this coalition Government wants to ensure that we have a credible ETS in place in terms of our functioning market, and any initiatives that are under way in terms of policy settings by the Government need to enable that that market place is credible. It is right that the Government did cease the review that was undertaken by the prior Government, and we are currently looking at the mechanisms and opportunities in regards to ensuring that we can continue to ensure that that ETS market place is robust and credible.

We have signalled in our coalition agreement a number of aspects particularly in the forestry space, around land-use classes. We’ve been very clear with our position that we don’t plan to undertake significant changes within the ETS market place. Our preference is to focus on regulatory reform outside of the ETS that, in effect, deals with some of the underlying issues. The member will be aware that there are a number of issues that the market has identified around the broader market, but it is really important for this coalition Government to provide clear certainty and clarity in terms of what we will do but, more importantly, what we will not do, and that’s what we have signalled. There will be an opportunity to provide information around exactly those mechanisms in the months to come, and that is a work programme that is currently under way.

The second question was in regard to the emissions budgets and the challenges around ensuring that we meet those. Emissions budget 1 is pretty much in order and on track. Emissions budget 2 has risks in regards to delivery, and that is something that we are monitoring through. There is, with any forecast, a degree of flex in regards to where that actually will land. We are monitoring that closely and, in addition, ensuring that we have good data to inform that. But the overall programme of initiatives in order to ensure that we do meet those targets—which is a commitment of this Government, under the Prime Minister’s statements commitment No. 9—is in regard to the pathways that will be included in regards to our emissions reduction plan two, which we will begin to consult on in June and will finalise at the end of this year.

The member is absolutely right that we cannot afford to delay action and implementation that will reduce emissions, and while, across the House, we will agree on the direction of travel in terms of the targets, this Government will do delivery differently to the prior Government. But we will be clear and transparent around the pathway for those options, what those emissions reductions will achieve, and the time line around that, because I think it is important to ensure that we have a credible and transparent plan of pathways that enables us to decarbonise at the appropriate rate.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’d be interested if the Minister of Climate Change were able to give the committee some more detail around what those transparent pathways and what those measures may be, because I think, as we are looking to emissions budget 2, and even emissions budget 3, there are some very large questions hanging over whether or not we are going to be able to meet them. The Prime Minister has made firm commitments about them, and I think that it is this House’s duty now to have some scrutiny of that in this annual review debate and know some specifics, not election pledges, around whether or not things will be met.

One of the things I am interested in hearing from the Minister on specifically is that the Climate Change Commission gave some very clear advice to the committee that the emissions trading scheme alone could not reach our targets, that there was a need for complementary measures—measures that under the previous Government had taken the form of things like the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry, things like the Clean Car Discount. We know how much heavy lifting they were doing in terms of not only emissions budgets 1 but 2 and 3. Given that those complementary measures have gone, I’d be very keen to know the detail of what the replacement complementary measures would look like, what form they would take, because I think everybody is of the view of that.

In a similar vein, one of the things I’m very keen to hear from the Minister in the chair about is whether he has received advice from his colleague the Minister for Energy around whether simply doubling renewable electricity targets will be sufficient to reach our targets. Obviously, this is a supply side measure that is being put in place in terms of the doubling of renewable generation. Everybody knows that there needs to be a massive increase in our generation of electricity, but whether or not he’s had advice passed on to him from the Minister for Energy that in addition to those supply side measures, there’s going to have to be some demand side measures coming down from the Government in order to meet them as well.

I’d also be interested—just to batch them up for the Minister in the chair—given the methane review that he is doing separately to the independent Climate Change Commission, I’m keen to get an update on that work, but also to understand if there is any plan to change either the domestic targets as a consequence of that review or, indeed, our international targets. Of course, any change to our domestic targets would require legislative change in terms of what I think is a piece of legislation this House can be proud of in the multipartisan way in which we came to setting those targets. So I’m very keen to know whether there have been discussions with colleagues or within coalition parties about whether or not there’d been any attempt to change those domestic targets.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I acknowledge the questions from the member; I’ll work my way through those in order. One of the questions was in regards to the complementary policies, and this Government has been very clear that we see that the emissions trading scheme will do the heavy lifting in regards to emissions reduction, but, in addition to the ETS, we are going to need to consider complementary policies that allow us to reduce gross domestic emissions.

The mechanism in which those initiatives will be undertaken will be different from the prior Government. I think the model under the prior Government was to write blank cheques and throw them over the fence. That is not our mechanism in which we do that, but we do acknowledge the need for complementary policies. How we will achieve that will be different from the prior Government, but be very clear that this coalition Government is focused on the activities that will reduce emissions and focused on actually doing the doing around implementation.

One of the matters that the member raises is a number of examples of policy interventions that the prior Government had in play that this Government has assessed and is no longer continuing. The reality is that in the absence of a broad and transparent plan, which has all those initiatives on a plan, that you can see the impact and add that up, there was no plan in that regard. There was no transparency. So we hear examples in regards to initiatives which, really, in the scheme of things, in the scheme of our gap and challenge that we have in order to meet our 2050—and, particularly, our 2030 targets—are inconsequential. We will have a different mechanism in which to do that.

Another question by the member was in regards to the broader methane review. I’m not going to presuppose the outcome of that independent review, because the review hasn’t actually started. We haven’t got terms of reference and we haven’t got a group of individuals in order to undertake that review, but the member can rest assured that the purpose of that review is to undertake an independent assessment of the methane targets, ensure that those targets are credible, that they position ourselves competitively with the international market. We are absolutely resolute in ensuring that the composition of the committee and the individuals that undertake that review have integrity and have independence in regards to that. I welcome contributions in terms of individuals around that, and the member will be aware around that, and that goes for Opposition parties in this House.

We want to move from a conversation around targets rapidly, to the conversation which is: what is required in regard to decarbonisation? How do we remove emissions in the agricultural space and implement those interventions? That is the conversation that we need to be having, and that’s the aspect of priority. But we are committed to undertaking this review and doing that at pace and getting that completed as soon as we can, so, in effect, we can put that issue to bed.

The other aspect in regards to conversations around the renewable energy contribution in terms of the broader achievement of targets, I am working very closely with the Minister for Energy in regards to the implications of how the renewable programme will contribute to that. That will be a key element of emissions reduction plan two.

It is also fair to acknowledge that we will be making more announcements in regards to the broader programme of how we’re going to deliver those renewable energy projects soon. That is important because I think we would all acknowledge that we need to ensure that we do have significant renewable generation in order to—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Yeah, bring back the Spatial Planning Act.

Hon SIMON WATTS: —enable sectors—particularly transport and heavy industry—to decarbonise and electrify.

Hon Rachel Brooking: And the Natural and Built Environment Act that prioritised it, that you repealed.

Hon SIMON WATTS: —that is the best mechanism in which the—and I’m looking to forward to more contributions from the member that is providing commentary from the seat in the next call that may come.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to hear that this Government has acknowledged the climate crisis and is willing to do what is required. Around the motu, there are community and Māori organisations like Te Arawa Lakes Trust and the work they’ve done on their climate change strategy, and the South Dunedin network’s work on the South Dunedin Future programme who are—to misquote Annie Lennox—doing it for themselves.

So my question is to the Minister and asks: will the Minister expand that existing support—limited support—for those flax-roots resilience initiatives that are both there to reduce emissions and adapt to the climate impacts that we’re already feeling? Because we’re seeing the heat waves, the floods, the droughts, the railway bridge support washed out. The climate impacts that are hitting hard are also married with the local leadership we’re seeing stepping into the gap where Government is absent. That local leadership has been typically underfunded but, despite this, has initiated projects that carry great potential—a blueprint for local resilience around the motu.

So will the Minister of Climate Change encourage caucus to forward the underspend in the community energy fund—the $46 million community energy fund—and allow communities to build and own their own energy assets to keep the energy dollar in local circulation, communities like Raglan and the Community Energy Whāingaroa?

Will the Minister support flax-roots adaptation and resilience actions like Te Arawa Lakes Trust’s ambition to end energy poverty through deep retrofits, through solar and wind ownership, and geothermal assets? Will the Minister work with caucus colleagues to expand and enrich the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme in such a way like the Otago Home Upgrade Programme run by Aukaha, led by Aukaha, that was funded through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund; managed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; that both reduced household emissions and built community wellbeing, helped people who are hard up?

So will the Minister fast track support for the flax-roots climate champions like the Community Energy Network members, like Environment Hubs Aotearoa and the Zero Waste Network? I would love to hear plans and concrete responses to these actions that are already existing. Kia ora.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you to the member for those contributions. Be under no illusion that the coalition Government understands that we need to be prepared for a future that is impacted by climate change. Actually, for many communities around the motu, they are already experiencing the implications of climate change—and you’ve just noted some of the examples in that area.

The way in which, as a Government, we support those communities is one in which we need an overarching framework to deal with the complexities and challenges which are in place. Those complexities and challenges are not a one-size-fits-all; they differ depending on their area and the region of the country. But the points that the member has raised in regards to empowering local communities or local groups or NGOs to take a leadership role in regards to the delivery and implementation of initiatives which make a genuine impact to achieve the outcomes that are required by that community is very much a value and principle in regards to this Government. The empowerment of local communities to be able to get on and do what they see as the opportunity is a significant opportunity around that.

What is absent at the present time is a clear framework in regards to who does what, where are the mechanisms in order to ensure and enable that, and, actually, the broader conversation obviously comes back to funding as well—so who pays and the element around how that aspect is dealt with. I can only convey that the member’s aspects in terms of direction of travel, of how can we empower communities to achieve and deliver action to be prepared for climate change, is an aspect that this Government does share. We will be looking more at that, particularly around the adaptation conversation, as we progress later this year.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a couple more questions for the Minister of Climate Change in the time that we have left. One of the things that I’m very keen to hear from the Minister is: what advice, if any, has he asked for or received from his officials in regard to modelling what the emissions reductions will be from a doubling of renewable energy? Is that work that has been done? I ask that question because I have noted that the coalition Government hangs its hat—its ability to reach its climate targets—so heavily on that doubling of renewable energy. So I’d like to know whether the Minister has any ability to quantify what the effect in terms of our emissions reductions will actually be in regard to that.

I’m also interested to hear from the Minister in terms of the year under review—of course, the year under review that was set by Budget 2023, and there was a raft of funding in there for climate initiatives. In particular, I’m interested in the work that was there in terms of our heavy freight networks. The funding was there for decarbonising freight. What has happened to that funding? Will it be spent or has that been rolled back? In taking the Climate Emergency Response Fund back to centre to pay for tax cuts for landlords, whether or not that will be there and what hole will be left in our emissions budgets as a consequence of not doing that work around decarbonising freight.

I’m also very keen to hear from the Minister what has happened to the initiative that was funded under Budget 2023—not his Vote, and I’m very aware of that; that sits with a colleague of his—but whether he has had any advice from his officials in terms of the hydrogen initiative that was funded through Budget 2023, the contract for difference which would allow the burgeoning hydrogen industries in New Zealand to get off the ground, particularly with a focus on Southland and Taranaki. I haven’t heard anything from the Government, so I’d be keen to know from the Minister whether—that is another scheme that was put up to help our decarbonisation of communities and industries in Southland and Taranaki—that too has been sacrificed for tax cuts for landlords.

I’d also be keen to hear from the Minister to what extent he as Minister of Climate Change is involved in any cross-ministerial work around the need to reskill our workforce as we do go through this transition. What are we doing to make sure that our workers are equipped with the right skills to make sure that they can bear the fruits of a transition to a green economy?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I’m just conscious of time, so I want to let the members have an opportunity to speak. In regards to the hydrogen component specifically, there is inclusion within the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, aspects and commitments in regards to particularly progressing the hydrogen work in a broader sense, and that’s something that we are currently working our way through. I acknowledge that there is and was funding in place under the prior Government in regards to that, and we’re currently working through how that potentially flows through in regards to the commitments that we have in our coalition agreement, which is pretty clear in that space.

The focus in regards to renewables in terms of the aspects around reductions around that aspect is an area which is currently under review. There are a number of complexities that the member will be aware of in regards to the calculations of that. The key element for us is to actually ensure that we are progressing an acceleration of implementation of those renewable generation projects, and our primary focus in that space is around consenting Resource Management Act reform and the fast-track legislation. And we’ll have more inclusion and detail in regards to that in the emissions reduction plan two policy that we will be syndicating on.

A number of other questions in regards to heavy freight and other aspects, I’m happy to come back to the member in regards to that, just in the interests of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Chlöe Swarbrick—three minutes left in this debate.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just very quickly wanted to unpack some of the things that the Minister of Climate Change has been speaking about, both in the Chamber today but also in some media commentary—as well as the Prime Minister—particularly when it comes to the notion of the science, particularly behind our methane targets and those targets unto themselves, because I think this is a really important point and one where we seem to have quite a lot of confusion.

So we heard from the Minister just before, particularly around the methane targets—that the thing that he is focused on is the science that sits behind those targets. Here, once again, I want to bring the committee’s attention to the recent discussion document on the review of the 2050 emissions reduction target from the Climate Change Commission, page 48 of which makes it incredibly clear here—and I quote—“We have not analysed in detail what biogenic methane emissions would result under a no additional warming approach, because such a technical analysis would hide the more fundamental question: should Aotearoa New Zealand cause more global warming than implied by the current 2050 target?” That is the Climate Change Commission rather explicitly calling out—actually, explicitly—the National Party and ACT Party coalition agreement committing the Government to undertake a secondary review on methane with the “no additional warming” focus, in looking at that question.

The Minister will be aware of the commentary that the Greens have put into the public sphere on this. At first glance, and in best case, this looks like duplication of work that the Climate Change Commission is already doing, which seems to be completely contrary to all of the Government’s rhetoric when it comes to reducing waste and duplication. But then, at worst case, it could potentially be a smokescreen for delaying climate action or for rolling back those biogenic methane targets. We’re just looking for some clarity from the Minister here, because we have it in black and white from the Climate Change Commission that that “no additional warming” commitment, as is outlined in the National-ACT coalition agreement, would take us back in time to a place where we are worse off in our commitments than where we currently are, and which the Prime Minister has already recommitted to in that nine-point plan.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well, firstly, I absolutely refute the fact that this review is anything but a review of the targets to enable us to move to the conversation which we need to be discussing, which is the actions in order to implement reductions of emissions in the agricultural sector. That is the—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sorry, the time with the Minister of Climate Change has come to an end.

Health

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Minister of Health is now available for one hour from now to respond to members’ questions.

SAM UFFINDELL (Chairperson of the Health Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. We conducted our annual review into Health New Zealand, and we looked at everything Health New Zealand does, and we do note that it has expanded considerably with the 20 district health boards (DHBs) being disestablished. Health New Zealand now leads the day-to-day running of New Zealand’s publicly funded health system. It is the largest Crown entity in terms of staff numbers with almost 85,000 employees. We conducted an annual review over nine hours and 25 minutes, and I’d like to thank all those members in the Chamber, and thank Health New Zealand officials who participated in that process. It was a very valuable process for us.

Some of the things to note were that Health New Zealand reported a deficit of over a billion dollars, but it is noted that there were a couple of major issues for that. There was a substantial pay equity settlement for nursing and a $284 million write-down of COVID-19 inventory that was transferred to Health New Zealand. The Auditor-General did note some concerns around the control environment, financial information and supporting systems, and performance information, and recommended that a clear performance framework and performance story be generated. The primary concern for the Auditor-General was that there was no clear story about the performance of the health system in New Zealand and of Health New Zealand’s contribution to that, and no overarching framework linking inputs to outputs and outcomes. And, in the absence of such a framework, it was their opinion that it’s difficult to evaluate Health New Zealand’s performance and, more broadly, the overall health system’s performance.

But we did note some other key challenges, and I’ll take my time to address those. We noted the Auditor-General observed that Health New Zealand only achieved 34 out of its 87 service performance targets and a deterioration for most health system indicators. We note that emergency departments, elective surgery, patient inflow indicators, CT scans, and MRI scan wait times have increased during the year under review. We are concerned with these metrics going backwards, and we want them to be improving when we sit down in a year’s time to go through them.

We do note that health systems globally are struggling. This isn’t just unique to New Zealand. There is a big inflationary impact as well. There are concerns around the data and information, and Health New Zealand are very clear around the concerns here, especially with the disestablishment of the 20 DHBs and the formation coming all under Health New Zealand. There are 6,000 digital applications, creating an incredibly complex IT landscape, and a lack of standardisation, making it difficult to aggregate data. There are cyber-security concerns, but we want to acknowledge the improvements that Health New Zealand have made in this space after the Waikato DHB attack; there are now 169 permanent staff.

We have significant concerns in the workforce area. There are a number of gaps, and of particular concern were the mental health and emergency department gaps—very challenging situations there. We have nursing shortages, and there are acute shortages there, as well as GP shortages. Of concern is that two-thirds of GPs are going to be retiring in New Zealand over the next decade, and we expect Health New Zealand to be doing all it can to be ready to tackle those problems. Health New Zealand noted that recruiting international talent is absolutely crucial to making sure we address workforce shortages, and there was some commentary around the Nursing Council of New Zealand making sure that foreign accredited nurses are able to come in here and work in New Zealand.

That is very important, as is the importance of primary care and community. Community care plays a key role in bookending the hospital and specialist care system. There are still some significant pay parity issues to be dealt with, and significant concerns in the mental health and addiction services. There is a shortage of facilities available—these are more acute in certain areas—and we have a shortage of key workforce staff.

There are also issues around immunisation rates, which have been declining since 2017, exacerbated by COVID but are particularly harmful to Māori and Pasifika. There are a number of recommendations that we hope Health New Zealand will continue to work hard on in the year ahead. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I acknowledge my colleague from across the Chamber, and the chair of the Health Committee, Sam Uffindell, in guiding our newly formed 54th Parliament Health Committee through our first major undertaking as a committee, which is the annual review process. We had the opportunity to dive deep with officials into the very important matters that my colleague has outlined. I do want to reiterate my colleague’s point that we spent a lot of time on workforce, and I do recall one of the answers to questions about Health New Zealand performance raised by a committee member was that it is the workforce which is the major limit on the health system’s ability to meet its targets at present. So, in that light, I’d like to start with questions on the health workforce.

In particular, in the year under review, a workforce plan was created that identified areas of the workforce where there were shortages, quantified those shortages, and identified key strategies in order to address them. Our largest workforce group in the health sector is nurses, and we know that we have to increase the domestic training of nurses. In the year under review, a plan was made that could have increased the number of nurses in training placements in New Zealand by a thousand. My question to the Minister of Health is: what updates has he had on progress with the ability to increase our training placements for nurses so that we can increase our domestically trained nursing workforce?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, thank you, Mr Chair. Just in support of my colleague, my first line of questioning to the Minister of Health is also very similar, in the vein of workforce. The committee heard, with respect to Māori health outcomes, the plan to stick to Whakamaua, its principles, its pillars in Whakamaua, and how strong it was. One of the key pillars in there is, of course, the workforce, in particular the Māori workforce—both those who are seeking jobs in the health profession but also for those who continue to support the likes of Māori health providers in the administration of their particular services within their community, skills which are highly valued—and, of course, were recognised once again through COVID-19.

My question, simply, to the Minister is with respect to Whakamaua and the targets that it had on recruiting more Māori into the healthcare sector, and, secondly, supporting those who do wish to go on to tertiary studies to study the likes of nursing degrees or to become doctors and specialists and surgeons within the sector. And, finally, with that particular Whakamaua strategy, there was also the intention to make sure that we are able to grow administrators, Māori administrators, through health, and whether or not the Minister can give us a particular update on those. We note that some of the report back has been a little bit vague on Whakamaua, and I’m asking the Minister if he can shed a bit of light on those matters.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to thank the members for contributing to this debate, which is for the period of 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. This is the first year of the health reforms, which was completely in the hands of the previous Government, and so, substantively, this becomes a critique of that work. I will do my very best to use independent resources to address questions, and may well cluster various questions together to pass to my delegates so we don’t come and go from the podium.

First of all, to set a context, and a good context, for this debate is the report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Health Reform Implementation, which completed their work looking back over that year, and it does see the context for this discussion. Some of the things that they have raised is the ability for the health system—this is in the period under review—to continue to progress workforce development:

“The organisations should build on the progress they have made to date to address immediate workforce pressures and workforce sustainability.”—and I will come back to the member’s question more specifically about health workforce.

“Continue to build enabling foundations”: “Corporate systems are critical (and transformative) in enabling staff to do their job efficiently and effectively. The current HR systems infrastructure inherited by [Health New Zealand] consists of 200 … systems … and some [of those] systems are out of support and/or close to end of life.”

“Utilise the Joint Leadership Group (JLG)”: “The JLG does not currently routinely or systematically monitor progress of the reform. It should monitor a ruthlessly prioritised programme of work that is aligned to the Reform Roadmap, but also key prioritised collective action items.”

“Coordinate the approach to addressing social determinants”: “Socio-economic and rural issues contribute and compound existing inequities in health outcomes. A strong theme has come through from all three organisations (from system stewardship to local delivery) that there is a need to address social determinants and work proactively and systematically with wider government partners and other social sector organisations. Achieving coordinated and agreed national mandate”—I’ll summarise some of these now. “It could be beneficial to establish a coordinated organisational and system level approach”.

“Ensure the workforce understands what the transformation means for them and their role in it”—I think this is an important part of the health reforms in that first year and the goal towards success, and the independent Ministerial Advisory Committee is pointing it out here as one of the issues: “It is important for the frontline to understand not just the vision but how the reform impacts them and what opportunities the new arrangements bring for new ways of working … There needs to be ongoing focus on workforce communications”.

There are a number of things further in this independent report that was commissioned, and I want to acknowledge the chair and thank her for doing that.

The health workforce summary that came out in July 2023, at the end of the period in review here, had the following gap: 4,800 nurses; 1,050 midwives; 1,700 doctors, including GPs; 170 pharmacists; 120 stenographers; 200 anaesthetic technicians; 220 dental and oral therapists; 30 radiation therapists; and 30 clinical and cardiac physiologists.

Now, the question was around the health workforce plan and its implementation. This report and this plan—I believe it had 54 recommendations; I’d have to check that. But this plan came out July 2023, at the end of the period in review, and so all I can say to that is that a number of the recommendations that were proposed are being and have been implemented. I’ve already commented on the increasing number of general practice registrars, but certainly the health workforce plan, which is due for renewal, has been the template and is the template that I’m still currently working with. And over the period of this debate, I may well come up with further descriptions of exactly which parts of the plan are progressing and to what degree; it’ll just take me a moment to get some information on that.

I’d then like to move to the second question, which was of progress on Whakamaua, the Whakamaua: Māori Health Action Plan. To which I would say the same: at the end of the year, 37 of the 46 actions are on track with no issues. Of the remaining nine actions, four are completed, four are being monitored, and one is being rescoped. Quantitative indicators highlight continued inequities as well as improvements in some key areas, including a substantial increase in funding to kaupapa Māori providers. Overall, the ministry believes that the implementation of Whakamaua is on track. I hope this answers the member Peeni Henare’s question.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I thank the Minister of Health for that high-level answer. Of course, we are still waiting for the very important information on whether or not nursing placements have been increased so we can increase our domestic pipeline of nurses being trained here.

Sticking on nurses, we heard that, in the year under review, 1,900 additional nurses had been employed by Te Whatu Ora. But subsequent to that, in media reports, I’ve heard the chair of Te Whatu Ora say there are ongoing vacancies—particularly in mental health areas—for nursing. Can the Minister confirm that recruitment to nursing mental health vacancies is continuing, despite the hiring freeze at Te Whatu Ora?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I have questions to the Minister. Te Whatu Ora acknowledges the enduring inequities in health outcomes experienced by Māori, and these relate to systemic failure, health sector policies, and services and the way of operating that have not met Māori health needs.

Now, I have two initial questions for the Minister in terms of Te Whatu Ora and how they deliver Māori health outcomes. In particular, Te Whatu Ora is required, through te Pae Ora legislation, to enable Māori to exercise authority over Māori health in accordance with Māori philosophies, values, and practices. So my question for the Minister is: how did Te Whatu Ora enable Māori to exercise their authority over Māori health in accordance with Māori philosophies, values, and practices?

Then, further, my second question is in relation to Whānau Voice. Te Whatu Ora is required to be informed by the voice of whānau in the design and delivery of health services that reflect the needs of Māori and our aspirations. Now, in terms of local Whānau Voice, localities were that place in the last reporting period to hear that voice. But there were significant constraints placed upon Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards within the rohe who were unable to access locality funding to start the journey to establish and hear that very important whānau voice. So my question to the Minister is: why were those constraints placed upon Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards, and how did Te Whatu Ora hear the voice of our whānau at a local and regional level? Kia ora.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I can confirm that mental health nurses are continuing to be recruited under international recruitment plans, and that nursing placements are determined by tertiary institutes. If that doesn’t quite answer the question, just reframe it and I’ll come back to it again.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thanks to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Shane Reti, for that opportunity. The issue here is that one of the benefits of having Te Whatu Ora, our largest employer in the country, being able to flex its muscle when it comes to getting what it needs out of the education sector was the opportunity to turn around to the Tertiary Education Commission and local training organisations and to say, “This is what your community, your country needs.”, and we did that work in 2023.

We have an estimate of the number of nursing placements we need to grow our domestic workforce. There is a commitment in the workforce plan to have an increase of approximately 1,000 nursing placements around the country, and I’m surprised that that would’ve dropped off the radar of the Health New Zealand workforce plan, because this is a critical workforce. Having domestically trained nurses is an incredibly important issue for us, because of the nursing shortage but also because—and this is a second question for the Minister—there have been recent reports of challenges of absorbing further internationally qualified nurses into the sector.

So my second question for the Minister is: what is his view on those reports? There has been substantial international recruitment of nurses. Is his view that that is an avenue that needs to continue at its current volume, or should we be switching to a greater focus on domestic training?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. Those are very good questions. First of all, I’m on record as saying that I believe that what we should be doing, and the ambition we should have for our health workforce, is to grow our own homegrown, culturally competent doctors and nurses. I’ll know in a moment if those plans changed in any way over the period under review.

The question of internationally qualified nurses (IQNs) during the period of review: there was a slow ramp-up. Outside of that period, there has been a substantial change. We do need to have some caution here now around several areas: first of all, that the internationally qualified nurses that we bring in are qualified to actually meet some of the positions that we have. I can recall a news article a few weeks ago: I think it was an emergency department (ED) in Invercargill, saying they’ve had multiple internationally qualified nurses apply for an ED job but none of them were actually qualified to meet that requirement. It would also create a challenge if our internationally qualified nurses were to squeeze out our domestic supply in any way; surely, they must have preference.

So, certainly in the period of review, what was happening was the Green List, the pathway to residency, had just been turned on, I believe in the previous December, and that had shown an increase in internationally qualified nurses. And don’t get me wrong; I’m very grateful for them. We wouldn’t be able to do what we do without our IQNs or our international medical graduates. We have been very dependent on them, and we will continue to do so. It was after the period in review that there was a significant ramp-up, and the question the member is raising is actually a question between institutions—Health New Zealand and Immigration New Zealand—as to what a future path might look like. But certainly in the period of review, we were still ramping up IQNs after the pathway, the Green List to residency, had been created.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I had a couple of questions for the Minister of Health, and one was around the growing wait-list for first specialist assessments and how can he explain that. And secondly, around immunisation rates, is the Minister happy with the immunisation rates over the past financial year, or does he think there is room for improvement?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): When we were in the Health Committee, there was a great deal of interest in the mental health space around procurement and ensuring good clinical standards, open and transparent procurement processes, because we do know that there is a significant mental health challenge out there. There needs to be a response, but we need to make sure that the response is safe and that there is transparency around how money is allocated.

I did ask some questions of Te Whatu Ora about the Gumboot Friday contracts, and I was directed to the Ministry of Health. They couldn’t really shed any light on that contract. So my questions to the Minister, really, are: what procurement process took place? What are the clinical standards assurances of the Gumboot Friday programme? What monitoring and evaluation system is in place? And how can we know that there has been a competitive, open, and transparent procurement of Gumboot Friday so that other providers in the market feel assured, but also so that we can be sure of the clinical standards that are applied and that the people that are accessing these services do so in a safe way, are triaged appropriately, and are getting an adequate response to their mental health needs?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. To address that question, I will anticipate clustering a few of the themes and then I’ll pass them all in one to the appropriate delegated Associate Minister, who, to address that question, will look as to whether the period is in scope, what the Gumboot Friday initiative was, how that sat, if at all, in that period of scope, and then will answer your procurement and monitoring questions. I just want to say, I won’t specifically answer them, but I will pass them to my associate in due course.

I wanted to come back to Te Aka Whai Ora around the question she was asking around patient voice, particularly Māori voice in the system, and make a couple of comments. Te Aka Whai Ora transfer retains the functions to inform Māori priorities and voice. Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards (IMPBs) are evolving to provide whānau voice. The Māori workforce, Te Rau Ora, 726 have been supported by health workforce scholarships and placements, and there’s a number of other placements into midwifery, nursing, and allied health.

In the very general sense, what I would say to the member, to provide some context, I think, to the question she’s asking, is to look at how the recommendations from the inquiry into Te Aka Whai Ora have been addressed, because I think that answers some of the questions. That was the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee inquiry—the investigation they launched—and there were 31 recommendations that came from this. I think it would be onerous for me to go over it in detail. I’m happy to provide that to the member. But, in this report, it does talk about how there are a number of things that are being completed—that was raised in the report—around the processes that the Māori Health Authority was implementing. A number of them have been completed, with the response and recommendation—issues such as co-design; tripartite agreements; clear roadmaps; bringing together, engaging, and supporting IMPBs across the motu; building resource and capability, which talks to my colleague over here; engaging with Audit New Zealand; developing a comprehensive and robust year two implementation plan; early development and approval of clear commissioning; formal governance review.

There are 31 steps in here, which are a wider context to what the Māori Health Authority was addressing in this review period, subsequent to that inquiry. And I think a number of the answers to this, which I believe is publicly available, will answer some of the substantive questions the member is posing. But I’m happy to dive into more detail if she has more questions.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask a question about hospital doctors. We noted that there had been, as the House had discussed earlier in the day, a more modest increase in filling doctor vacancies—both specialist and resident medical officers—during the year under review.

We were informed by the deputy chief executive, Andrew Slater, that Te Whatu Ora was 1,700 doctors short, and a forecast 3,500 short in 10 years’ time. I’m aware that Te Whatu Ora currently has a hiring freeze in those vacant positions; not just newly created vacant positions but vacant positions that might be vacant because your colleague has retired are all being reviewed and potentially cut. So my question is: given that costs increase, as we’ve been told at the committee by the chief executive, when locums have to be used, have we sacrificed the long-term financial sustainability of Te Whatu Ora for short-term meeting this year’s Budget with the hiring freeze that’s under way?

Another question linked to these themes of workforce and costs—there are a number of pay equity claims that were settled during the year under review, but one that was not is the pay equity for care and support workers in the funded sector. My question to the Minister is: does there continue to be a contingency for settling that claim, or has that contingency been returned to the centre?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. To address that member’s questions, certainly, anything coming up in Budget time is Budget sensitive, and I have no intention of discussing that. I can reassure her that, as of today, the pay equity contingency remains. It is unchanged. I believe it was established about six weeks before the general election. I’d have to check that, but it was certainly established in the last year, and as we speak today, it remains.

I want to come back to my colleague, the chair of the select committee, who raised the question around planned care, and I’d refer him to the clinical performance metrics report, which is the last quarterly report at the end of the period in question, and the statement here from Health New Zealand is: “Nationally, there has been an increase in the number of patients waiting for more than four months for first specialist assessment.” So the very general trend that this would seem to suggest is that over this review period, first specialist assessments have increased.

For the surgical wait-list itself: again, this quarterly performance report, at the end of the period in question, says, “Overall, the number of patients waiting longer than four months for treatment has increased.” So that report at the end of this period shows increasing wait-lists. And if we look at one of the other measures which she didn’t ask about, which is also commonly placed together, it’s around emergency department times and particularly the shorter stay. In emergency department times, the quarterly report suggests a deteriorating performance for emergency department times: “Nationally, the proportion of ED stays under six hours has decreased.” So, generally, in planned care, this is for the quarter, but over the year, all the evidence would suggest that it’s been a struggle for any number of reasons, not the least of which it was the first year of health reforms. And so this massive, massive change—there was still a tail of COVID that was having an impact as well.

We’ve already talked about, in various other forums, the differing views around whether there’s a focus on targets or not a focus on targets. I think this combination of things, amongst other things, accounts for that challenging performance, which I would say is still challenging. I’ve said before, what was hard for them is actually going to be hard for us too. That’s a reality. And so we’re working our way through that. But to answer his question—and I’ll come back to immunisation in another call—but the evidence is, from those quarterly reports, that both our first specialist assessments, elective surgery, and shorter stays in emergency departments were deteriorating.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Oh, yes!

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, look at that, ae.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I know—it’s like such a bingo. First of all, I’d like to thank the Minister of Health and the chair of the Health Committee for the report. A couple of questions, and I’ll do them really quickly. The first one: in the regional health outcome data—and I think I’ve spoken to the Minister about this before; I’ve questioned in the House that, from Te Whatu Ora’s perspective, the regional health outcome data wasn’t really regularly updated, and therefore we weren’t able to monitor by region. I am aware that you’ve come into this position; I’d welcome an update if there’s some solution imminent in that particular space. On that, also, it would be good to know: what strategies have been adopted by Te Whatu Ora in implementing the increase for the Māori health workforce particularly, and how is that being monitored and how do you see that progressing?

Just a couple of things, and you have been commenting—again, I’m sort of flipping from what you’re saying today, but looking at the last couple of years, for example, in hospitals and communities, where the after-hours services are being challenged and CEOs are going back to Te Whatu Ora to look at solutions. With Kenepuru Hospital, Porirua and Kāpiti have got solutions; we’ve got local iwi and communities that would be happy to partner and take over some of those facilities. I wonder where the Minister is at with some of those local solutions that you’ve been referring to.

Finally, in the COVID space, which I would like to bring up, Rako—or Rako Science—were a firm that worked with the community. They were critical to actually making sure that there was elimination and lockdown wasn’t necessary. There was a lot to be learnt from that in the community space and I’d be interested in whether the Minister has had that case put to him—the partnership that went on in Taranaki—and if he sees that as something that could be analysed and looked at in going forward as well. Thank you.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll come back to the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer on regional health outcomes and the monitoring in a moment, but she’s raised the question of Kenepuru. An urgent report into after-hours care was commissioned just at the end of this period under scrutiny here tonight and I’m still waiting for that full report. But what I wanted to say to the member was that I did meet with the executive and some of the kaimahi from Ora Toa about three weeks ago and I listened to and understood some of the suggestions they were putting forward, which I’d have to say were encouraging. So, even though that is actually outside of the frame that we’re discussing here tonight, I did want to give her some reassurance that that urgent after-hours review is still to land on my desk in a substantive way, which will inform this discussion further, and that I have met with key stakeholders like Ora Toa—and, indeed, their hapū māmā facility was very invigorating. I’ll look to come back to her other questions in a moment.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, I’d like to invite the Minister back down to the deep South to hear in person about the infrastructure needs we have, because my question, really, is about infrastructure. It is really to ask: will the Minister honour National’s promise to a fully funded Dunedin Hospital and “deliver all the beds, operating theatres, and radiology services that Labour removed”, as the Minister has said, to provide the hospital and health services we so need in the deep South?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you. I’d like to add my voice to that and say to the Minister, although I dispute some of the assumptions from the member, when is the Minister going to appear in Dunedin? We’re very much looking forward to him understanding the Dunedin Hospital project so that it is delivered in a timely way. I know that some of us have been inviting him publicly, calling for him to come down. I do point out that the previous Minister, under the Labour Government, was down there in day two of the job, so I am really urging the Minister to let us know so that we can have a welcome party for him.

My second question, if I may, is around performance reporting. We heard from the Auditor-General that Te Whatu Ora doesn’t really have a cohesive narrative or story to tell. Now, I think that has been because we have never had a real baseline of data; it has been just lumps of data and bits and pieces of data—people measuring different things all over Aotearoa New Zealand. It is very difficult to tell a story.

That has changed with the introduction of the Health Status Report, which was delivered hot off the press to our committee. It makes for really stark reading, because it shows very clearly some of the health trends. I do know, for example, the graph that stood out to me sitting in the select committee was around diabetes in Counties Manukau and the huge graphs on that, the huge bars compared to the rest of New Zealand, which is a really simple visual way of understanding where targeting needs to go.

When I compare what is available through the outcomes targeting that this now avails through that Health Status Report and I compare that to the rather nonsensical targets that were issued by the Minister, actually—I think there’s about five of them, including waiting times in hospital emergency departments, which he’s just referred to; things that can be easily gamed, that are not time bound, that are not very measurable or comparable. Will the Minister now use this rich data, the health status report? Certainly, his officials seem to be very keen to use it as a baseline. Will he create some meaningful outcomes so that there is a clear narrative and so that people in different population groups and in different geographies around Aotearoa New Zealand will know what kind of health services are being delivered compared to their fellow New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll cover a couple of questions. To my colleague, regarding regional performance indicators—for Māori indicators, it’s been put to me that, yes, we ought to recollect and report that.

With a view to Dunedin Hospital, over the period in review, I believe the most substantial thing that happened around about December 2022, as I recall, was a reduction in scope, I want to say by about $200 million, including removal of, I think it was, the CT scanner, but it could be the MRI scanner. That was the most substantive thing over this period in review regarding Dunedin Hospital.

Third, one of the questions from the chair of the select committee was around immunisations. It’s been passed to me that the 24-month coverage dropped from 89.6 to 82.4 percent, or thereabouts, for eligible children during the period. It sits with those other indicators that we mentioned.

I can’t really accept the member’s claim around the health targets I’ve put forward, considering that nearly all of them—albeit I’ve tightened up one of them—were health indicators in her Government’s hands as well, so that’s not really going to wash. That’s not tenable.

Yes, the Health Status Report—I think this is an excellent report. I keep it as a baseline and a repository of information. It’s still relatively new, but I think if we wanted to look at how we compare across a range of things, are we having impact or not, I think this is kind of the newest and best dictionary and baseline to start with. So it’s certainly something that I’ll be looking to put initiatives against to see if we can make a difference and sort of triage which initiatives might have the most impact, where in all of this do we look to make a difference. But I agree; I think this is an excellent report.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Chair. During the hearing process, we frequently heard about cancer. So the question to the Minister—and I appreciate the answer that we’ve already had about first specialist assessments and emergency department wait times. But do you think targets are needed for faster cancer treatment, and what can be done to address these cancer times?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair, and to the Minister: again, I just wanted to drill a little bit deeper in terms of my questioning of Te Whatu Ora, in particular, considering they have obligations through the Pae Ora legislation to reduce Māori health inequalities.

I’m going back to Whānau Voice and localities during the reporting period. Te Whatu Ora did not fund locality establishment, despite Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards (IMPBs) and iwi putting their hands up, saying “We are ready to go.” There was no funding released during this reporting period. I, as a member of the Health Committee, posed these questions to Te Whatu Ora officials and did not get a clear answer. So I’m really keen to see whether you might know and have better insight as to why we couldn’t really get the lift-off that we needed in the locality space to really give oomph to the Whānau Voice.

I’m further wanting to examine governance in Te Whatu Ora space and considering finance capacity on Te Whatu Ora board. It’s understood that there has been a gap in terms of finance capability on the board and considering now the $105 million - odd in shortfall—thinking about that capacity gap—why did Te Whatu Ora board not appoint, earlier, a finance capacity, and have they gone through a process to get some of that finance expertise on the board?

Māori representation or Māori voice on Te Whatu Ora: it is understood that there is one member who is of Māori descent who also provides a clinical lens on Te Whatu Ora board alongside the outgoing chair of Te Aka Whai Ora. So if Te Whatu Ora is to become the authority and the beacon of hope for Māori health, what is the plan, in terms of capacity—knowing that Te Aka Whai Ora board was strong in relationships on the ground and rolling out IMPBs—what can we look forward to as te iwi Māori? Kia ora.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. Officials have informed me that localities were funded. I can have them determine exactly by how much. I can’t give you that answer here now, but I have been informed they were funded.

With regard to board changes, in the period of review, I believe there were board changes. In fact, I believe one of your whanaunga—Mataroria—actually came on to the board during this period in review. So why there wasn’t specific financial management brought on to the board—if that is your question—during this period, that was outside of my hands. I don’t know the answer to that, so I can’t address that. But I know there were definitely—I believe it was two or three, at least, board changes over this period of review.

I wanted to talk to the question my colleague raised around cancer management during the period. Cancer management required several things. It always requires a health workforce. As we’ve said already, that was a challenge in the period of review and remains a challenge here now. But the Health Workforce Plan did have endeavours as to how to change that. As I’ve said, as a template at the moment, that is a plan that I’m continuing.

There were two health indicators that were measured—at least two—that talked to cancer: the 31-day and the 62-day. So there was some direction, as we’ve said before. It just didn’t have the focus that, for want of a better word, I might want to bring to cancer. During that period, there was some progress on some of the infrastructure required for cancer management. I think, if I go back, it was 2018, maybe, Minister David Clark first announced linear accelerators (LINACs)—the cancer radiotherapy programme to develop them, I think it was 2018. Over this period, they continued to slowly make their way through the various define, design, deliver, and deploy sort of stages that the health infrastructure goes through. So there was progress on that. I can’t, off the top of my head, think—and I’m happy to have that corrected—of any LINACs that were actually delivered during that period. Some of them actually may well be in this next year or two, but that was another piece of work that was progressing in the cancer space.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for answering these questions. I have another sort of question around infrastructure, in particular. The Minister of Health has been at pains on several examples tonight to remind us that the period under review was a period that he doesn’t feel particularly responsible for. That brings to light, I think, one of the kind of caveats or one of the suppositions that we should make clear, and that is that the health reforms have afforded the Minister a very good opportunity to have a much leaner, meaner, efficient way of doing asset management and managing the capital estate.

So, with that in mind, and given that there’s about 1,200 buildings and there are 73 kind of live projects in various stages, has the Minister had any advice, or is the Minister making any plans to halt, rescope, or do anything differently, given the fact that we’ve got several examples around the country, where we’re a little bit nervous that things aren’t going according to plan? Can you give us a little bit of an update, please?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. To address that question: while I have rallied against centralisation in what, I believe, was one of the key themes of the health reforms, it is also true that there are some parts of centralisation that have been useful—for example, the ability to see infrastructure across the whole estate instead of having 20 individual district health boards doing their own thing. That, of course, is a good thing. A universal terminology. “This is the code you’re going to use for congestive heart failure. You don’t get to choose your own code. You don’t get to put a Z code on it. This is what we use.” That, of course, has been beneficial. So, yes, that has been useful.

Do I have any plans to change the frameworks around how we deliver infrastructure? Look, that’s in a period outside under review, but we continue to want to get maximum efficiency, yet understand that if we don’t give people the tools and the facilities to do the job they need to do, it’s going to be a struggle for me to get some of the targets that I want to get. That’s the reality. So take hope that, at this point in time, I’m progressing the infrastructure plan as it was; how I might tweak that is still to be determined.

Just doubling back again to member Hūhana’s question around localities: I’ve been suggested that $14.85 million this year is available for localities.

I did say that I’d pass the initial question from Ingrid—or member Leary—around mental health when I had the appropriate associate who could provide the domain expertise. If she wanted to pose that question again, I’m sure I’d be happy to pick it up and pass it forward.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister, and I acknowledge your answer. Can you be specific if any have been rescoped—any projects that are on that list are currently being rescoped or have been rescoped in the last few weeks or the last couple of months? I think there are genuine concerns, in an environment where we know that there are cuts and in an environment where we know that there are priorities—because there always have to be choices to be made, and we know that there are certain pressures there, but we are after a specific answer about whether any of those projects are currently being rescoped.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, a lot of projects, through their journey, are rescoped in various ways, both for time schedule and for cost. What the member is asking are questions that either may well be budget-centred or certainly way outside this period under review, and you ask what’s happened in the last few weeks, and the member knows this. But all I can say is that, as I said, the biggest scope review was to Dunedin Hospital in the period under review. But I accept that most projects will change over time, but I can’t give her the details—she’ll understand this.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister. He will know that over this period, North Shore Hospital was being expanded, with 150 new beds and eight surgical units. He has made comments about this particular piece of infrastructure, but he hasn’t provided the clarity on when that might be opened—so acknowledging that the build was in this particular review period. But I’d just ask the Minister: when does he expect those beds to be operational?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. The member is quite right: that’s well outside the period. But I do want to give him some sense of hope. It is my ambition for that facility to be functional in this calendar year, understanding that the opening was delayed. It was supposed to be in December, but due to delayed construction, it was pushed out, and so the whole schedule was pushed out. But it is my ambition for that facility to be opened both as soon as possible but most definitely in this calendar year, and I would hope that it’s in the second half of the calendar year.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d really thank the Minister for being able to get the Associate Minister to respond to the question, please, about Gumboot Friday—is that for now?

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Can you pose it again, please?

INGRID LEARY: Yes, sir. I made the point that, in the Health Committee, we’re really interested in open, transparent, competitive procurement, that there are assurances around clinical standards. Wanting to know more details about the procurement of Gumboot Friday, we asked Te Whatu Ora; they directed us to the Ministry of Health. I’ve done a series of written questions and Official Information Act requests, we were able to get very little openness back. So could we have the Associate Minister take the chair and answer, please. There’s a lot of providers wanting to know that they are on a level playing field, but also a lot of those who are using the services wanting to know that clinical standards are assured. And what is the monitoring evaluation process for Gumboot Friday? So that we know that people are being appropriately triaged and treated.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, it’s a real privilege to rise in the annual review debate, as the Minister for Mental Health—New Zealand’s first Minister for Mental Health. Can I put in my slight apologies for being late, I was just meeting, via Zoom, the Welsh Minister for Mental Health, Jayne Bryant. I’ve had the privilege to be able to talk to my counterparts around the world in the last few months since taking up this role. I think there are some real commonalities with other countries as they work towards better mental health in their respective countries. I want to acknowledge the member Ingrid Leary’s very important question around how we get more funding out of Wellington to the front line. When we look at the funded sector, we’re currently funded around $800 million a year to power up NGO and community groups. So my expectation with any commissioning of NGOs and community groups is that Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health would follow procurement rules.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you to the Minister for Mental Health for answering those questions. I’m not sure that I heard addressed the specific questions around what procurement process was used for Gumboot Friday in particular. It doesn’t sit with Te Whatu Ora; it did sit with the Ministry of Health. I have written Official Information Act requests. Was it a transparent process, and what is the monitoring evaluation system, and what clinical standards are involved in the provision of that care? I know we are all fans of Gumboot Friday, but there are many, many questions about how it came to be, and we need specific answers on those questions that none of my Official Information Act requests or written questions have secured any answers to. So if you could perhaps be more specific to that particular procurement, that would be really appreciated.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Well, I agree with the member Ingrid Leary that we are all fans of Gumboot Friday. What I would say is some Governments are more fans of Gumboot Friday than other Governments, and this Government has made a coalition agreement to fund Gumboot Friday, and, I would expect, when that decision is made, then the proper procurement approach would be taken.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to follow up with a question to the Minister off the back of my colleague Tracey McLellan’s questions around health infrastructure, and I just note your comments around potential changes to scope. My specific question—and just noting that Standing Orders have changed, which means we can delve into issues around strategic intent—is: is there an intent to honour the previous Government’s commitment to the $1.1 billion rebuild of Nelson Hospital?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I’d like to return to some of the issues relating to workforce, and, in particular, I note that many committee members shared a concern around the primary care workforce. During the year under review, funded GP trainee numbers were increased and there was an increase for their salaries as well, to make sure they were on parity with their hospital colleagues. My question to the Minister is: what other measures does he intend to take forward about the training of general practitioners to address the workforce shortage there? As my colleague mentioned, there is a high number of retirements anticipated there. My second question, also relating to primary care, particularly general practice, is on his intentions around pay parity for primary care nurses.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to return back to a previous question—the question was around increasing capability of the Māori Health Authority Board, and I said that it was my view or my belief that Mataroria Lyndon was one of those few people who had come in. That isn’t correct; he was actually a pre-existing board member. The new people, I’m informed, were Ben Dalton, Helmut Modlik, and Kim Ngarimu—all very good people. So I’m just correcting the record for that.

For what the member who has just taken her seat is describing, that is quite correct. During the period under review, it was announced that there would be increased funding for primary care—more specifically, that gap between primary care or General Practice Education Programme (GPEP) registrars and their specialist colleagues, for example, which was around about $10,000. That was reduced. Consequently, the impact of that was felt this year with the new GPEP registrars, of which there are several hundred who are out in the community as we speak, supporting general practice. This certainly was a good initiative of the previous Government in the period under review. I have other plans and ambitions for primary care and I recognise that it’s a very, very important place, not just in achieving the targets that I have ambitions for but, actually, in sustaining the whole health system, and I look forward, at a later date, to describing them in more detail.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a question about tobacco control, so may be directed to your associate. It’s in relation to the modelling, understanding that there could potentially be $500 million in revenue generated from the repeal of the smoke-free legislation, and taking a positive view in the way that the coalition Government might want to spend this revenue in social investment, from a public health approach—how we try to not be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff but pull it back and look for services that can prevent the uptake of smoking, knowing that so many New Zealanders do die. I’m keen to understand from the Minister what modelling was done to understand the repeal itself and cost-benefit, and, further, why the Minister won’t look to restrict or regulate the number of stores in New Zealand that sell both vapes and tobacco. Kia ora.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Further questions, thank you, to the Associate—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Oh, my apologies—I missed the fact the Minister was standing. The Hon Casey Costello will take the call.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, I’m more than happy to answer the question of the member that’s just taken her seat, Hūhana Lyndon. Although the question was largely out of scope in terms of what’s under review today, I can assure you that there is a huge amount of work that’s currently being talked about around how we reinvest the funding, which is, basically, continuing to support the programmes that have been so successful in reducing smoking numbers, but looking specifically at targeting to the most at-risk groups rather than a blanket approach.

I would challenge the comment that we are not looking to consider reducing the number of retailers. We are looking at an entire programme around the regulatory regime, and that is the advice at the next stage that we’re working on in terms of what we will be doing to ensure that both we meet the smoke-free target of 2025, which is a collective commitment from all of the coalition parties, but also that we ensure that what has been delivered—and I think that there is credit to be given in what was being achieved in the work programme, but we will continue to invest further and work on what has been working to ensure that both we meet the smoke-free target and that we reduce youth vaping and restrict that access to vaping by a range of initiatives that will be coming through this House in due course.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. A further question to the Associate Minister: what funding has gone to Gumboot Friday under this new Government, and where does that contract sit, and what further procurement is he anticipating that may result in funding to Gumboot Friday, and where will that contract sit?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): As the member alluded to, there was a commitment to fund Gumboot Friday in the coalition agreement, because what we believed is we wanted to get more money that was stuck in the beltway of Wellington out to the front line. And, also, we’ve made a commitment through the Mental Health Innovation Fund that will pair up and match funding with community groups and other NGOs, because we believe they know their communities best and they can respond to the needs of their community, especially in mental health and wellbeing.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to address the question around Nelson Hospital, it is in the business case. We can’t quite recall whether that happened in the period under review, but it kind of doesn’t matter. So it is in the business case. It’s been funded for that and for enabling works as well, and that continues.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s comments on health reforms, especially around questions about infrastructure, and it’s something that we’ve heard a lot about during the committee process. We heard about these health reforms. How does the Minister think the health reforms have gone, and what lessons have we learnt from any failures?

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is for the Associate Minister with responsibility for mental health. Given the current demands in the mental health space and the acute staff pressures there, I wanted to explore what his priorities and strategic intent were for the year ahead.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Look, thank you very much for the question. It’s a very important question about the priorities going forward. I take this as the annual review debate for 2022-23. During that year, I was the Opposition spokesperson for mental health, so I was aware of the issues within mental health. So I’m not surprised the Opposition members now who were in Government then don’t want to ask any questions about this respective year.

But, going forward, I think what we need to do is increase access to timely mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention support in New Zealand. Clearly, we’ve done very well as a country on breaking down the stigma and discrimination. As more people come forward for support, we need to make sure that timely support is available when they do come forward.

The second priority is that we need to grow the workforce. For successive years, we saw vacancy rates within our health services, specifically in mental health, grow, which led to the wait times growing for specialist mental health services over the last six years.

Finally, the third priority is that we need to shift to prevention and early intervention. We should always be promoting mental wellbeing to ensure we don’t wait for people to get into a time of distress and crisis before they reach out for help.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to. OK, the member is moving that we report progress, is what the member is moving—is he not? I’m sure I heard those words. Well, the member might want to move that we report progress.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That the committee report progress.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well done! The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriations (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 March.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, second reading—we, the Green Party, support this amendment bill. We support the iwi need to lead determination of governance arrangements and have mana whakahaere as the rangatiratanga guaranteed through the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, now 32 years old.

This bill has been through a lot of debate and a lot of discussion, many hui dialogues, including with iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana, and we feel that if there is any delay on the part of the Minister, then that should be a very brief delay, because let’s remember it has taken a long time to get to this point.

We’re happy to support the bill on the grounds that it does build on the settlement Act. It principally does so by amending the Act to improve the governance arrangements; change the entity’s governance arrangements to make them consistent with standard corporate governance practice; and it empowers rangatiratanga, encourages mandated iwi organisations to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd by removing intermediary decision-making bodies and, finally, to redistribute the shares of Te Ohu Kai Moana in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which, of course, owns 50 percent of the shares in Sealord. This will simplify the process for trading settlement quota assets within the pool of fisheries, settlement, and commercial entities.

I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. We need to remember, in the fisheries space, the voice of iwi is vital. One of the important things we acknowledged in the impact of loss of fisheries is the loss of a vital basis for the economy and the Māori economy, and so the settlement which ensured that it recognised the importance of fisheries to Māori. We absolutely support that principle. And any means by which we can improve the governance and the expression of rangatiratanga is a thing that we support. So we commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and inject some lifeblood into this debate. It’s at 9 p.m., this evening, and we’re talking about the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, second reading.

Hon Member: It’s a good bill.

DAN BIDOIS: It is a good bill, and it’s a bill that has taken some time to get here. It was actually carried over from the previous Parliament, and it’s now in the name of Shane Jones—Matua Shane, we call him. And—

Hon Tama Potaka: Matua Tararā.

DAN BIDOIS: Yes, Matua Tararā. The bill implements recommendations from a review that is periodically done, on a statutory 10-year basis. It’s my pleasure to rise and support this bill on behalf of the National Party. This bill aims to give iwi organisations and mandated organisations more authority over the assets and the organisations that control Māori fisheries allocations—in particular, two organisations I wish to speak about: Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. Those are the two entities that this bill focuses on, giving iwi more authority and control over, in this process.

We have had a select committee—this has been through select committee—and I’d like to commend the hard-working members of the previous Māori Affairs Committee, which, I believe, one Tama Potaka was a member of. The select committee did a thorough analysis and recommended a bunch of changes to this piece of legislation. Most of those changes are being taken forward, with respect to making sure that the governance arrangements for the appointment of board members is allocated appropriately, and making sure the shares are allocated in such a way as to protect the interests of and the shared representative interests of all the iwi involved.

Now, just to explain, Te Ohu Kaimoana, for those of you tuning in at home, performs a range of functions important to the fisheries sector. First, it provides advice. It, secondly, is guided by 58 mandated iwi organisations. And, thirdly, and I’d say probably most importantly, it protects iwi in customary fishing and commercial interests for these organisations. So it’s got an important role to play in the governance arrangement for protecting iwi interests with respect to fisheries. And so we ought to make sure that we’re modernising and updating governance arrangements to make sure that these entities are actually being run on a representative basis and also being run efficiently and in the best interests of all iwi interest groups involved.

What else I can raise from the select committee is there were some concerns that, actually, were raised in the select committee, and I just wish to point out for you the minority view that was put forward by the National Party at the time around amendments to clauses 37 and 25, which the National Party opposed because we think—well, I think that it’s quite clear in the select committee report that, essentially, we want to make sure that there is a clear process by which people are appointed to the boards of these companies. That’s why we opposed certain elements that were discussed in the select committee—clauses 37 and 25 in particular.

Otherwise, it’s, you know, just more broadly, in the second reading of this bill. This bill is a good bill. It updates the legislation. It modernises the governance arrangements for these entities. It gives iwi more control, and more control is mana motuhake. More control is tino rangatiratanga. And so I think it is on that basis that I commend this bill to the House this evening.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill this evening. Labour supports this bill, the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, because it ensures iwi have a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fisheries assets, improving benefits for all Māori, reducing costs, and improving efficiency. And I acknowledge the previous speaker, our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in this term, Dan Bidois, because, speaking about rangatiratanga, the importance of governance for Māori and iwi to play in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand is very important. Co-governance, of course, is one way we can achieve that. There is not one particular way, and so it’s good to hear the National Party open to those sorts of opportunities in the future governance arrangements of this country.

It wasn’t so long ago that this was before the Māori Affairs Committee—one year, if I look back rightly. It was debated at that particular time. I know there were some amendments that were proposed at that particular period, enabling representative Māori organisations to vote to appoint and remove Te Ohu Kai Moana directors, clarifying levy-making powers, and clarifying who can hold shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. But this is a good piece of legislation, and anything that improves the lives of Māori as greater contributors to our country, to our economy, and to fisheries is an important part of that. But, ultimately, the recognition of rangatiratanga for Māori within this country is a good thing. So I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A little bit faster next time, please.

RIMA NAKHLE: Ha, ha! Sorry. Using every single second! I rise to speak in support of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. We’re in the second reading stage right now, and I intend to take the whole 10 minutes.

But I’d like to reiterate because it’s been a while since we’ve continued the discussion of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to seek to amend the principal Act, which is the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. So, in essence, the amendments seek to ensure that iwi have more control over their fisheries assets, as well as meaningful involvement in important decision-making when it comes to their fisheries assets, and also that there is improved efficiency and a reduction of costs, leading to benefits for all Māori.

Now, there’s quite a history behind this bill, as touched upon by previous speakers. As we said, there’s the principal Act of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. That Act implemented a full and final settlement under the Treaty of Waitangi of all Māori claims to commercial fishing rights. What the Act also did was set out a governance framework to manage and administer settlement assets on behalf of and for the benefit of iwi and Māori. So this was formed by establishing several statutory entities for this purpose, including Te Ohu Kai Moana Trust, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to act as a corporate trustee in which iwi are shareholders; Te Putea Whakatupu Trustee Ltd to represent the urban Māori interests—shout-out to the urban marae, Papakura Marae and Manurewa Marae—and Te Wai Māori Trustee Ltd to advance Māori freshwater fisheries interests. I’ll get there, Minister.

So the principal Act also required an independent review, which was to be conducted by the 11th year after passing that Act—that principal Act. And this review was undertaken by an independent reviewer and completed in March 2015. The review recommended major changes to the governance structures of these settlement entities and simplified processes for trading assets.

So Te Ohu Kai Moana then further engaged with iwi in 2016 and 2017 in light of the 2015 review recommendations before iwi voted on a suite of resolutions, a number of which were passed at general meetings of Te Ohu Kai Moana shareholders. And this is what brings us to the here and now—that this amendment bill before the House, continuing, seeks to implement these resolutions voted on and passed by those iwi representatives.

Continuing on, for the benefit of my husband watching at home and our listeners, what will this amendment bill change? The changes are quite detailed, but I’ll try and summarise them as best I can. Firstly, it will give Māori direct control and governance over their fisheries assets by restructuring the governance framework. That’s the first major change that these amendments will create. Second, these amendments will make significant changes to the asset distribution and management of shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, converting them to ordinary shares. Now, of course, there’s more detail involved with that, but that’s just the basic principle of this second change. This shift will aim to align the control and beneficiaries of fisheries assets more closely with iwi. So the potential is that it will increase their economic benefits from these assets—very important as well. Thirdly, the bill simplifies the process of trading settlement quota assets within the pool of fisheries settlement commercial entities, thus reducing bureaucratic hurdles and making trading processes more efficient for our iwi. Fourthly, it will enhance the distribution of surplus funds. Fifth, the changes will make changes to the governance and capability building so that Te Putea Whakatupu Trust and Te Wai Māori Trust thereby potentially increase their effectiveness in managing resources and providing benefits for our Māori. Finally, the main change with these amendments to this bill is that it will introduce a framework for a compulsory levy model for Te Ohu Kai Moana to secure adequate funding for future financial stability.

Our beautiful Māori economy, it’s estimated at about $68.7 billion. It’s, again, beautifully staggering, and rightly so. The fisheries make up a huge portion of this. Māori own about 50 percent of the fishing quota. Our deep wish, our hope, and our aim is that this bill will boost our Māori fishing sector to grow the wider economy.

Speaking of fisheries, recently being part of the Māori Affairs Committee, we were very blessed to make a visit to Ōpōtiki. And during that visit with this great chair of the select committee here, Dan Bidois from Northcote, we visited Whakatōhea Mussels. Now, with the manaakitanga that our Māori always show, we were told that there was going to be a lunch. And I don’t really eat mussels, but that’s OK, there was a lot of other things. But the beauty of it was, one, always the generosity we’re met with, but, beyond that, the story behind Whakatōhea Mussels—that’s the real beauty. It’s a dream that was years in the making, but the dream was materialised in 2014 when the first 10 mussel lines were established. But, as I said, the dream began much longer before that.

This entity, Whakatōhea Mussels, it’s a result of, first and foremost, community funding from grandparents to their grandchildren, pooling in some of their savings, whether it be a few dollars here and there—the grandchildren, if you recall, Dan Bidois, us being told about that. This was done before they happened to acquire some Government funding where the Crown presently owns about 38 percent of the business as a result. But the overarching kaupapa, the underpinning kaupapa of this establishment, is the people of Whakatōhea—the people of Ōpōtiki. As the chief executive of Whakatōhea Mussels shared with us when we were having that very generous lunch and visit there, he said that the people are at the heart of the creation. That business employs hundreds of locals, it’s now the biggest mussel factory in New Zealand, and someone mentioned at that lovely visit that it’s perhaps the largest in the world, but I don’t know for sure. We need to look that up, but it’s definitely the largest in New Zealand and surrounding.

From a National Party perspective, we support this bill for many reasons, but including that we’d love to get our primary industries and our fishing sector back on track, and it’s all part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and get it working for all Kiwis. Furthermore, following from that, it’s only through a strong economy that we can solve the cost of living, we can lift incomes, we can improve public services, whether it be health, education, and more. And this is something that all of us deserve. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Just before I call the next speaker, just a reminder to all of the House that, as Speakers, we need you to call for your call. So we have a list of who we think may, but it’s really important that you call. And particularly on the second and third readings, if someone else calls and whoever is intending to  speak is still sitting, then the person who makes the call is likely to get the speech. So just letting you know for future occurrences. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise this evening as the Labour spokesperson for oceans and fisheries to take a call on this Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. This is a change that has been a long time coming. Initially it was started in early 2015, and I know that it has been more than one Minister that has been responsible for the passage of this bill up to the stage in the House this evening—I want to acknowledge the Hon Rachel Brooking, who is a former Minister, who had that particular distinction as well.

Since that time of around 2015, Māori involvement in aquaculture resources has been somewhat limited and constrained in some parts of the country. So this bill, in essence, is a significant improvement around that, at a time where access to resources—in particular, aquaculture and fisheries resources via the fisheries settlement—could be seen as, in some respects, a little bit curtailed.

I do want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee of the previous Parliament for the work that they have done in bringing this bill back to this House. It’s a bill, I think, that is in a position where it can be reported back with some agreement and there’s obviously been extensive involvement by iwi as part of this particular process.

When this bill was last before the House, it was disappointing to hear that the Minister was considering some changes. I think it will come as no surprise to the House that it’s likely that those changes will relate to clauses 37 and 25. But he none the less did give an undertaking to engage with stakeholders as part of that. So I’m sure that members on this side of the House will be interested to see how that progresses when we move through committee stage, so there is some solace in that.

This is a good piece of legislation as reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend it to the House.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Ka kōrero au i tēnei wā i te reo Māori noa iho.

Kāore ahau e pau tau wā, engari ko taku hiahia he kōrero e pā ana ki te horopaki o tēnei pire, Te Pire Whakatikatika Mahinga Ika Māori, kia whakatikatika ai te pire i te Māori Fisheries Act 2004.

Taua ture e whakatutuki i tētahi whakataunga whakatepenga, whakataunga whakamutunga i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi, o ngā kerēme katoa a te iwi Māori ki ngā tikanga mahi. Ka whakatakoto te ture i tētahi poutarāwaho whakahaerenga hei whakahaere i ngā rawa whakataunga mā hei painga hoki mō ngā iwi me te iwi Māori whānui.

Ka whakature ētahi rangapū ture huhua mō taua take rā. E ai te kōrero o ngā kaikōrero o mua, nā reira kāore au e takoto ngā mahi anō, ngā rangapū anō.

E hiahiatia hoki e te ture he arotake nā te hunga rāwaho i whakaotia rā i te Poutūterangi 2015. He whakahirahira ngā panonitanga e tūtohitia ki ngā hanganga whakahaerenga o ngā rōpū whakataunga, ā, i whakamāmātia hoki ngā hātepe mō te tauhokohoko rawa.

I wānanga tahi me ngā iwi mō ngā arotake tūtohutanga, ā, he huhua ngā whakataunga i whakaaetia e ngā iwi ki ngā hui whānui o ngā kaipupurihea o Ohu Kaimoana Trustees Ltd.

E whai ana te pire ki te whakatinana i aua whakataunga.

He maha ngā taipitopito i whakatakoto noa iho mā ngā kaikōrero o mua, nā reira he māmā taku kōrero, he poto taku kōrero hoki. Kaha taku tautoko o te pire nei. Ka whakaae au ki te Whare.

Tēnā koe.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will speak only in the Māori language at this time.

I won’t take up all of my time, but I would like to speak about the context of this bill, the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Māori Fisheries Act 2004.

That law implements a full and final settlement under the Treaty of Waitangi, addressing all claims by the Māori people relating to work practices. The law establishes an administrative framework to manage settlement assets for the benefit of the iwi and the wider Māori people.

It legislates various legal entities for that purpose. As previous speakers have covered those points, I won’t repeat the actions and groups.

The law also required a review by an independent party, which was completed in March 2015. The proposed changes to the governance structures are important, and the procedures for trading assets have been simplified.

Consultations were held with iwi regarding the review of the recommendations, and many of the resolutions were agreed upon by the iwi at the general meetings of the shareholders of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustees Ltd.

The bill seeks to implement those resolutions.

Many of the details have already been laid out by previous speakers, so my contribution will be simple and brief. I strongly support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you.]

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. Thank you for this opportunity. Can I commend the member Greg Fleming, who has just contributed his contribution. It’s never easy speaking in te reo Māori if it’s not your first language, and, in particular, while this bill is particular to Māori fishery interests, it is also very technical, and the ability to speak Māori and describe it as well as the member did—I want to congratulate him.

Mr Potaka, myself, and a handful of others in the room here will recall when the fisheries legislation was bulldozed through. In fact, some of the iwi weren’t very happy about the way the bill was originally pushed through into settlement and it caused some consternation, namely amongst mine and my colleague Hūhana Lyndon’s people of Ngāti Hine, also the whānau Rongomaiwahine down the coast about the recognition of rights and fisheries, whether it be ocean fisheries or freshwater fisheries.

Mr Potaka, myself, Hūhana Lyndon, and a handful of others from our time in university looked towards the fishery settlement as a particular kaupapa settlement that was groundbreaking for its time, which is why this review is really important. I note, too, in this particular bill, the need for another review again in the future. I think that’s important because from the original legislation, the time that’s lapsed has been far too great. The fisheries industry is an agile industry. It’s one that requires an agile sector to be able to have the kind of legislation and the frameworks to allow it to adapt to the changing nature of the fisheries industry.

We’ve heard good examples today of how a mussel farm has grown in Ōpōtiki and how there are all these other opportunities for aquaculture for New Zealand, in particular, but often for the likes of Māori fisheries, Te Ohu Kai Moana, the processes in place to be able to remain agile in that space are quite difficult. There are a lot of reasons for that, and some of them have already been canvassed. There are large iwi that have to have a contribution into the decision making of Te Ohu Kai Moana. This particular bill looks towards making sure that we can iron out some of those processes so that it is more agile, that it is more representative, and also that the distribution of funds from Te Ohu Kai Moana to iwi and, in particular, to Te Pūtea Whakatupu, for those Māori in the urban settings is recognised, it’s accountable, and also is distributed to specific kaupapa or to specific initiatives that will continue to enhance Māori fisheries into the future. So of course we support this bill.

The irony that the first legislation that went through—for those who don’t know, Shane Jones wasn’t a Minister at the time, but he was certainly a key architect in the initial legislation, and despite this work being completed in 2015, now we find Minister Jones again leading this particular bill. So we support this on this side of the House.

Te Ohu Kaimoana—a number of us in the House have gone to the tribal meetings as Te Ohu Kai Moana went around the country. I commend them for the work they did. They met with thousands and thousands of interested stakeholders and worked really hard to have a real, proper engagement with them, instead of a lecture like many of the meetings and consultation meetings that members of Parliament had been exposed to in the past. So Te Ohu Kai Moana have done a great job. It’s testament to their leadership from the board and their administrative team, the chief executive. They’re fantastic people and I wish them all the best in this next iteration of the legislation and can only warn and hope that the next review doesn’t take as long and will continue to make sure that the Māori fisheries sector can grow, can continue to be profitable, and can continue also to be sustainable into the future for Māori fishery interests across the country. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The history behind this bill and the reasons for it have been well articulated by my colleagues right across the House, and I share your sentiments. This bill represents a significant, necessary, and overdue restructure of the current governance framework. In many ways, it’s housekeeping, but that is not to underplay its significance. This bill, ultimately, serves the purpose of enabling iwi to have a greater degree of rangatiratanga, greater control and influence over their settlement entities and assets. These resolutions are the result of a statutory review of the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, which began in 2015 and which was presented to the Minister in 2016 and 2017. The progression of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill is a priority for iwi and Te Kāhui o Te Ohu Kai Moana. It gives effect to the series of resolutions passed by iwi to amend the 2004 Act and to a suite of changes recommended by Te Ohu Kai Moana following extensive iwi engagement. These resolutions will better achieve the purposes of this Act.

This bill will improve the entity’s operational efficiency and their ability to deliver benefits to all Māori. Iwi will have reduced business costs and increased capabilities to support their members. At the same time, Te Ohu Kai Moana’s trustee role will continue to be responsible for safeguarding the assets through the legislative change process after the proposals have been enacted.

I am delighted by the Rangitīkei connection. My friend and neighbour, and Ngāti Apa’s own, Pahia Turia became chair of the board in July last year, having first been appointed in 2019. He’s also served as deputy chair since 2021 and was the chair and director of Māori freshwater fisheries entity Te Wai Māori Trust. Pahia has been a voice in iwi governance for over 25 years, and throughout his whole entire life he held the paepae at the Whangaehu Marae, since he was just 14 years old. In fact, it was at the Whangaehu Marae where I first met Pahia, when I helped organise a parliamentary services network day for out-of-office staff and he hosted us at his marae, almost 20 years ago. A highly regarded kaupapa Māori advocate, Pahia is passionate about being true to the reciprocal principles that underpin Māori relationships with Tangaroa. In his words: “To me it is the greatest honour to lead and represent our people. I believe passionately in our duty to act in the best interests of Tangaroa. The 1992 Fisheries Settlement secured our rights and interests. However, it is our obligation and responsibilities to Tangaroa and to our mokopuna that must guide and inform our interactions. It is a role I accept with great pride, but also with a great sense of responsibility and accountability to our people.”

He also acknowledged that we have some real challenges ahead of us as tangata whenua and in Aotearoa generally in regard to our relationship with our moana. We’re going to need to take action on our intergenerational view and not shy away from having some hard conversations about our duties as kaitiaki moana. Indeed, there are challenges, but this bill brings hope through certainty, through a greater degree of control over settlement entities, and through operational efficiencies. This bill brings increased benefits to all Māori.

Māori are significant participants in New Zealand’s marine economy, with interests in wild fisheries, aquaculture, marine tourism, and non-market customary harvest, so they share political interests across multiple stakeholder spheres in the marine economy, including commercial, customary, recreational, and conservation. The New Zealand seafood industry had total export earnings of $2.1 billion in 2023. The Māori marine economy makes up about a third of our seafood industry by value. Māori own 50 percent of New Zealand’s fishing quota. The value of the Māori fisheries settlement has tripled since 1992.

For many iwi, their share of assets from the Māori fisheries settlement represented the first significant assets they received through the Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement process. Today, 45 percent of iwi have entered into joint-venture partnerships with other iwi and non-Māori fishing companies to fish their quota, 8 percent are fishing their own quota, 10 percent are processing their own fish, 10 percent are self-branding, and 8 percent are exporting—most of them under their own brand. In terms of aquaculture, around 13 percent of Māori entities have licences to marine farm, while 8 percent are actually doing it. There is significant potential to expand aquaculture.

Vitally, there are consumer markets who are willing to pay more for products produced according to Māori values. Most Māori fishing companies have kaitiakitanga at the core of governance and operations, and go above and beyond environmental regulatory requirements. Their kaupapa and business practices speak to this. I look forward to this being further emphasised to add value in marketing. Kaitiakitanga drives much of the innovation in the sector. There is huge opportunity to unlock potential and extract value by marketing to those willing to pay more for indigenous kai moana harvested and produced according to Māori values, worldview, and ethics.

I’m excited that this bill will revitalise a blue economy strategy and framework for Māori marine governance. It will provide certainty. It will encourage investment and development and provide jobs. It will even cut red tape. I know it’s not perfect, and I’ve received feedback from iwi in my electorate over two aspects in particular: concerns over the tax implications to iwi in the bill, and also concerns over changes to the powers to representative Māori organisations, which would ultimately reverse the decision made by 58 mandated iwi organisations of Aotearoa, unanimously agreed on by resolution in 2015. It was not anticipated by iwi or Te Ohu Kai Moana that the Māori Affairs Committee would propose an amendment that would go against the decisions made by iwi and passed by binding resolution. Nor is it clear how that amendment will support iwi tino rangatiratanga, which is an express purpose of the bill.

This was not a unanimous decision by the committee members. The tax implications to iwi in the current bill result from the transfer of settlement assets to iwi. The bill allows for the allocation and transfer of the remaining shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi, but there is strong support for an amendment which will free these transferred shares from any requirement to be held and applied for charitable purposes, as well as ensuring that the transfer of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd shares will not jeopardise Te Ohu Kai Moana’s ability to remain a registered charity. I look forward to this piece of legislation progressing to the committee of the whole House stage for further analysis and discussion.

Getting our primary industries back on track is part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and get it working for all New Zealanders. Our fishing industry has a significant role to play in this kaupapa. Māori are farmers and they are fishers. Their commitment to kaitiakitanga and their genuine sense of duty to act in the best interests of Tangaroa is something to celebrate. This bill delivers for all Māori. This bill gives iwi more control over their fisheries assets and more constructive involvement in important decision making. This bill allows Māori, finally, to just get on with it. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Māori Affairs Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 April.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of ACT on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. It’s getting late in the evening, but this is an important bill, and superannuation is an important topic. This bill seeks to make some changes to, really, the arrangements around the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and allow it to take a controlling interest when making investments.

Now, this fund was established in 2001, as I’m sure many members of the House know, and, at that time, actually, sovereign super funds taking a controlling interest was somewhat unusual and not best practice. However, times have moved on, and this change, we think, will allow the Superannuation Fund to make some more strategic investments and, hopefully, support our economy and also New Zealanders. The fund since its inception, has actually done amazing in doing returns—almost 10 percent since its inception, and if people—

Hon Tama Potaka: Wonderful work; wonderful place.

TODD STEPHENSON: Yes, thank you, Minister Potaka. If you are following the global superannuation returns, you would know that that’s a very good return over time, and so we should all be proud of that. In fact, the fund at the moment stands at around $73 billion.

This amendment bill was first considered in the last Parliament, the 53rd Parliament, by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, a committee that I now sit on, but that, in the last Parliament, my former colleague from ACT Damien Smith sat on, and that also was chaired by Ingrid Leary from the Labour Party. They have obviously returned a report, on behalf of that select committee, looking at some of the issues related to this bill and making sure that, actually, we were doing the right thing in allowing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund Guardians to take a controlling interest in investment entities.

I was heartened, actually, when the Minister made a speech in the second reading when she was introducing this bill. She did note that these investments need to be made on a commercial basis, and that really is very important from ACT’s perspective. We do not want this very substantial superannuation fund making investments that aren’t commercially sound and don’t continue to support the impressive returns that I talked about—some almost 10 percent over the course of the fund.

And I do note that the select committee, in doing their work diligently, did look at some of these issues, like the risk and benefits of removing this restriction on controlling interests. And they did note, however, that by removing the restriction it would actually allow the Superannuation Fund Guardians to use simpler ownership structures in making these investments and also take fuller opportunity of investments as they come up. So, really, a controlling interest means that the fund would be able to make a substantial investment and then actually control that entity which is delivering returns to the fund.

I also note some of their other concerns were just ensuring this kind of arm’s length—basically, weighing up the risks and benefits and making sure that the Guardians who actually are the ones making the investment decisions do continue to use a prudent approach to investments and aren’t doing anything risky. But it was felt that being able to change this restriction would actually be beneficial to the Guardians in that role of making prudent investments, and that they would continue to do that with diligence.

Finally, I would just like to say that Treasury, again, looked at this and has made some comments that they think there is a sound policy rationale for doing this. And, as I also said at the outset, I think that giving this flexibility to the Guardians when making investments also will allow them to open up new opportunities, which again can support our economy and this Government’s agenda of growing New Zealand and making some strategic investments—hopefully, in the area of infrastructure, since we all would probably recognise in this House that we have a serious infrastructure deficit. And I think if this fund can be used in a sensible way to support New Zealand’s infrastructure needs by making these kinds of strategic investments where they may have a controlling interest, I think that is a benefit to all.

So I would like to commend this bill to the House on behalf of ACT, and I look forward to hearing others’ contributions. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support—and it’s quite a mouthful, isn’t it, Todd?—the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. Look, clearly, so far, we have heard that there is cross-party support, and I hope that that will continue right throughout the debate. In fact, there is so much agreement, I think I might have to repeat at least one or two numbers and dates that my good colleague Todd Stephenson has just talked about.

The bill is about removing that current restriction that prevents the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation from taking a controlling stake in entities, although if you look at the history, there have actually been ways of their being able to work their way around that. In fact, right from the beginning, they were able to take controlling stakes in things like land, farms, and those sorts of things, and so this is kind of another step along the process, I think you might say.

There is, in the bill, the requirement that over time, we will look at the effectiveness of this bill so that we can see whether, in fact, it did enable the Guardians of the Superannuation Fund to make new investments, that it allowed them to do new things that they weren’t previously able to do, that they weren’t making investment decisions which were not in the best interests of the fund, and that they didn’t have undue pressure put upon them—and I’m going to come back to that as I speak.

The select committee recommended no amendments, and this one can’t have been too onerous, because there were only seven submitters. I’m not quite sure how many of them actually fronted up to the committee, but, obviously, it’s not too controversial an issue.

Why was the restriction there in the first place? Well, one of the reasons, of course, was that the fund started off as a small investment fund, and one of the key rules of investment is diversify, diversify, diversify, because if you’ve got all your investment, all your eggs, in one basket and something goes wrong, or you break those eggs, you’ve got a problem. So the key thing, the instruction to the fund when it started out in 2001, as we’ve already heard, was, “We don’t want you to do that. We want to make sure that the fund diversifies.”

So why remove it now? Well, the first one is that the fund has been around a while now. The first investment by the Government when it started was about $2.4 billion in 2003, and so we’re now 21 years on and the fund has become a lot more mature and it’s a lot bigger. It is now at scale. We’ve already heard that number—about $72 billion or $73 billion—that it’s worth at the moment. It is now a significant investor in the New Zealand market. Only a proportion of its investment, of course, is in New Zealand, but it’s at such scale that it starts becoming a restriction on the fund not to be able to invest and actually take controlling interests if that is the appropriate thing to do and if it thinks it is the right thing to do and—I do stress—if the guardians of the fund think it is the right thing to do; not if anyone else or any of us thinks it’s the right thing to do, but if they think it’s the right thing to do.

So the increasing maturity and scale of the fund is important. It is also coming into line a lot more with other sovereign wealth funds around the world that are also doing exactly the same kind of thing.

As I said, the fund has always been able to take a controlling interest in things like land and buildings, and in 2015, it had already moved somewhat by allowing the Guardians to create and control its sort of workaround fund investment vehicles. I want to sort of pivot a little bit there. In 2019, the Guardians of the Superannuation Fund were also given control of a venture capital fund which was established under the then Labour - New Zealand First Government, and I think that was a really, really important decision. The $300 million Elevate NZ Venture Fund was what it was called, and the aim there was to try and support emerging businesses—not right at the beginning, but emerging businesses. The idea was also to attract private investment, so that if you put in a dollar there, you’d get a dollar of private investment back. So it was a sort of matching approach.

But what I did note by looking at the information around that was that they also took that diversification approach there. They didn’t say that they were going to invest directly in emerging businesses, but they would invest in a portfolio venture capital fund—in fact, a range of portfolio capital funds—and so there was diversification on top of diversification. Clearly, the Guardians are being very, very careful about making sure that they diversify their investment portfolio and that they avoid having too many eggs in one basket.

What I hope that we can look at there is that the fund is also helping build new businesses which are building more employment, and that’s the kind of thing that we need in this country. It’s emerging businesses that become big businesses which can then employ more people and earn more revenue, because that’s what we need to do.

So what’s this change about? This change is about recognising, as I said, the scale and maturity of the Superannuation Fund, and it allows—we’ve already heard—investment in the likes of infrastructure projects or maybe venture capital opportunities.

Now, we’ve heard a little bit already about transport and infrastructure projects, but what’s really, really important is that we don’t tell them what to invest in. There can be directions made, but they are non-binding directions and the Act actually says they can be only non-binding directives. So that means that the Guardians of the Superannuation Fund can actually say, “Yeah, very nice, Minister, but no, not going to do that because we don’t think it’s in our best interest.”

Think about it: if you were going to invest in, let’s say it’s a new road or a new piece of infrastructure, as the guardians of the fund, you are going to want to know that you have pretty much a guarantee that you’re going to get a good return on that. So that means you’re going to have somebody sitting behind that, who says, “I’m going to pay you”—let’s say it’s a toll road—“I’m going to pay you a decent return” or “I can be sure, as the guardians of the super fund, I’m getting a good return because the good return is really, really important.”

Why is it important? Well, it’s important because this is what helps underpin our superannuation in the future. Actually, it was really interesting to look at some of the numbers. I was thinking, look, the Superannuation Fund would be the thing that would start paying out as the baby boomers are sort of—you know, we’ve got a lot of baby boomers who are drawing down on superannuation. But in actual fact, it can only start drawing down from 2035-36. It starts to rise up in the 2050s and, actually, it peaks—according to the current projections—in 2083.

Now, that means that if we still kept at a 65-year superannuation entitlement, a child who is six today will be starting drawing down at the time this hits its peak—the Superannuation Fund drawdown hits its peak. So this is a long, long far-sighted scheme.

Speaking of far-sighted, I just want to give credit to the late Sir Michael Cullen, because, of course, it was his idea and we used to call it—often still do—the Cullen fund. This is the kind of long-term strategic thinking that we need a lot more of. It doesn’t matter who it comes from, but we need a lot more of that long-term strategic thinking. I’ve got to say it was a bit of a shame, actually, that somebody else—a certain Prime Minister going back to the early 1980s—didn’t think to carry on a fund that was already in existence then, because then we’d have been a heck of a lot better off.

So the fund at the moment—look, think about the performance of the fund: established 2001; first Government contribution, $2.4 billion in September 2003; the Government has invested $26 billion to date; it’s worth $72 billion, $73 billion. So it’s $40 billion more than the cost of debt over that time, it’s $16 billion above the passive benchmarks, and it’s returned an average of 9.9 percent per annum. So you look at that—the other thing I would counsel, and I don’t know what decisions are being made, but pausing investment in this fund given the returns that it’s making clearly comes at a cost. It might be nice now, but it’s clearly got a long-term cost. So I think we should bear that in mind—pausing investment should be done only in absolutely extreme situations.

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is very important, and New Zealand First has always believed that and believed in building our economic capability, and we can’t do that if we don’t save and don’t invest. The reality is that, as a nation, we have under-saved, under-invested because we’ve had to keep on importing—can we always say, “We need to keep on importing more and more capital”? Yeah, we do. That’s because we don’t save; we don’t invest enough. Of course, what that means—just like you’re a lot better off if you don’t have a mortgage than if you have to pay out that mortgage month after month after month, that is what we are like as New Zealand. Because we are paying out that mortgage month after month after month, and if you look at our balance of payments deficit, a large part of that is the invisibles which go on debt and go on paying for equity that we’ve had to sell, effectively, as a country because we have not saved and invested enough.

Look, I want to finish with one more comment, because there is one little fly in the ointment that I see, and it was from the speaker just before Mr Todd Stephenson—that was Lawrence Xu-Nan—and it was this issue about trying to make sure that we do not in any way try to influence the way in which the Guardians invest in the fund. He said one of the things we’d like to see—a missed opportunity when it was going through select committee—is that we’re able to invest more towards productive investments as opposed to speculation investments. That sounds OK. But then he went on to talk about where the fund should be directed towards. If I can just say, I think that is a very, very dangerous thing. As I’ve said, the return on this fund is really, really important. The return is delivered by people who know what they’re doing, and they’ve demonstrated that; it is not delivered by us making political decisions about where investments should go.

The fund is a great concept, it’s well run, it’s a significant asset to “New Zealand Inc.”, and I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.