Thursday, 23 May 2024
Volume 775
Sitting date: 23 May 2024
THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2024
THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2024
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Speaker’s Observations
New Zealand Parliament—170th Anniversary of First Meeting
SPEAKER: Members, tomorrow—24 May 2024—marks the 170th anniversary of the first meeting of the New Zealand Parliament in Auckland on 24 May 1854. I’m sure members would wish to join me in noting the occasion and noting the continued importance of our democracy.
Visitors
Australia—New South Wales, Legislative Assembly
Dominic Perrottet, member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, and his accompanying delegation, who are in the gallery.
SPEAKER: I am sure members would wish to welcome the Hon
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the committee stage, immediately followed by the third reading, of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill, as well as the first reading of the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day, and on Thursday, the Minister of Finance will deliver Budget 2024—seven more sleeps to go.
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: Petitions of Christine McCarthy requesting that the House amend section 77(3) of the Corrections Act to increase every prisoner’s minimum entitlement for outgoing telephone calls.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2023 general election.
SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:
briefing on the 2022-23 performance, current operations, and strategic intentions of Immigration New Zealand, and on the
Education and Workforce Committee Scrutiny Plan for the 54th Parliament
report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Finance and Expenditure Committee Scrutiny Plan for the 54th Parliament
report of the Social Services and Community Committee on its Scrutiny Plan for the 54th Parliament.
SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:
Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction
Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, introduction
Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Urgent Debates Declined
New Zealand Green Building Council Report—Government Response
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Arena Williams seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s response to the New Zealand Green Building Council’s report Closing the gap: Hidden emissions and untapped potential of buildings to reduce the costs and deliver for carbon budgets. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a Minister has commented on a report indicating a possible future action. There must be such an element of urgency; the matter must take precedence over other business. In this instance, I’m not convinced that the threshold has been reached. The application is declined.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What update can he provide on the coalition Government’s commitment to Gumboot Friday?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The coalition Government announced yesterday that Budget 2024 will provide $24 million over four years, contracting the I Am Hope Foundation to provide under-25-year-olds with free counselling services through the Gumboot Friday initiative. This funding was a commitment made under the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement. Gumboot Friday helps youth with mental health needs—
Hon Member: What’s your procurement process?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and you, if you’d like—to have access to counselling services earlier. This funding will help Gumboot Friday give more than 15,000 young New Zealanders access to free mental health counselling services each year. This is a serious investment in the front-line service that has a proven record of delivering to the young people who need help the most.
Tanya Unkovich: Why is investing in this grassroots organisation so important for young New Zealanders?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This Government is focused on investing in our front-line services that will deliver real results. For every $1 invested in I Am Hope, it results in a social return to New Zealand of $5.70. This is a grassroots organisation that works and delivers results. I Am Hope has over 500 accredited counsellors and, with this funding, 300 more are on the way. This is a common-sense investment, and by providing better access to targeted, faster intervention now, youth will get the help they need sooner.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his decision to appoint Todd Stephenson MP as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How were Todd Stephenson’s conflicts of interest managed in respect to his shares in Johnson and Johnson, Chimeric Therapeutics, and Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—all being pharmaceutical companies that stand to benefit from Pharmac’s decision-making powers?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Appropriately and properly.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was Todd Stephenson involved in writing the letter of expectations to the board chair of Pharmac?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to that questioner, that answer does not belong with me; it belongs with the Minister in charge, and I’m happy to redirect it, because at a certain level of—
Hon Ginny Andersen: You are the Prime Minister.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon? No, with the greatest respect, the Prime Minister has Ministers to help him. That’s the difference on this side of the House: they’re not one-man bands that are having their captain’s choice taken off them, which happened yesterday with another political party. No, no, we don’t have a captain’s choice over here. We actually consult and we cooperate, and when a person like Mr Seymour is assigned a responsibility, we respect that.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If the Acting Prime Minister doesn’t know, then that’s all well and good and he should perhaps say so, but I’m not sure that’s the responsibility of someone else when the Prime Minister ultimately has full responsibility for all Ministers and their actions.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s true, but as I’ve said before, when you ask a question that’s as general as “Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?”, then it would be an impossibility for the Prime Minister to know absolutely everything. I’m also aware of how the process goes around the construction of letters of intent, and I think the Prime Minister’s answers today are perfectly acceptable in that regard.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it acceptable that the Minister’s main way of expressing his views to Pharmac were drafted in part by a person who holds shares in pharmaceutical companies?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The third answer given to that questioner covers the issue. I said that those issues were handled properly and appropriately.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it a conflict of interest for Todd Stephenson to be at meetings with Pharmac where details of drug funding will have been discussed while Mr Stephenson holds shares in pharmaceutical companies?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect, I don’t think the questioner understands the actual construction of Pharmac and the independence of that organisation. We’ve all made—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Do you? Why does your under-secretary go?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, with the greatest respect, I think I understand it far better than you—you’ve only been here five minutes. Ha, ha! No, look, this is not a full day’s work to just come and ask a whole lot of stupid questions in Parliament, to shout out, and then then go home and call it work. Some of us work seven days a week, and that sort of behaviour—[Interruption] No, Mr—from the North Shore, don’t wave out to me. Don’t wave out to me. My point is we all know how Pharmac operates, and its operation is independent. Our job is to find it the resources, and that’s what we’re doing.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he maintain the standards that New Zealanders expect of their Government and stand down Mr Stephenson from his role, or is he unwilling to challenge David Seymour’s exploitation of a loophole which allows a pharmaceutical industry plant to assist the Minister responsible for Pharmac?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I think there is a—
Hon Peeni Henare: Well, he’s not here for the arts! [Laughter]
SPEAKER: All right. OK, that’s enough—we’ll hear the answer in silence.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is an answer to that questioner, which is that we reject the premises on which the question is based. But let’s go further here. That questioner now made an allegation and without any evidence, any proof, in this House, and is defaming someone without any care for her responsibility.
Chlöe Swarbrick: You know a bit about that.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I do, and I’ve won a lot of cases—far more than you’ll ever win, right? I’ve won $7.5 million of cases, so I might know something about it. She’s defaming someone who’s got no chance to defend himself.
SPEAKER: I also just said we would hear the answer in silence, and two people were very, very rowdy during that time. Don’t do that again while we are required to be quiet.
Question No. 3—Immigration
3. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Associate Minister of Immigration: Is she committed to ensuring that disabled asylum seekers and refugees face no barriers to obtaining residency on the basis of their disability; if so, why are their residency applications tested against the “acceptable standards of health” requirements?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Immigration): New Zealand has made international commitments to refugees and protected persons that we are meeting. Those services are provided by a team of dedicated, amazing hard workers who support the refugee programme. Those who have successfully claimed asylum in New Zealand only need to provide a limited medical certificate in their residence applications. This certificate only assesses a small number of the most serious health conditions. Health requirements help us identify and manage the health needs of those refugees and their protection status and understands the support they need when settling in New Zealand as well as considering costs to the public health system. I am advised that between 16 April 2014 and 16 April 2024 only two residence applications for recognised refugee or protected persons were declined based on determinations that an applicant did not meet the acceptable health standards requirements. These applications in both cases were subsequently granted their residence by ministerial intervention.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Why, then, have a policy that creates barriers and hurdles for the proper resettling of asylum seekers and refugees when some of the events that they’re escaping create those serious health conditions that she just spoke about?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I refute the claim that this creates barriers. What it is actually doing is ensuring that those medical needs can be fully assessed and services provided to meet those needs. As I’ve said, there have been none in the last two years that have resulted in a barrier, and, in addition, there is a separate medical refugee quota category of 75 places per annum, which will accommodate those high needs that would not meet the criteria.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that at least 46 people have also been declined on medical grounds across the refugee quota programme and the refugee quota family reunification category, and, if so, does she think that is fair or justified?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As has been stated on numerous occasions, in this category we have to balance the needs of New Zealand’s health system and ensure that we are able to meet the needs of those people, and in some circumstances there will be considerations that will mean they don’t meet the criteria. That is not a barrier for disabled people; that is a barrier for health considerations.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think a refugee with renal issues should face delays to be able to properly resettle in Aotearoa after escaping genocide, and, if not, why is the acceptable standard-of-health policy applied to refugees seeking residency visas?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: All I can say, again, is that there is a limited health assessment applied to assess the needs of those who are entering the refugee programme. That assessment will stand and is an important part of the process.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she confirm, then, that people facing issues such as kidney failure could face delays for residency applications that could delay their proper resettlement in Aotearoa, or for conditions such as cancer?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Mr Speaker, it’s unclear whether he’s asking about the refugee programme or a migration programme, but, as I’ve stated—yet again—there is a process that needs to be followed to ensure that the medical needs of those who are in the programme are assessed.
Question No. 4—Transport
4. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on roadside drug testing?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): On Monday, I announced that our Government will introduce legislation this year to enable roadside drug testing as part of our commitment to improve road safety and restore law and order. Oral fluid testing is common overseas and it’s an easy way to screen for drugs at the roadside. Our approach will bring New Zealand in line with Australian legislation and will remove unnecessary barriers that have delayed the fight against drug-driving.
Grant McCallum: What advice has he seen on the impacts of drug-driving?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Alcohol and drugs are the number one contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand. In 2022 alone, alcohol and drugs were contributors to 200 fatal crashes on our roads. That is why our Government is introducing legislation to enable roadside drug testing, will set targets for police to undertake 50,000 oral fluid tests each year.
Grant McCallum: What reports has he seen on roadside drug testing in New Zealand?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have seen reports that despite legislation being passed in 2022 to enable roadside drug testing, roadside testing has not been rolled out as the legislation required the test to be suitable for evidentiary purposes and not just for a screening intent. The Police Association said this was “really disappointing” and the Automobile Association said that the failed roll-out was “another blow to road safety”. Our Government will pass workable legislation to target the highest contributing factors to fatal road crashes.
Grant McCallum: How will the Government’s legislation differ to roadside drug-testing legislation passed in 2022?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our roadside drug-testing regime will use oral fluid testing devices at the roadside, for screening purposes. If two oral fluid tests are positive, then an oral fluid sample will be tested in a laboratory for evidentiary purposes. This differs to the previous roadside drug-testing regime, which required tests at the roadside to be used for evidentiary purposes and resulted in police being unable to roll out roadside drug testing.
Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “our tax cuts will reduce inflationary pressures”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Only seven sleeps to go till the Budget, and, yes, as the member knows, I was paraphrasing an ANZ preview of the Budget that said, “We think that the net impact of tax and spending cuts are likely to be marginally contractionary on balance, in so far as households save a portion of their tax relief or spend a greater proportion on imports than the Government would have.” I agree with ANZ’s economists. I wouldn’t want to overstate the impact, but since tax relief will be fully paid for, it should, at the margin, take a bit of pressure off inflation, given that households may save some of their tax relief rather than spend it all.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Reserve Bank that “Interest rates may have to remain at a restrictive level for longer than anticipated in the February Monetary Policy Statement.”; if not, why not?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on behalf of the Minister, I agree with the Reserve Bank, which said in their Monetary Policy Statement, “Any impact of potential changes in the forthcoming Budget to Government spending or private spending due to tax cuts remains to be assessed.” It’s seven more days till the Budget. Not long to go.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Reserve Bank that the reduction in Government spending from her job cuts is less deflationary than expected; if not, why not?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister, the Reserve Bank made it very clear in their Monetary Policy Statement that the impact of the forthcoming Budget is yet to be seen because it hasn’t yet been released. So I just say to the members on the other side of the House: seven days to go—seven more sleeps. And I have great news for the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand that tax relief is coming in this year’s Budget.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister spoke in relation to Reserve Bank comments made in relation to the fact that they hadn’t included the Budget information as part of this Monetary Policy Statement. My question actually was in reference to fiscal policy that they have decided and to comments that the Reserve Bank conveyed about those past policy decisions the Government has made.
SPEAKER: Well, in so much as the Minister is able to answer, he might like to elucidate a bit on that answer.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on behalf of the Minister, as the Monetary Policy Statement has said, a number of the decisions that have been made in the Budget have not been assessed yet because, ultimately, the Budget hasn’t yet been released. And, in relation to the issues that have been, the ANZ has made it very clear that when it comes to tax relief, which is what the purpose of that question was, it’s likely to be contractionary.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware that the higher inflation expected by the Reserve Bank doesn’t even factor in her inflationary tax cuts?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I don’t know whether the member has read the Monetary Policy Statement. I’ll quote it again, on behalf of the Minister: “Any impact of potential changes in the forthcoming Budget to Government spending or private spending due to tax cuts remain to be assessed.” Only seven more sleeps to go.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Treasury advice that a revenue package that is fiscally neutral “may still have an inflationary impact given lower-income individuals are likely to have a higher marginal propensity to consume out of additional income”; if not, why not?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on behalf of the Minister, Treasury has been advising that their modelling suggests the impact of tax reductions on surplus spending is likely to modestly reduce pressure on interest rates due to the fact that not everybody will spend all of that money. Some of it may be saved. That is in line with exactly the statement I made at the beginning from the ANZ. But what I just want to point out to the House is that that party on the other side of the House hate tax cuts and will always vote against them.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why must New Zealand families pay higher interest rates for longer because of her bad decisions?
SPEAKER: I’d invite the member to re-ask the question and bring it into line with the Standing Orders.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why must New Zealand families pay higher interest rates for longer because of the information provided to the Reserve Bank, on which they have provided the Monetary Policy Statement?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s seven days to go—seven sleeps to go—until the Budget. But what I would just say to members on the other side: they will say and do anything to oppose tax relief for working New Zealanders. They cancelled the last tax relief in 2017 that was last legislated. They hate the idea of letting New Zealanders keep more of what they earn, and New Zealanders rejected that at the last election.
Question No. 6—Agriculture
6. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to reduce regulatory burden on the primary sector?
Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Today, the Government has introduced the first Resource Management Act amendment bill to the House, which will start to deliver on our commitment to reduce red tape and cost for farmers by changing national freshwater regulations. The bill proposes a range of changes that will reduce regulatory burden that have been holding back our rural sector and imposing unnecessary and significant on-farm compliance costs on to our world-leading farmers, whilst focusing on better environmental outcomes.
Suze Redmayne: What are some of the changes in the bill that will help farmers?
Hon TODD McCLAY: We’ve heard concerns from the farm gate and are making sensible changes to allow farmers to get on with the job. We’re proposing to remove the problematic and ineffective low-slope map, which imposes a significant cost for minimal environmental benefits, especially for low-stock farms. Regional councils and farmers are best to determine where stock need to be excluded, based upon risk. The focus is on farm-level and regionally suitable solutions, which will ultimately reduce cost for farmers and be better for the environment.
Suze Redmayne: How else will this bill reduce regulatory burden?
Hon TODD McCLAY: We’ll also be repealing ineffective intensive winter grazing regulations in time for the 2025 season. Effective non-regulatory measures are already in place to support the continued improvement of winter grazing practices, with sector groups confirming their continued and collective commitment to working alongside farmers and regional councils to ensure good outcomes. Where councils have already adopted their own rules, these will remain in place. We’ve also heard how Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations is being applied inconsistently, so we’ll be starting the process to rebalance the rights of all water users in respect of consent applications.
Suze Redmayne: Why is the Government making these changes?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, regulations need to be fit for purpose and not place unnecessary costs on our most productive sectors. By improving primary sector efficiency, we can boost our largest export sector and deliver for all New Zealanders. We want an efficient primary sector that works with Government for better environmental outcomes. There’s a lot more work to do, but these changes are an important first step in our commitment to get Wellington out of farming.
Question No. 7—Housing
7 Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “The Government has made a deliberate choice to reprioritise low value expenditure to more important policy priorities”; if so, does he consider the provision of transitional housing places “low value expenditure”?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, please, will you read that question very, very, carefully again, because it simply doesn’t make any sense. Read it.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: Just a minute. I do as I’m told—I’ll read it.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: I could read it slower for him if he wants.
SPEAKER: That’s very good of you to make the offer. These questions are considered by the Clerk’s Office when they’re lodged. I have just read it, and I think it’s pretty clear what he’s asking.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, could you please explain to me—
SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —this is a point of order—because with “if so, does he consider the provision of transitional housing places ‘low value expenditure’?”, how does that make any logic, grammar, and any other way, common sense as a question?
SPEAKER: Well, we shouldn’t get into a discussion about the grammatics of those things, but it seems to me that the statement is, “ ‘The Government has made a deliberate choice to reprioritise low value expenditure to more important policy priorities’; if so, does he consider the provision of transitional housing”—
Hon Member: Places.
SPEAKER: —to be low value places.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he didn’t say “be”. He says “places”.
SPEAKER: Oh, OK. You’re very clever—I got that “places” word—but I think we understand the question, so we’ll go ahead. I’m calling the Hon Tama Potaka.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: As the Minister said yesterday in this fine House, this Government, in Budget 2024, are about tough decisions. This Kāwanatanga will make deliberate choices to fund high-priority Kāwanatanga commitments. Transitional housing is one way which a warm, dry home is provided to people—Kiwis—in urgent housing need and will remain an option accordingly.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was Bill English’s review into Kāinga Ora paid for out of funding allocated to the provision of transitional housing?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, the review of Kāinga Ora was funded by a forecast underspend of transitional housing for the current financial year, and there is no impact by this decision to transfer an underspend of transitional housing on transitional housing numbers.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can he confirm that it costs between $6,000 and $8,000 for a transitional housing place for three months?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, it’s a little bit fuzzy math, and I’ll accept a written question on that matter.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why was he willing to sacrifice up to 83 transitional housing places to pay for Bill English’s review, when that funding could have come from any other allocation?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: We’re not going to get into the mathematics of transitioning places, but what we can say is that there was an underspend on transitional housing over the last year—unlike the serious overspend that the previous Government has made, leaving 3,000-plus kids in emergency housing and 25,000 households on the social housing register.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was Bill English, at any point, considered for the role of chair of Kāinga Ora?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I am unaware of that matter.
Question No. 8—Regional Development
8. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Regional Development: What update can he provide from his recent trip to the South Island?
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister for Regional Development): I did get stuck in the Clinton pub on Friday night—those electric cars that you have issued us are problematic in rural areas. But last week, I travelled across Canterbury, Otago, and Southland to see regional development and investment in action. Regional New Zealand is the backbone of our country, and through initiatives such as the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) and the climate resilience fund, we can see tangible benefits coming to fruition. I was hosted by Environment Canterbury and I visited Kānoa-funded climate and flood resilient sites. Flooding is the most common natural hazard in New Zealand. Events like the Auckland floods, Cyclone Gabrielle, and the Canterbury floods just show how extensive this damage can be. Government investments in stopbanks, such as Taradale stopbank in Napier, can avoid devastating damage to our local communities. Research shows that for every $1 invested in flood protection, it is estimated between $5 and $8 in direct losses is avoided. This is why core investment in resilient infrastructure such as flood protection projects are so important.
Jamie Arbuckle: How has regional investment supported local manufacturing and engineering?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: More good news: since 2018, through previous funds, such as the Provincial Growth Fund, central government has invested $174 million in 177 Otago-based projects, including $24 million into manufacturing and engineering sectors. Many of these had allowed businesses to purchase essential engineering equipment and facility improvements to boost capacity and productivity. One such investment is in the beating heart of South Dunedin, which is the Hillside railway workshops, which will open again very shortly. This project has received $20 million from the PGF and will provide heavy manufacturing and service capacity for KiwiRail. Re-establishing this mechanical hub and heavy-engineering facility will build greater national resilience and allow KiwiRail to service its trains and assemble wagons.
SPEAKER: Could I just say, some of the answers from the Minister are almost as long as the trip—just try and get it a little tighter.
Jamie Arbuckle: How has regional investment supported local innovation?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Innovation is a critical lever in developing our regions and identifying opportunities for economic growth. Supporting local innovators will continue to open opportunities for our regions and for our local communities to develop. I had the honour of opening the Inventor’s Lab in Dunedin, which is part of the Petridish innovation hub. Inventor’s Lab allows entrepreneurs and businesses to take an idea for a product, create a prototype, and test and trial the product for the future-stage commercialisation. We have supported a number of Dunedin projects, including the Centre of Digital Excellence, which is closely aligned to the Inventor’s Hub, enabling the gaming industry to grow to its aspirations of $1 billion. Mr Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that Abiotic Factor has risen to fifth place on the global gaming platform Steam over the weekend. So this is all out of Dunedin, all enabled by the PGF, and we look forward to similar innovations coming to fruition.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure about “delighted”, but I am interested in seeing it in the slideshow—it would be quite long. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister explain who was responsible for the revival of the Hillside workshops in Dunedin, as opposed to who took credit for it?
SPEAKER: Just before the Minister answers, I do recall a situation yesterday where the member asking the question—it took a point of order to make it clear that actions by previous Ministers couldn’t necessarily be brought up in a question to a Minister. That was contested by the Opposition; I agreed it could. So here is an example of exactly how that particular part of the Standing Orders can work, and something new for the member to take on to his vast extent of knowledge. The Hon Mark Patterson.
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand the genesis for the investment in the Hillside workshops was the Provincial Growth Fund, which was a key policy that the New Zealand First Party took into the 2017 election.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary question.
SPEAKER: The Hon—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Megan Woods.
SPEAKER: —Megan Woods—sorry.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did the Minister report back to his ministerial colleagues, following his intrepid southern journeys, that New Zealand exists beyond the Cook Strait, given so many of their recent decisions?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, I think, from my extensive answers, you can hear that the Government is focused very much, and certainly Kānoa and the regional development agency, on a number of projects in the South Island.
Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
9. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps has the Government taken to encourage greater competition through the introduction of the Customer and Product Data Bill?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I thank the member for the question. In short, the introduction of this bill allows for controlled and secure access to data, creating a pathway for greater competition in the banking and electricity sectors. This bill lays the foundation for open banking and open electricity which will make it easier for innovative start-ups to compete with established companies. Choice and competition are good things as they ultimately lead to lower prices.
Cameron Brewer: What are some examples of how this bill will benefit New Zealanders?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There are many innovative products that are available overseas which cannot operate in New Zealand without consumer data rights. A recent report highlighted that there are as many as 300 companies waiting to do business in New Zealand. One specific example I know of: Australian customers of major banks can get a new home mortgage online within 10 minutes; meanwhile, Kiwi customers of the same banks still have to go through that lengthy manual process to get a loan.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Given that the Minister’s Contracts of Insurance Bill picked up a Labour member’s bill and that this consumer data rights bill picked up Arena Williams’ member’s bill, are there any other Labour members’ bills the Minister is intending to pick up?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I think it’s a far cry to say that this bill picks up Arena Williams’ bill. I do acknowledge that this bill had its genesis under the previous Parliament, but I’ve got to say that the industry were just at pains to say to me, “Why the hell did it take so long to get this bill in the House?” They’re so happy that this coalition Government has done it within six months, and they couldn’t believe the previous Government.
Cameron Brewer: How does the Minister intend to make sure the transfer of data is safe and secure?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: It’s natural for people to be concerned about their personal data and how it’s shared, but Kiwis should be and can be assured that allowing access to your data is voluntary, and those using your data must be accredited. Any data can only be shared with the permission of the consumer, and failure to comply with these security measures will be subject to heavy penalties.
Cameron Brewer: What sectors will the Minister be introducing the framework to?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The bill will first apply to the banking sector, followed by the electricity sector. These are two areas right now where New Zealanders are hurting with high costs. In time, we will look to apply the bill to the telecommunications sector. New Zealand is lagging behind the rest of the world. There are significant opportunities for encouraging competition which will ultimately benefit all New Zealanders by lowering cost and creating more choice.
Question No. 10—Disability Issues
10. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Why have disability support funding criteria changed recently to now exclude the use of funding during school hours, and does she accept that many disabled people and children rely on flexible funding to be able to access critical support?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Multiple Government agencies have responsibilities for funding disability support, including the Ministry of Disabled People - Whaikaha, and the Ministry of Education through its learning supports. The recent changes to the purchasing guidelines reflected the Ministry of Disabled People’s view that the Ministry of Education is responsible for funding support during school hours. I sympathise with all children and families who may have different support due to the changes and I acknowledge that this may have caused distress. The independent review of disability support funding will be looking into how the whole-of-Government supports work together so that disabled people get the essential support they need.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the mum whose 11-year-old daughter diagnosed with autism and ADHD and chronic health challenges, who relies on a special one-to-one gymnastic therapy class to help improve her muscle tone and regulate her anxiety levels, will no longer be able to access support because of this new change?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I sympathise with the impact that any changes may have had. The primary question was about the use of funding during school hours, and our Government recognises the importance of school attendance, so much so that we have set a target to ensure children are attending school—this is all children, and an expectation that all children get the education they deserve.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the mum whose 12-year-old son attends Mockingbird, that helps autistic children cope with school and is offered only during school hours, who says—and I quote—“The only thing helping my child hold on is knowing he has Friday at Mockingbird where he can relax and be himself, and now this is being taken away from him.”?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I understand how challenging it is for parents. Having navigated the system as a parent of a child who needed additional support at school, I understand how challenging it is. But our Government is committed to ensuring that children are at school during school hours and that education provides a support and assistance while children are at school. It is unfortunate that important services like this are operating during school hours when we actually want children to be in school and get the support for their education at school.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister committed to continuing the transformation of the disability support sector in line with the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) approach, and, if so, how are these changes consistent with EGL principles?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, one of the principles in Enabling Good Lives is the concept of mainstream first. And to directly quote: “Disabled people are supported to access mainstream services before specialist disability services.” A review of the disability support services is under way, clearly because there were challenges in the ministry being able to live within its financial means. Additional support has been provided up to 30 June this year. Our commitment is to ensure that Disability Support Services is not a substitution for other Government services and that we are able to consistently and deliberately deliver the essential services that disabled people need.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Has the Minister sought confirmation from the education Minister that her Government will fund schools to cover the cost of these programmes now that they can no longer be claimed through disability support funding, and, if not, why not?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, there are different Government agencies that deliver services for disabled people. For disabled school children, the expectation is that they are at school. I’ve visited a number of schools who go so far above and beyond to ensure that the disabled children in their schools get the support they need. That’s exactly what we are committed to. I accept fully that it is incredibly challenging for some families.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister aware of a report by The Education Hub released recently that said there are a growing number of neurodivergent children at schools but that inadequate resourcing, lack of knowledge, and training about how best to support neurodivergent children is taking a substantial toll, and, if so, how can she then justify cutting what little support these children currently have to be able to cope with school?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I know it is incredibly challenging, and this growth in neurodiverse students in our schools is creating some challenges. If the member has specific questions that relate to education, I’d invite her to put those to the Minister of Education. My responsibility, and what the review will look at, is how to ensure that the Disability Support Services is sustainable; that it delivers for disabled children, people, their families, and their carers; but that it is not substituting funding that is available in other Government agencies that are providing disability support.
Question No. 11—Local Government
11. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Local Government: What is his response to the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding regarding his bill to reinstate binding polls on Māori wards that “the Crown has breached the Treaty principle of partnership by prioritising coalition agreement commitments and completely failing to consult with its Treaty partner or any other stakeholders”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The Government’s objective is to give communities the final decision about whether their district or region will have Māori wards rather than councillors. The Waitangi Tribunal report will be available for the select committee to consider alongside the bill. We look forward to viewing the select committee’s recommendations. This Government is restoring local democracy.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his response to the more than 50 mayors and regional council chairpersons who have criticised this legislation, stating that it is an overreach on local decision-making, a distraction from the real issues councils are facing, and undermines the important contributions that Māori are making?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I say to those mayors who wrote to this Government that they should focus on those core issues, and I also say to them: why should they be afraid of what the public have to say about Māori wards? What is wrong with local democracy? Ultimately, they come into my office and they write letters to me and say, “We believe in localism.” Well, the ultimate localism is giving local people the right to have their say through the ballot box.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: If this is really about restoring democracy and allowing voters to decide the make-up of their local councils, why are you only going after Māori wards but not rural wards?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I make this very clear point: when it comes to the rural wards, which seems to be the only argument that some people have against our policy, the Local Government Commission can take appeals on those wards. And, by the way, the Local Government Commission has the final say on those wards. What we’re saying when it comes to Māori wards is that the last Government took away the ability for any appeal rights, not even to the Local Government Commission, and we are giving the right to local communities to make that decision for their community.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder whether the Minister will explain to the questioner that all sorts of people, including Māori, live in the rural wards, but everybody who’s not a Māori does not live in a Māori ward?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is a very clear difference between Māori wards and rural wards—that all voters who reside within that geographical boundary are able to vote for the person or their councillor, whereas Māori wards are basing the decision on ethnicity. It is this Government’s view that those decisions should be made by local communities. And I say to people on the other side of the House: why are you so afraid of the public being able to have their say? It’s called democracy.
Question No. 12—Local Government
12. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) to the Minister of Local Government: Is he concerned that over 50 of the country’s mayors and regional council chairpeople have signed an open letter opposing mandatory referendums for Māori wards; if so, why is he introducing legislation that directly overrides local government?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): No, I am not concerned. The Government is committed to local democracy. We’re not removing the right to establish Māori wards. However, we want each community to decide whether they want one or not. This is a decision for local people in local communities to make their own decisions about local representation, and my message to those mayors is: what’s wrong with some localism—letting local communities make decisions for once? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just wait—it will come quiet shortly—OK.
Celia Wade-Brown: Does he consider it reasonable for councils who have already consulted and voted on Māori wards to have mandatory referendums when councils have stated that the costs of these referendums will be worn by ratepayers; if so, how does this reflect the Government’s supposed commitment to responsible spending?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government will be ensuring that councils can have those referendums at the same time as the next election for local councils. And so the voters will be able to vote for their mayor and their councillors at the same time as voting for whether or not they want to retain those mayors. And I say once again to members on the other side of the House: what’s wrong with some democracy? Because clearly they don’t believe in that on the other side of the House. [Interruption]
Celia Wade-Brown: How does he respond—
SPEAKER: Just hold up a bit it. OK, now it’s quiet.
Celia Wade-Brown: Thank you. How does he respond to Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazelhurst: “This should not be central government-led. Local councils and communities should be trusted to determine what the best representation for their”—[Interruption] Shall I start again, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: Yes, you can start again because questions are heard in silence.
Celia Wade-Brown: How does he respond to Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst: “This should not be central government-led. Local councils and communities should be trusted to determine what the best representation for their community is.”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I thank the former Her Worship for the patsy question. Ultimately, we trust local communities to make these decisions. We agree local communities, through the ballot box, should be able to make decisions. We are going to entrust local communities to be able to vote on whether or not they should retain—or not—Māori wards in their communities. What’s wrong with some democracy?
Celia Wade-Brown: How many other representation decisions will he require compulsory referendums for—for the number of councillors, for rural wards, for the boundaries, or is it only Māori wards?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member knows, what we’re doing here is we’re requiring those councils which put in place these wards without a referendum to have a referendum. Following that, if a council wishes to put in place a Māori ward, petitioners can petition for a referendum. But, ultimately, councils, when they’re setting up other wards—their checks and balances are in place with the Local Government Commission having those checks and balances. And I would encourage local councils, if there are issues that they also wish to put to referendum, put them to referendum.
Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that the advice he received on this bill from the Department of Internal Affairs stated that the polls proved to be an almost insurmountable barrier to establishing Māori wards, and, if so, is this a deliberate tactic to reduce Māori representation in local government?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Ultimately this is about local democracy, local communities making a decision on whether or not to have a ward based upon ethnicity. That is a major constitutional change for a council and, ultimately, on this side of the House, we’re of the view that communities should make those significant decisions rather than the council. And what’s wrong with a little bit of democracy? Those councils should be right behind this, actually supporting their communities being able to have their say.
Celia Wade-Brown: Does he believe that consulting with affected parties is crucial when developing legislation and, if so, why was this not done with local government representatives as indicated in the regulatory impact statement?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: There was a thing on 14 October called an election, and the parties on this side of the House went out and campaigned on this policy, and the public, all 5.5 million New Zealanders—or not all of them could have a vote—but all 5.5 million New Zealanders were able to be part of a national conversation. They’ll all be able to have their say one day. And, ultimately, they decided on 14 October to elect the Government. And what we’re doing is implementing the policy that we were elected to do and then giving local communities the ability to have their say.
Bills
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I move, That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 21 June 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
I’m pleased to be here today with this local electoral bill. This bill will contribute to further strengthening our local democracy by reintroducing polls on the establishment of Māori wards, requiring councils to hold a poll at the 2025 local elections if they did not hold a poll prior to establishing that ward, and making changes to the local electoral calendar to enable the 2025 local elections to be delivered.
In 2021, the previous Government removed the binding polls that councils had to hold if they received a valid petition to decide on whether Māori wards would be established in their constituencies. By doing so, they also silenced local voices who overwhelmingly voted against it when consulted. We opposed the bill because we support the idea that local people in their local communities should be the ones who make the decisions on how they wish to be represented.
This Government is committed to local democracy. We are not removing the right to establish Māori wards. However, we want each local community to decide whether they want one or not. That is a decision for local people and local communities to make about their local representation.
Under this bill, councils will once again be able to resolve to hold binding polls on Māori wards, and communities will be able to petition their local council to hold one if a council resolves that they don’t want to hold a binding one in the first place. Binding polls will be restored with the same policy settings as they were prior to 2021, including that a petition from 5 percent of electors on a council’s roll at the last local elections will require the council to hold a binding poll. Any person on the electoral roll for a council will be able to vote. A simple majority will bind a council to the outcome, and the outcome of the poll will be binding on a council for the next two local government elections.
The bill will also remove the requirement under the Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 for councils to consider Māori wards every six years during the representation reviews if they have not yet established Māori wards.
Since removing the binding poll mechanism in 2021, 45 councils have decided to establish a Māori ward without having a poll. That is 45 councils where local communities—electors—did not get a direct say on whether they wanted Māori wards or not. This bill gives those local authorities the choice between two options. The council can choose themselves to unmake the ward, or they can hold a binding poll at the upcoming 2025 local elections. These options will give the council the opportunity to avoid holding a poll if they consider that is the right choice for their community.
The result of these polls will take effect at the 2028 local elections. The exception to this is Tauranga City Council, which is holding their local elections on 20 July, which is less than two months away and before this bill will be passed. Tauranga City Council will instead be given the same options as other councils to either hold a poll before the 2028 elections or to disestablish the ward for the 2028 election.
We want Māori voices to be heard and represented. We also know Māori wards are not the only way to give Māori a voice in New Zealand. In fact, members may recall that the Kaikōura District Council unanimously voted no to establishing a Māori ward and instead decided to continue to work in partnership with mana whenua to investigate other options of greater inclusion and council decision-making.
The Local Government Act also requires local authorities to have processes in place for consulting with Māori in accordance with the principles of consultation under the Act. We expect, on this side of the House, that local councils will continue to engage with Māori as they have previously when it comes to the matters that affect them. We also respect the fact that voters will be able to have their say and in some communities they may well decide to keep the Māori wards. They may well keep them, and that is up to the voters in those local communities. Even prior to the 2021 change, councils had had binding polls, and those communities had voted to support those wards.
So I say to members on the other side of the House: what have they got to be afraid of with democracy? What have they got to be afraid of with democracy? Ultimately, it is the public having their say.
Every three years, we’re privileged enough to live in a democracy in New Zealand and to vote for a Government, and every three years, we’re privileged enough to be in a democracy and vote for local councils—for mayors and councillors and community board members—to represent us in our communities. But there are some decisions which, ultimately, we leave to voters to be able to make and to decide upon, and generally those decisions are constitutional decisions. Whether it’s a parliamentary term or whether it’s the type of voting system, we allow the voters of New Zealand to have their say on those matters, and it’s the same when it comes to local councils. When a council is deciding whether to make a significant constitutional change to put in place Māori wards, ultimately, they should be able to let the public have their say on what is a significant change in their local community.
I say again to the people on the other side of this House: what should they be afraid of when it comes to democracy in this country? This side of the House supports democracy. They clearly do not.
Lastly, the bill makes a couple of small changes to support participation in the 2025 local elections. As members know, all councils use postal voting for local elections and have done so since 1995. New Zealand Post provides almost all of these services for local elections and, as postal volumes have declined, it has become harder to deliver voting papers within the current six-day window that is currently required under the Act. New Zealand Post has informed the Government that it would take up to two weeks to complete nationwide delivery of voting papers for the 2025 local elections and beyond, and as this creates a risk that some voters will not have a reasonable opportunity to have their voices heard, I propose to adjust the statutory time frames for how long voting papers can be sent out in order to allow for that. But, ultimately, that does lead to the need to consider further changes around electoral reforms, which this Government will continue to engage in those conversations.
This bill will go to a select committee. People will be able to have their say as part of that process. The select committee, though, will be for a short period of time due to the fact that councils are currently legally required to resolve to adopt their proposals for representation reviews by 31 July 2024. Hence, a shorter select committee process will enable the bill to be reported back to the House by the middle of June so that all remaining stages can be completed, with the bill enacted by 31 July, providing councils with the certainty they require. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): This bill is nothing short of appalling. The speech made by the Minister was nothing short of disingenuous, and the entire rationale behind this bill is racially motivated. It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace—to stand up in this House and present this as being about democracy when the changes apply only to Māori wards and are not about any other aspect of it. Simeon Brown should be ashamed—be ashamed—for giving in to extreme elements for the sake of a cheap vote.
I predict that in 20 years, 30 years, Māori wards will be normal. They will be universally adopted and people will wonder what the argument was all about. Just like the homosexual law reform or marriage equality—and Simon Watts scoffs. He probably voted No. Maybe that’s why he’s scoffing. The point is that we look back. People might look back to their grandparents’ views at that time and they might look back with disgust, or they might be ashamed of the way that their grandparents voted on an issue, and in time you wonder what on earth the fuss was about. That is my challenge to these members today. In 20 years’ time or 30 years’ time, are you going to be proud of yourselves, because what you are doing today is you are voting to impose a stricter criteria on things that impact on Māori and Māori only.
The Minister’s defence of the Government’s position that rural wards are different because there is a provision to go to the Local Government Commission was pitiful—absolutely pitiful. If they wanted a level playing field, simply make Māori wards have the same provision, and then you’ve got what you say you’re after. But, no.
If there was a member’s bill in Parliament today proposing that what they are putting forward for Māori wards applied to rural wards or urban wards or any other form of wards—but especially rural wards—they would vote against it because they would argue that there’s a very good chance that the much higher-population urban areas in those districts would not vote in the rural people’s interests, and because rural people vote for them. But the same rationale that they would use to oppose this provision on rural wards, they are saying is a virtue for the sake of Māori wards.
That is why I say this is racially motivated—because their principles apply when it suits them. Their principles apply when there’s a chance they might be able to get 5 percent of the vote in order to form a Government. I think it’s disgraceful, and I’m not surprised that there are a couple of backbenchers looking down, because if I was on their side, I’d be looking down too. I would be ashamed because this isn’t anything to do with democracy. This is a politically expedient opportunity to kick Māori—to kick Māori while they’re down.
Local government finally got an opportunity to put forward the idea of Māori wards in exactly the same way that they would consider any other ward. That is all that the change did—exactly the same way—and the Government is changing this, knowing that some communities will vote these out and deprive Māori of a voice. Some communities that have never had a Māori councillor voted for Māori wards because they knew that it would benefit and add to their decision making.
Fifty-plus mayors have signed a letter to this Government saying, “Do not do this. This is an overreach.” The Government is ignoring them. It’s another example of this Government ignoring local government. An appalling Minister—no one likes him, because he never turns up, and when he does turn up, he lectures them just like he did then. It’s another example of this Government breaking promises.
They went right round the country—oh, Simon Watts has quietened down because he knows what I’m going to say. He went around the country and promised local government that if National were elected, they would help them pay for their water. What did those members do when they got elected? They broke that promise. That is why so many mayors went for them instead of water reform—because they promised them they would pay and they lied to them, and today they are ignoring them.
Shame on this Government for ignoring local communities that have made a decision for themselves and for putting extra burden on people because they are Māori. It’s a disgrace.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): E Tukituki ana te iwi Māori me ngā kaunihera puta noa i Aotearoa i ēnei mahi rāweke o te Kāwanatanga.
[The Māori people and the councils throughout New Zealand are clashing due to the tampering done by the Government.]
It is a dark day for local government when we see this overreach of the central government into local decision-making. The uptake of Māori wards across the country—some 45 councils—demonstrates grassroots tautoko for Māori wards, and I say bring it on. Bring it on, because Māori voice adds to the discussion and the decision making in our local communities.
I bring to this debate a Tai Tokerau perspective. As a hapū and iwi kaimahi, I worked alongside local communities, iwi Māori, and council allies to advocate for the adoption of Māori wards. I mihi to Nanaia Mahuta for her foresight and leadership—the enabler who paved the way for the adoption of Māori wards, and I quote Kelly Stratford in 2021, councillor of Far North District Council, who said the introduction of Māori wards is a step towards repairing broken Crown relationships and rebuilding iwi Māori trust in local government. Tēnā koe, Auntie Kelly.
Generations of Māori have had barriers to participation and representation in local government. We’ve got a deep mistrust for both central and local government. We have tried to seek representation as iwi Māori on the local government decision-making tables, mai rānō. Now it’s argued that councils haven’t been representing local community voices in their decision to take up Māori wards. But I argue in their representation reviews in 2021, they did. Taranaki Regional Council went out and said, “Have your say.” Far North District Council, in 2021, went out and polled the community. They received 499 submissions, of which 82 percent responded supporting the adopting of Māori wards within Far North District Council.
Now, on 4 May in 2021, we gathered in Far North District Council to watch the decision making of local government, and Waihoroi Shortland, the chair of Ngāti Hine, stood and said, “In the North, where this nation was born, we are going to set the example, not wait for Government to come down and tell us what to do, because we will have the courage to do it for ourselves. We will have the courage to work together as promised through Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Anaru Kira from Whangaroa stood and he spoke to Far North District Council, and he encouraged Māori wards would help bring the views and aspirations of whānau and hapū to the decision-making table.
So 45 councils have adopted Māori wards to date. We’re only starting the journey—give it a chance. There’s been a huge uptake. It is mainstream. It is mainstream to have Māori wards at the decision-making table. It’s a plus-plus for councils to have Māori wards. You get both skills and experience and you get the tirohanga Māori at the decision-making table. It’s like us having Māori seats in central government—why can’t we do it in local government? Let’s advocate for more. Let’s encourage hapū and iwi representation in standing committees. Let’s continue on the journey of Māori representation in local government.
Now, the Waitangi Tribunal has already reported that there is a clear breach in Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the decision made by this Government, and I’d like to remind us that removing Māori wards tramples on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and deprives us as iwi Māori to have a voice in local representation and decision making. Kia ora tātou.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT campaigned against Labour’s Māori wards regime, and voters put us in Government with the expectation that we will keep our promises. With the restoration of local referendums enshrined in our coalition agreement, we are keeping that promise.
The aforementioned group of activist mayors that are going against what the community want because they are afraid of the community which they represent having a say, in case they go against what they want, are on a highway to nothing. ACT says that all New Zealanders are alike in dignity, and this should be reflected in our institutions. With Māori wards legislation set to pass first reading, we’re celebrating a step towards a democracy that recognises our common humanity and does not treat you differently based on who your ancestors were.
This bill gives effect to the coalition Government’s commitment to restore the right to a local referendum on the establishment or ongoing use of Māori wards. The fact is that Māori have been doing a fantastic job at local government level at being elected: 13.5 percent of local government representatives are Māori. This is very close to the share of Māori in the general population, but it goes further. This Government, for many years, has been passing Treaty settlement bills, and this has been creating post-settlement entities which have got entrenched rights to be consulted within local government.
The change which the Government is bringing, with the strength of a democratic election behind it, sees Kiwis as individuals. In a democracy, we never say that the will of the people—as we heard tonight from the Green member in question time—is an insurmountable obstacle to democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Mr Speaker. We’ve already heard that this is about the coalition Government keeping the promises that it made quite clearly. Now, I understand the concerns that have been raised by the Opposition there, but I wanted to pick up two things that Kieran McAnulty said. The first of them is that it is exactly the same process to establish those Māori wards which were established for the 2022 local body elections as all the rest of the wards went through. Actually, no, it wasn’t, and I’m going to come back to that, because that did not go through the lengthy process of the representation review—that is the normal process.
The second thing is he also slighted the Minister and said nobody likes him and he doesn’t get out there. Well, I can report to you that Tom Rutherford and I were with him at an excellent meeting with all the mayors of the Bay of Plenty region, which went very well and was very much appreciated, and I’m sure that that is not an isolated incident. But what I can also say to you—above the noisy rabble on this side—is that my experience, as a local body mayor, of the previous Minister of Local Government the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was anything but positive. It was somebody who came in and said, “Look, where you can opt into three waters legislation—no, you’re going to be forced into it and then you’ve got no ability to opt out.” So maybe the Hon Kieran McAnulty should be a little bit careful, when he’s in glass houses, about throwing stones.
I think that I have been through more local government representation reviews, I suspect, than the rest of the House put together. I’ve done 10 terms, which is a lot of representation reviews. What you do is you go through an extensive process. They’re done six-yearly. There is an extensive process of looking at demographics and making sure that you get the numbers right—and I’m going to come back to those numbers and get those right. You have at least two rounds of engagement with the community—at least two rounds of engagement—and, as we’ve heard, there is a right of appeal to the Local Government Commission. Actually, I’m absolutely sure that I’ve done more appeals to the Local Government Commission probably than anybody else in this House as well—and successfully, too—to get the number of councillors down to a sensible level at Wellington City Council.
What we have with the introduction of these wards—and I am going to say that I understand absolutely the reason for the introduction of these Māori wards, because the reality is that virtually never will they survive a referendum. Very, very few of them will survive a referendum. The question I ask is: is it right for Māori to be able to determine the way in which Māori are represented? The second question: is it right for other people to say, “No, Māori shouldn’t be entitled to be represented the way they want to be represented.”? So I think there is a live question there which we need to hear from the people about, and we didn’t really get the chance to do that—
Hūhana Lyndon: It’s a rushed piece of legislation that undermines the ability for Māori to determine representation.
ANDY FOSTER: —with Labour’s legislation, because it was, essentially, fast-track legislation. If you were listening, you’d actually hear that I’m not so far away from your position, because I was the Mayor of Wellington when we actually introduced a Māori ward, and, actually, I was proud to be part of doing that.
There was one problem, and it comes down to that representation and those numbers. There is a requirement in all other wards to be plus or minus 10 percent population. There are some times when you’re able to be given an exemption by the Local Government Commission. That requirement is not there for Māori wards. Democracy has a couple of fundamental things: one person, one vote—I think we all agree on that—but the other one is that each vote should be roughly equivalent in value, and that’s what the plus and minus 10 percent is all about. But if you have the situation where you only require a ward to have a little over 50 percent of the population of another ward, that means that those votes, effectively, count for twice as much, and that is a problem. As we walk through this process, I would encourage people to think about that and whether that is actually fair.
You’ll remember the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill. Now, that was resolved by the Rotorua council in May 2021, and it became a very hot topic. Why? Because it set up a general ward and it set up two other wards: one ward was to be a Māori ward, electing three councillors; the other a general ward, electing three councillors. The problem was that the population in the general ward was about three times the size, if I remember correctly, of the population of the Māori ward. That was disproportionate, that was unfair, and that was undemocratic.
So whatever we do in this process as we go through—and I look forward to hearing the submissions as we make sure that we end up with a process that is genuinely fair and democratic to all voters, whether they are Māori or not Māori. I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to the submissions. I will do so with a very open mind, and I hope you will also do so. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. The removal of Māori wards is another targeted attack on Māori for being Māori. We are being forcibly removed from the decision-making table that we built in the first place and invited Pākehā to sit at in 1840. This is an attempt to silence tangata whenua, whose demise is what founds and continues to fuel this illegitimate Parliament machine and its extensions in local councils. One hundred and eighty-four years, and this Government still thinks we must prove our right to exercise power in Aotearoa, where it is the Government that should be proving its right to exercise its power over us. Yet, perversely, because we’ve been made a minority on our own whenua, we are fighting now for crumbs of what we actually have a right to: full and undisturbed sovereignty.
Furthermore, this Government and the races it represents blindly ignore the truly undemocratic historical actions imposed by this Pākehā Government over tangata whenua: stealing our land, wrongfully seizing political power, cleansing our identity, our knowledge, and creating violent laws that demote us to second-class citizens. The removal of Māori wards is simply a continuation of imperial abuse on tangata whenua. The argument is that Māori wards will be the demise of democracy. To remove Māori wards is an assault on Te Tiriti, the only reason a democracy inclusive of Pākehā could ever exist. Te Tiriti was created so the Queen of England could control her unruly Pākehā in Aotearoa, and I support the recent letter of our whanaunga Margaret Mutu for the British Crown to rein in these unruly Pākehā sitting across from me now.
Disestablishing Māori wards further undermines councils’ autonomy in their rohe. This rings true for the Far North District Council of Te Tai Tokerau. The rohe alone covers 6,000 square kilometres, a whenua home to a population which makes up 46 percent. The establishment of Māori wards in the Far North gave the 13 iwi entities, the 252 hapū, and 100-plus Māori social services, reo, and local trust organisations greater confidence in their local government—a confidence resulting from Māori representation. Yet, to assume that this percentage of Māori would also front and vote in an election is blatant ignorance. This law merely feeds the latent mistrust of my people in the system. You see, my people are not disengaged from Government; they are disenchanted. We are less likely to vote if incomes do not meet daily needs, a reality for many of our own in Te Tai Tokerau, and if we do not see ourselves reflected in or as having a true influence over decision making. This is why Māori wards matter.
The Far North emanates this very sentiment with the establishment of Māori wards. Even those Māori in the most remote areas of Te Tai Tokerau—Pānguru and Mitimiti—are now engaging with council, according to my relation on the ground Hilda Halkyard-Harawira. Removing Māori wards ultimately removes any care for people who reside in remote areas, including Pānguru and Mitimiti. It devalues our people. Māori wards bridge the gap between our communities and makers of law. They offer councils expertise in what remains unreachable to them given their abuse and ignorance of us. Māori ward councillors engage directly with our communities because we know the suffering of our people, the necessity of resource, but also the intelligence, the resilience, and the ingenuity of tangata Māori.
All four Māori ward candidates for the Far North District Council are fluent in the reo of this whenua and the reo of this colonial empire. They are experts of two opposing worlds, fluent in not only the languages but cultures themselves, and we can trust in our people as we are the sovereign of our own liberation of our own minds, as revolutionaries. We do not nurture the colonial dreams of Pākehā. It is this Pākehā desire that has endeavoured to silence our Māori voices from central government, local government, regional councils, from any space in fact that our revolutionary minds could touch. So I absolutely object and do not commend this to the House and plead that any sensible people do the same. Kia ora tātou.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): This bill should be neither a surprise nor a threat. I just want to pick up on those two points. Firstly, it’s not a surprise. All three Government parties campaigned on this, leading up to the last election, and were voted in accordingly—in quite a contrast, perhaps, to 2021, where we saw the first changes to representation and Māori wards not campaigned on at all in 2020.
This is the fundamental tenet of democracy: that we tell people what we’re going to do, they vote for us, and now we’re doing it. You’ve seen that from this Government over successive months and with successive bills, and this is another step in that direction. In fact, it is a return to where it used to be for Māori wards, not something new. This is just another example of our Government fixing more mistakes from the last Government, fixing this attitude that Wellington knows best—“We couldn’t possibly trust our local communities to make these decisions for themselves!” That’s why this is not a threat; it is giving the local community their chance to choose how they are represented.
In my electorate of Ōtaki, in both the Horowhenua and Kāpiti councils, Māori councillors fill general ward seats at a higher rate than the general population. They are already represented. Moving them from a general seat to a Māori ward doesn’t change their impact around the council table.
Now, to me, it doesn’t matter how they do it. The local community should be able to choose. The fundamental point is that this is about democracy. It’s about letting the community stay in the driving seat. This actually isn’t about Māori wards and someone trying to diminish Māori having their say or Pākehā having their say; this is about letting the community decide how they will be represented. In our community, they already are represented. But across the country, let’s let Kiwis decide. Let’s let the decisions be made at the lowest possible level. Let’s restore democracy. I commend this bill to the House.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā tēnā rawa atu tātou katoa. Aue te moumou taima me te moumou moni o tēnei pire.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker. And greetings also to everyone present. Heck! What a waste of time and a waste of money this bill is.]
I cannot believe that in this day and age we’re standing up to debate this topic. While I am extremely proud to come from a district who has gone through the correct process to establish Māori wards, Te Tairāwhiti—so I guess that means Rehette, if you’re watching, you are an “activist mayor”.
Kua kōrerotia e rātou mō tēnei mea te democracy. [They spoke about democracy.] It’s very hard to be inspired by that word “democracy”, when we are in fact the minority in our own country as Māori. There has also been kōrero about The Voice. Actually, I want to go back to the other one. There’s been kōrero about keeping promises. If promises were kept, we would not have needed to establish Māori wards. Yes, I am talking about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. While we’re talking about that, and we want to talk about partnerships and voice, it seems that the Government is happy that we are partners, that our level of participation is to bless chambers but not to have a seat or a voice in them.
Hūhana Lyndon: “Kia ora mō te karakia.”
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: So—ha, ha! Yeah, kia ora mō te karanga me te karakia. Haere ki waho ināianei. [Thank you for the call and the prayer. Go outside now.]
We’ve also talked about the vote, the general vote, and absolutely there are Māori sitting in general seats around, obviously, in here, but around councils all around our country, and there will continue to be. That shouldn’t be a surprise. There are highly educated, intelligent, capable Māori in every industry in this country. However, what we also have is some Māori purely want to be the Māori voice voted for by the Māori people, and that has been supported by many councils. We’re talking about respecting local voices? We are disrespecting the people, the councils, the mayors, the chairs who have already written in to say, “We’ve been through that process.” [Interruption] Yeah. Kua ea, kua ea. [It is satisfied, it is satisfied.] It has been done. Why are we undoing yet another thing in this country which particularly impacts Māori?
Now, the other quote that came up just now was “This shouldn’t be a surprise or a threat.” Well, why are Māori having a seat at councils a surprise and why is that a threat? On that note, I just want to present a quote from one of our very intelligent young wāhine who has now secured a seat on a council: “The opposition of Māori wards is entirely fear-based. It’s the fear that we will use the seats, this representation, this power, to further a Māori agenda at the expense of Pākehā, of Kiwi New Zealanders that call this place we love home. That fear is absolutely misplaced and unfounded. It goes against all the values we are taught from birth and that have been handed down from generation to generation. Māori want what is best for everybody, what is best for our taiao. We want everyone to have good jobs, successful businesses, and we want people to live where they want to be, in their homes, in the city, off the grid, or on their whenua in papa kāinga.”
I acknowledge the acknowledgments of our smaller communities where Māori representation is high and echo her sentiment about the value of having tangata whenua knowledge in our houses, connection to the whenua, connection to the taiao from whom we come and will return. But there’s also huge benefits of having these in urban centres, of having Māori representation. Because having lived in a couple of urban centres, we’re not always privy to having access to our tikanga or indeed see faces that look like ours. So having access to this representation in councils around the motu is only beneficial to us all.
Hei whakakapi [In closing]—oh, I had more to say. Heoi anō, [However] I’m sure there’s going to be a second reading and we’ll have a lot more to say then. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe, Nanaia, mēnā kei te mātakitaki mai koe. [I would like to commend you, Nanaia, if you are watching this.] I commend Nanaia for having the courage to bring these changes to our fine country and I commend our pāti Labour, te Pāti Repa, for supporting it and allowing a strong Māori voice in our councils around Aotearoa whānui, and to the councils also who have had the strength and courage and wisdom to do this. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a tātou [Thank you all.]
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): What a great day for community say. As we say in local government, have your say. This gives all Kiwis the potential to have their say. There was a comment that Māori voice would be deprived at the council table or in local government. Well, in my experience in local government, local government is the best example of Māori relationships, of engagement, of enactment, of enablement. So they have nothing to fear about losing voice in local government because local government, I would argue, are at best practice with local Māori relationships.
So this is all about putting “local” into local government, as other speakers have said. This is about not just putting it through a 17-day process, as the last Government did in 2021—17-day process in 2021, rushed through without any consultation. This puts an opportunity out there.
Guess what! They might be surprised—they might be surprised. Because I know they’ve been throwing it out to middle New Zealand—an insinuation that perhaps the hurdle was insurmountable, which is an insinuation for the rest of middle New Zealand, ratepayer New Zealand, as somewhat conservative and potentially racist. Well, guess what! Those are the same people that voted for MMP, and that was a referendum, wasn’t it? They were the same people that voted for euthanasia, and that wasn’t a conservative issue. They are the same voters that voted in and around cannabis for recreational use at referendum and that nearly got through. So they might be surprised with just how New Zealanders view this if they are petitioned and if it gets to that far.
So Māori have nothing to fear. This is about returning to the community the ability to have their say, and local government does it better than anyone. So I have every confidence that this will end up in a very good place. It’s going to go through a submission process. We will listen on the Justice Committee and make amendments accordingly. But it is a great day for community—have your say.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): The speech from the previous member, Cameron Brewer, when he tries to claim that National MPs who have contributed to this debate want more Māori representation at local bodies and want more expertise around the local council table when it comes to iwi relationships, is pretty rich, when that member sat on a local board, I believe it was the Rodney local board, in a year where I, as the general counsel for Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, was seeking to establish with that board a relationship agreement between the board and the iwi, and it was blocked over and over. That local board could not agree with its local iwi to enter into an agreement to work together.
That is the posture of this Government, to come to this House and say, “Oh, we want success for Māori, we want Māori to be succeeding and thriving, but we won’t let them around the council table and we certainly won’t have Te Tiriti o Waitangi enshrined in our legislation, because that would be a step too far.” It would be a step too far to tell te iwi Māori, to tell rangatahi Māori of Aotearoa that their concerns are of importance to this House, that their concerns are of importance at a local government level and that they deserve to be enshrined!
This debate has been complicated by a number of constitutional issues. But it really is simple that, in 2021, Labour removed the barrier to democratically elected councils to determine whether or not, around the council table, they saw fit to establish Māori wards. These democratic decisions are being overridden by a central government who is determined not to let local governments make that decision for themselves in the normal way that councils use to determine their representation processes. Since that law was enacted, 45 councils have elected to have a Māori ward.
The Government comes to this House and they say that there is a choice for local councils, but the choice is that they can either scrap Māori wards that exist, or send them to a binding referendum that they know will be ugly, because these politics are ugly. Do you know why these politics are so ugly? It’s because we have parties on that side of the House who are drumming up an ugly, divisive debate that has no place in Aotearoa, which is imported from US politics, which is about kicking people when they’re down—in this case, kicking Māori. But it could be anything. It could be kicking renters when they’re down, by taking away 90-day no-cause evictions. It could be kicking disability communities when they’re down, by taking away the very entitlements they rely upon. This Government is on a collision course to take it out on the people who cannot fight back, and it’s shameful.
It’s shameful that we are having a debate in this House today which has been couched in terms of re-democratising, of making things better for the communities, when, in fact, we have mayors around the country saying to the Government that this will drum up the kind of rhetoric in their communities that they do not want to oversee, that this is something which mayors in Aotearoa are saying will be hurtful and divisive and undermine social cohesion in Aotearoa. We should listen to them. Instead, the ACT Party members have come to this House today and called those mayors “activist mayors”. At the same time as they think that they’re championing democracy, they’re also using their parliamentary privilege to sledge every mayor who dared to have an opinion about democracy in their local area.
You would laugh, Mr Speaker, if this were at all funny, but this is the reality that rangatahi Māori in Aotearoa have to grow up with. It is a real shame that we have a Government in power which is determined to use its legislative power, to use the politics of division in Aotearoa, to garner the votes of people who would see Māori progress set back.
I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that Labour will stick up for Māori; it will stick up for those “activist mayors” who are worried about the undermining of social cohesion in their cities and regions, who have been democratically elected to represent people’s interests at a local level; and we will stick up for those outcomes that we see when we have more Māori representatives around the council table—more cohesion, more expertise in te taiao, and the representation of Māori people around the council table, because that can only be a good thing. That is why we should not vote for this bill.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to stand in support of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. The bill will restore the ability for communities to have a direct influence on the establishment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies by restoring the ability for 5 percent of councils’ electors to call for a binding poll on Māori wards - establishment decisions.
Restoring the right to local referendums on Māori wards is a commitment under both the ACT and New Zealand First coalition agreements. Let me be clear: this should not come as a shock to anyone. All three parties campaigned on reversing the previous Labour Government’s changes to local electoral law and, today, we are delivering on that commitment. Local communities should be given the opportunity to have a say on their own representation. Referendums on Māori wards allow local voters to make their own representation decisions. This bill is simply about restoring democracy to local communities.
One local councillor from the Bay of Plenty got in touch with me after our Government announced that we were bringing this bill to the House, and they said to me—and I quote—“I am grateful that the Government is taking a stand on behalf of local government. New Zealand is a democracy, and to have councils introducing Māori wards without consulting our communities is so wrong.” Today, we are restoring democracy to local communities. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Instruction to Justice Committee
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 21 June 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
I acknowledge that this bill is proceeding at pace. However, this bill must be passed and proceed quickly so that the changes can apply for the 2025 local elections, so that councils and communities can decide on whether they want to hold a poll in 2025 and will have certainty about ensuring that that will happen, and so that election service providers can start preparing for the new local electoral time frames and communicate these to their local authorities.
Despite the speed at which the bill needs to be passed, the Government values hearing from all New Zealanders about the proposed changes. That is why we are proposing that the select committee process takes place but, given the circumstances, I respectfully ask the Justice Committee to consider the bill thoroughly and report back to the House by 19 June. Giving the committee additional authority to meet outside the usual hours will support it to meet this time frame. I invite the House to support this motion.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak to this motion and continue to insist that the voice on this side of the House be heard with respect to a truncated time frame. I take the Minister’s point that next year is the local body election. He didn’t seem to expand any further on exactly why that particular date has been chosen, only giving ourselves one month instead of what would normally be a six-month process. I get six months might take us—well, it will take us—closer to October and, of course, if the local body election next year is in October then of course I can understand that. But that still allows perhaps a little bit more flex, if you will, in the time afforded to the select committee to undertake such an important piece of work.
The other challenge that I put to the Minister is that in the four and a bit weeks that have been afforded to this particular process there is a long weekend and for members there is a scrutiny week; I must ask the question: will the committee and will the membership of that committee have enough time to be able to make sure that they can give this bill the due recognition and also the public the opportunity to find their voice on this very important matter?
Mr Speaker, you’ve heard in the House this evening just how passionate the House is about this matter, and we should be; local democracy and democracy is an important thing to continue for us to uphold and make sure that voices are heard on this matter. Which is why, Mr Speaker, I want to express to you and to the House here this afternoon my concerns around a truncated time frame without, seemingly, a far more clearer rationale for each and every one of us specific to the time frame of the local body elections which are scheduled for next year. And, once again, I raise that in the next four weeks we’ve got Budget week, we’ve got a long weekend, and we also have a scrutiny week which is calling upon the time not just of this House but of officials that are required to support this process. I’m sure, like the rest of the country—and I know my whānau right across the country are looking forward to Budget week; they want to sit down and interrogate it. We’re asking them now to consider another important piece of legislation in a truncated time frame and we want to express our concern for that particular matter.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Foreshadowing for the House that Labour MPs would propose that this Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill should be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. I’m raising this with the House because the Justice Committee is the wrong committee to consider this. The Māori Affairs Committee has, in the previous Parliament, considered the original bill which amended the legislation to remove the barrier for locally elected councils to make a decision about the way that they conduct their representation inquiries and to decide on Māori ward representative structures. And so—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just to support the member, it’s already been referred to the Justice Committee, so that decision’s gone, and we’re talking about this motion, which is around that time frame around 21 June.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also rise to question the timing. I think it’s far too short given that even with this rush, we’ve already had over 50 mayors sign a letter saying they don’t agree. I imagine that many of those councils and Local Government New Zealand, let alone iwi, hapū, and others, will want to speak.
I also think it’s unfortunate that we have heard very little about the sensible half of the bill, which is talking about a longer period for postal delivery and a longer period in advance of the election. I think it would be thoughtful, whether it’s through the Minister or through whichever select committee it goes to—which has been decided, I understand—to consider dividing this bill into two halves. It is a marriage of two completely different issues, one on which I imagine we would have unanimity in the House, and one on which we have not. So I urge people who know the legislative process to see if we can make that divorce of two halves.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve just been sitting in the House listening to the debate in relation to this referral motion. And I too want to support this side of the House in relation to the truncated time frames for the select committee process for this bill.
The concern I have is actually quite practical. There’s only a four-week period, so, therefore, if the bill goes through tonight, it gets sent to the select committee, and the chairman can ask for submissions tomorrow. To give the community an opportunity to actually be able to submit on this, you would at least look at around a five- possibly 10-working-day submission period. So that’s two weeks gone. And then, therefore, in that two-week period, which is also during a very, very busy time for Parliament, officials would need to brief the committee. If the committee requires to, they may need to actually appoint an independent adviser, given that this particular bill removes a constitutional arrangement that had already gone through a select committee process and the House in a previous bill. So that in itself has to happen within the two weeks.
Then they would have to hear submissions. And given we have seen, as other members have talked to around there being a number of people that are opposing it and have actually said that they will want to submit on this, which is 50 mayors and a whole number of other people supporting it—those hearings of submissions may take two to three days, which again impinges on the time for members of this side of the House to be able to actually hear submissions, consider them. And then they possibly will be left with maybe a week or around six working days for there to be a draft report, a revised tracked version of the bill, drafting instructions, and then the actual draft legislation for the committee to deliberate on and then seek, basically, amendments for.
I really don’t believe the four-week period is justifiable on the condition that because there is an election next year; surely more than four weeks can be spent on the select committee. Even if it was four months, which is still a debatable referral, it’s still truncated, it’s not the six months which is the usual, but it still would allow for proper time to consider submissions, proper time for drafting. It even would allow this side of the House to draft their own Amendment Papers, because I wouldn’t be surprised if the other side of the House brought it through the committee of the whole House pretty quickly. But, actually, it’s quite an important process—a practical decision that you are truncating a process for select committee which is on an important bill which we believe, on this side of the House, that members of the public should be able to have time to submit, time for members to consider it, and, therefore, to allow time for drafting. Instead, for something that is an election next year towards the latter part of next year, I believe that at least four months would be a reasonable consideration. It would again not have to impinge on scrutiny week, and just allows a bit more time for submitters who deserve to be heard on this. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look, two things to say. One is, again, as I’ve said, I’ve been through rather a lot of the council’s representation reviews, and I think that what is not being recognised on the other side is that it’s not just our time frame that’s got to be considered but the councils’ collective time frames as well. They’ve got to go through and do a proper representation review, and the problem that we had with the 2021 changes was actually that that process was not allowed for, because there was not enough time allowed for it. So the introduction of the Māori wards never went through the process that would normally happen with a normal representation review.
I know that the time frame is a short time frame, but my encouragement for you is to allow that to happen so that the councils, then, have a decent amount of time to engage with their communities and to do that twice and do it properly. I mean, so that this legislation and the out-workings of this legislation will get worked through thoroughly by the councils, and I think that that is the thing to consider.
The other point I’d like to make is just in response to my former colleague, and fellow ex-mayor, Celia Wade-Brown. I think she’s quite right: this bill has two entirely separate components, and you could consider that one of them needs to be dealt with in time to make sure it happens for the representation review process. The other one, which is the postal bit, only needs to take place in time to allow it to take effect for the 2025 election; in fact, they’re on different trajectories in terms of time frame. So that is something that could be thought through.
But with what we have in front of us, I think we just need to get on with the job. As Barbara Edmonds has said, we can get it out the door today and give the maximum possible time for our communities to respond to this bill.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I remember correctly, in speaking in response to both Andy Foster and the point at hand, the Māori Affairs Committee that heard the legislation originally—when we went through the process of submissions, there were thousands and thousands of submissions over that particular period. What that meant was that, at a practical level, we did have to split into a number of groups. We did have to consider the amount of time that we gave to oral submissions.
In this particular instance, the proposed time frame from the Government would actually mean decisions, for practical reasons, would have to be made that submitters weren’t able to be heard, they wouldn’t be able to hear everyone in this sense, and/or they would decide on a time frame which wouldn’t give people adequate time—i.e., five minutes for a submitter may or may not be enough time, given the sensitivity of the subject at hand, giving the tikanga the consideration that might apply. We know, for example, when Māori come to present in an oral submission format, there is time required to allow for mihimihi in that sort of context. If we only allowed people to speak for that short period—five and/or 10 minutes—it actually, at a practical level, doesn’t allow people to submit in an appropriate way.
The second part, in speaking to Andy Foster’s point, is that the interest of allowing quality submissions actually saves time in the long run—if people have a good amount of time to be able to prepare their submission in the first place rather than having to rush it. For the type of organisation like councils, they have to do a lot of work in the background to build their submissions. If their submissions are better, and, therefore, are in a better state, that improves our ability as members considering the submissions in front of us to then be able to prepare our questions. So it’s actually a lot more productive and punchier to address the overall concerns, issues raised, in those particular submissions.
I do think it’s too short, I don’t think it allows for appropriate tikanga to be respected in the oral submission process, and I’m raising my concerns on that.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to go just straight after my colleague Shanan Halbert, because I want to talk about Auckland. We have a super-city. It’s a very big structure, and we’ve just been through the long-term plan in Auckland. It’s been an incredibly stressful time and all hands have been on deck. We would now be going into a period when all the ramifications of those decisions were being considered. But now we’re going to have this happen when there will also be implications from the Budget coming at our counsellors and those that really, really need to engage on such an important issue in Auckland.
One of the issues with the super-city is that it can be seen as sometimes more cumbersome rather than less, because it has to reach out into quite distinct local communities, and it is very, very important—
Cameron Brewer: Auckland’s already said no.
HELEN WHITE: I’d just take the point my friend across the House has just suggested, which is that Auckland said no. I think that’s neither here nor there in this situation, because Auckland is a huge part of New Zealand with a lot of people in it, and they don’t all say no, Cameron Brewer. They don’t all say it. It isn’t a case of one voice being the Auckland voice; in fact, I would say that is a really dangerous thought—that we’re talking about one voice dominating everything, and it being seen as something that is dominated by a single, unitary voice. In fact, I am talking about the opposite of that, Mr Brewer. I am talking about the need for Aucklanders with nuanced, intelligent voices and with different thoughts to have a say.
It was pointed out to me that we changed the law to allow up to 30 Auckland councillors to enable a Māori ward—OK?—and there are some very proud people on the other side of this House in regard to that decision. So I would like more time in the process to allow people to engage in a meaningful way in a process that is so important to them and to Aucklanders. I would like to hear some of those voices, and we won’t be hearing that many, regardless of the time, but we will definitely be hearing a deeper and richer communication from Auckland on this issue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 21 June 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Special Debates
Debate on Long-term Issues—Long-term Insights Briefings
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, we now come to the debate on long-term issues, informed by select committee reports on long-term insights briefings. And just before I call on the chairperson of the Governance and Administration Committee to move that the House take note of long-term trends, risks, and opportunities affecting New Zealand, I just want to say that the purpose of this debate is to be future focused and provide an opportunity for members to reflect on the long-term challenges and opportunities that face New Zealand. As such, it would be desirable for select committee chairs in setting the scene for the debate to be non-political in their contributions.
RACHEL BOYACK (Chairperson of the Governance and Administration Committee): I move, That the House take note of long-term trends, risks, and opportunities affecting New Zealand.
It is a pleasure to take the first call on today’s special debate on long-term insight briefings, as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, in order to introduce the briefings and the associated debate to the House.
The long-term insights briefings were introduced during the 53rd Parliament following the passing of the Public Service Act 2020. The Act requires a chief executive of a department to give a long-term insights briefing to the appropriate Minister at least once every three years. A critical component laid out in the Act is the requirement for these long-term insights briefings to be established and delivered independently of Ministers. These briefings are designed to be truly independent of the executive and the Parliament and to enable Public Service departments to provide their own lens across the big issues affecting their department that are relevant for the long term of New Zealand.
The Governance and Administration Committee is tasked with, essentially, being a clearing house for all of the briefings that are presented to the committee and we are required to refer them to the appropriate subject matter committee, who must consider the briefing and report to the House.
The Governance and Administration Committee also engages regularly and receives briefings from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which is the agency that is tasked with oversight of the briefings. Throughout the term of the 53rd Parliament, when I was a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, we engaged regularly with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on updates around the briefings, how they were tracking, and the process that had been undertaken in order to deliver the briefings. During that time, we produced two interim reports outlining the committee’s observations of the briefings and advice from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about how we could make improvements to the briefings, going forward.
Today, we will hear from committee chairs and members regarding three of the briefings that were prepared by Treasury, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. In total, there were 19 briefings that were prepared during the 53rd Parliament, and departments are now tasked with preparing briefings for the 54th Parliament, that I hope will shortly come to the Governance and Administration Committee so that we may refer these on to committees for further insight.
I want to focus on some commentary that the Governance and Administration Committee made during our report. I just note that, in the last month, we have also had a report from Victoria University, authored by Malcolm Menzies, Andrew Jackson, and Jonathan Boston, called An Experiment in Governmental Futures Thinking: long-term insights briefings. I want to particularly thank the academics from Victoria University who have engaged with the committee early on, prior to us receiving the briefings, to put their lens across what they were looking to see. So I would encourage members across the House and I would encourage agencies to read this report, because it sets out some analysis, as well as some concerns that our committee noted in our interim report. I’m just going to touch on those in the short time I have remaining.
One of the concerns raised was that some of the reports didn’t necessarily focus on the big issues. Another issue was that there was, at times, an inconsistent approach to consultation. I want to note that for one of the reports that our committee touched on, by the Public Service Commission, we thought there wasn’t enough depth of consultation with migrant, rural, and Māori communities.
One of the big issues was the need for more cross-agency briefings and for there to be a systematic approach for agencies to work together using an approach where they actually go through some criteria to look at where they might be able to add value to briefings together. We note that there have been around four briefings where there was cross-agency work, where you could see that there was scope for two agencies or departments to actually work together to bring together a briefing. That is one of the biggest pieces of advice that our committee and these authors have suggested going forward.
Finally, the most important thing is that these briefings need to be for the long-term strategic issues rather than the day-to-day work of the department. So I’m looking forward to the debate today; I encourage members to engage with it. I commend the debate to the House. Thank you.
STUART SMITH (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s really timely to have this debate, particularly today, since the Finance and Expenditure Committee had the Governor of the Reserve Bank in on the Monetary Policy Statement from yesterday, which ties in quite well to this report.
The long-term fiscal position and the long-term insights reports have been prepared. Treasury prepare those documents and they report to the Minister of Finance, and it’s quite interesting, actually, that the Auditor-General has recommended that Treasury consider whether those two reports should be put together as they are, or not. It also made some recommendations about how they could more effectively incorporate public feedback in the preparation of those documents.
They also wanted to test the sensitivity and reliability of their models and the assumptions used in the models to inform those reports, and also wanted to better reflect the impact of the Superannuation Fund assets in the calculation of debt. I think that’s a really important point. One thing that we know with accounting is the way you represent numbers can influence how people think about the comfort they feel with debt or not, and I think that was really a sound recommendation from the Auditor-General.
It was interesting in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think one of the things we have to remember when we’re thinking about the pandemic is that it’s not so much the virus itself but how we reacted to it that caused the fiscal issues for New Zealand that we’re now living with still today—and, taking your advice about not getting overly political, I’ll leave it at that point. But I just want to point out that the way that the lockdowns affected retail trade and accommodation sectors was quite disproportionate to other sectors. Farming, for example, was able to continue on. They were able to work and go about their business. Supermarkets were able to remain open and trade, whilst their competitors—butchers, and fruit and vegetable shops—weren’t able to stay open. So there were quite disproportionate effects on that group in society.
As well as that, there was a disproportionate effect on young people. We’re seeing that now in the outcome in education and attendance at school—Māori, Pacific peoples, and women. So that is borne out in all the statistics.
Also, debt is a problem, and that’s because of the large-scale asset purchase programme that the Reserve Bank undertook in that period. They vastly expanded their balance sheet and, in fact, the Crown underwrote any losses that they would incur from that purchase. All of those things are not related to the virus but how we reacted to them, and I think they will have long-term financial implications for New Zealand. What’s happening today will impact on New Zealand—not all the way out to 40 years, perhaps, but certainly a long time into the future.
There was a lot of talk in the report about debt which actually nicely ties into our discussion today with the Reserve Bank. The papers suggest that New Zealand’s debt should be around 50 to 60 percent of GDP, with a buffer of 20 percent at least. So we’re looking at 30 to 40 percent, and, in fact, what the Minister of Finance has said is that she’s aiming for a debt range to GDP of 20 to 40 percent. That gives us a huge buffer—not a huge buffer, but an adequate buffer for the shocks that we experience such as the likes of COVID-19, although I hope that we have learnt a lot of lessons from the way we reacted to that and don’t go for lockdowns that have far-reaching impacts. So I think these debates are very worthy, and I commend it to the House.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak in this special debate. It is rare as a Parliament that we do get to have conversations and debates where we take the political tension down around what the long-term future and opportunities and challenges for our country are in order to get beyond the petty politics of the day and think about the future—to think about that long-term, intergenerational future and what it means for us. I think one of the things that really encapsulates that is the title of Treasury’s document, which brings together its combined statement on the long-term fiscal position but also the long-term insights briefing: He Tirohanga Mokopuna. That is the need to take an intergenerational view, and that is exactly what this work was about.
When the Public Service Act introduced the need for us as a Parliament to produce these long-term, strategic views as a country—that was introduced in 2020 and was to be produced every three years—it was to think about those big issues that are going to survive many Governments. Governments from all parties in this House—they’re all hoping they will get to make up or need to grapple with these issues, and I think that what we choose to focus on is vitally important. What we have seen is that this was the first run at some of these, and I think some of the feedback that we have got around these and around how it is that we can get the public more engaged in this process is an important consideration that, as parliamentarians, we should all be giving some thought to.
Parliaments all around the world, and Governments all around the world, indeed, are giving thought to how it is they encapsulate this intergenerational thinking into policy making. We’ve seen in some jurisdictions such as Ireland a commission for the future where they are looking very much down the road and trying to have long-term strategic discussions in a world that is becoming increasingly polarised. I think that these reports and this long-term strategic focus come at a point in our history where we do need to take the heat out of some of these conversations and realise that we do need to find some of the areas where we can find common ground and find what we can do that is in the interests of our of our globe and of our nation as we go through. But I think it is vital that we consider how it is that we can involve the public in these discussions.
I also think that one of the pieces of feedback from the Auditor-General on Treasury’s report is that we do need to think about whether or not we continue to combine the combined statement on the long-term fiscal position with the long-term insights briefing, or whether these need to be separated out. I certainly think that whether or not we keep them as one document or have them as two, we need to intertwine those two ideas in our heads as we go through and we debate these, because that long-term fiscal position is going to be vital for how we tackle the issues that are outlined in this report.
In terms of the focus that came in this first one, there was that immediate challenge. I think if we think about the fact that this was a piece of legislation in 2020 that required these reports to be produced, it is unsurprising that the very immediate issue of the immediate challenges of COVID-19 was such a focus point for how it was that we needed to think about it. I think that parliamentarians, legislators, and people in Government around the world are going to need to think about how it is that we would prepare for a future event: what did we learn, what did we do well, and what can we do differently for the future? That is something that we have to take the opportunity on.
But just in the time I have, one of the areas that was focused on was climate change, and that came across in terms of both Treasury’s analysis but also the Ministry for the Environment. I think one of the things that we know is that we have to do more and more work to quantify both the cost of action and inaction, and what the fiscal position for the Crown will be and what the strategic long-term challenges and opportunities are for us as a country. Our continuing to take an intergenerational view is something that is our responsibility as people who happen to sit in this House at this moment, because we need to govern for the future. Thank you.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am really pleased to be able to make a contribution in this debate, and I definitely recommend the report to anyone watching it at home, because it’s full of useful information, even though it is possibly a bit wonky.
But there’s a couple of big insights and takeaways, and I absolutely agree with the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, about the importance of this House having a long-term approach, where we talk about long-term issues that are facing New Zealand, because I’m sure that the people who have elected us to represent them in this House of Representatives really do want us to deal with more than just the current day-to-day issues. But the long-term issues are going to affect us all, and it’s very easy to get caught up in an electoral cycle where it’s easy to kick the can down the road when it comes to dealing with long-term challenges.
My big takeaways from this report are very much about how both the COVID response and other policy settings have led to more wealth and income inequality, that certain people have suffered more as a result of some of the policy choices, and we can make different choices as a House of Representatives to ensure that we do have a fair and equal society. Page 8, for example, talks about how some of the people who were most impacted by the pandemic-related labour market disruption are young people, Māori, Pasifika peoples, and women, and that has exacerbated pre-existing inequities in the labour market—outcomes which we need to actively address if we want to have true equality of opportunity.
There’s a growing body of evidence—and this is here on page 9—that recessions are exacerbated by inequality that already exists in society. So having a more equal society by ensuring that our policy settings are fair is actually better for us in the long term, economically, and I know that hasn’t been the economic dogma of the last few decades that has dominated the political discourse—particularly coming from the right—but it is becoming increasingly clear that if you don’t have a mechanism for making things fair, wealth becomes concentrated. Labour markets are not pure and perfect transparency, and there is existing inequality that they can exacerbate if we don’t actively work to change that and remove the barriers. So I think that’s really useful.
There’s a very interesting graph that talks about how most of the housing wealth and the age kind of concentration of housing wealth has radically changed over the last few decades. Of course, that is somewhat down to policies—public policy that could change—which means that now a certain egroup of people are much more likely to hold a lot of wealth because they bought houses at a certain time and we’ve had house prices increase significantly, and that’s locked younger people out of the housing market, which puts them at a disadvantage. Of course, I would argue that that disadvantage will be exacerbated by this Government’s current policies, which are really oriented towards those who already own property and are transferring wealth back to those who already own the most, rather than helping others have access to—whether that is just secure, more dry, affordable rentals or whether it is buying their own home. So that is really useful information. I’m trying to find the page that graph is on, but I think I’ve lost it, But, hopefully, I’ll find it.
Before I get to climate, I just wanted to mention one other really important graph in here which I think is really useful for understanding Aotearoa New Zealand in the context of the OECD. That is about the discussion about tax revenue and tax as a share of GDP in OECD countries. This is on page 69—[Holds up graph]—nice!—and here it is: “Figure 34: Tax as a share of GDP in OECD countries”, and New Zealand is really low on that list. So while there’s a kind of mythology and kind of easy lines that we sometimes hear from some people that you can’t tax your way to prosperity, most of the countries that have higher incomes per capita than New Zealand also have higher tax shares of GDP. So maybe we can learn from that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call Cameron Luxton, there’s a lot of chatter in the House and I’d like to be able to hear the people that are speaking.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to know that people are paying attention to what sometimes may seem like an issue that can put people to sleep, but, actually, this is one of the most important things that we can think about in our society. And Government’s role is to think about the future.
Now, I think we can all agree that the people of New Zealand have decided that the path that we were heading down was not a good one, and that is why in October they decided to elect a new Government. Now, it cannot be a surprise when one reads through He Tirohanga and sees some of the outrageous things that are being said. Governments should keep debt levels prudent. Well, blow me down! Governments should keep debt levels prudent, because not doing so could lead to an increase in taxes. Now, the previous speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, might think that increasing taxes is a good thing, but if you’re printing a heck of a lot of money and you believe in modern monetary theory, I guess that is what you would think is a good thing.
On this side of the House, we believe that New Zealanders should be able to keep their money to be able to spend on themselves and on productive activities to provide for their family and their community, because, as another member of this House so often says, the economy isn’t just an amorphous blob; it is made up of all of us, and when we are taxed to the absolute brink of what a citizen should stand, no wonder the economy suffers.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: But we’re not.
CAMERON LUXTON: Well, exactly—we’re not, because we are taking prudent measures on this side of the House to lower taxes and make sure that the fiscal position of this country is improved. As I was going through the long-term insights briefing, I came across a startling number. It has got here that in 2061, the net worth of this country is forecast to be—good Lord!—negative 137 percent of GDP. Now, we cannot continue along such a horrendous path that will lead us to a place where we cannot make the decisions for our country and for our families that we have enjoyed in the past.
Another part of the long-term insights is looking at housing. Now, it can be said that New Zealand faces a housing crisis. Well, I’m a builder and I know what that looks like. It looks like building supply stores taking prices off the shelf because they don’t want to show how much the building materials are going up every week. That is what we lived through during COVID. It is not a surprise that the cost of building skyrocketed when we were printing so much money that it had no alternative because, as the great Milton Friedman said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. What we had was a Reserve Bank printing money and inflation flowing through, and where does it go? It goes to discretionary spending, allegedly.
But I would say it goes to housing and the insane cost of housing in New Zealand. Well, this Government has got a long-term vision to reduce the cost of housing, by opening up the laws from which we plan, finance, and fund infrastructure, and taking steps like the Hon Chris Penk has done in making it easier to import materials into this country to provide some competition so that we don’t have an artificially raised cost of building because of a supply constraint made out of laws that have gone well past their use-by date.
There is another part in the long-term fiscal position that I think needs attention, and it’s demographics. New Zealanders work very hard to save and provide for their families, and they want to know that when they are working hard, that is going to their benefit so that they can invest in their home and in their business, and spend that money and freedom in a way that provides housing to people who need housing, provides jobs to people who need jobs, and provides a future for their family. That was taken away when that side of the House was frivolous with their laws around restricting building, a Resource Management Act reform process that was not future-focused, and Building Act reform that was long overdue.
We have been left with a horrendous position, but I am glad to say that this long-term insights briefing is a piece of the tool kit that this Government will use to make this country a better country. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind members—and this is not directed at the previous speaker, who actually had interjections to deal with—that we are looking at long-term insights, rather than at a political debate that is going on here. I understand the member was responding to some of the things that were said, but we’ve heard from our previous speakers how important it is to keep this at a high level, and it would be great if we could do that. Thank you.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you for the chance to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this long-term risks and opportunities debate. I do agree with the previous speakers; I think this is a worthwhile exercise. We can be a bit tactical at times in this place. Things happen very fast, but we do need to be able to step back and look at the long-term drivers, the risks, the opportunities, things like the demographics, things like what our long-term fiscal position will be, so that we can make sound decisions as we go. Certainly, as we go into the Budget process next week, you will see us taking very much that responsibility, very likely.
We had the Reserve Bank Governor in at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning. He could not have been more strong in the sense that productivity, and the lack of productivity, in this economy is costing us majorly. But it’s not all about what the Government does. The Government sets the framework, but it is also about what the private sector does—what we are doing in this place that enables the private sector and particularly, in my experience, the primary sector. We’ve got 80 percent of our merchandise exports coming from the primary sector. It’s an extraordinary, extraordinary number. Madam Speaker, you would have been around in the days when David Lange called us a “sunset industry” back in the 1980s. But here we are today, at 80 percent of our total merchandise exports. As I said in question time today, it has been my pleasure, in the regional development space, to look at the gaming industry; looking at a billion-dollar industry—things like gaming—that we wouldn’t have even thought of back then. That’s fantastic.
But one thing I would like to bring the House’s attention to is probably the most significant corporate announcement in recent New Zealand history, made earlier this week: Fonterra is looking at divesting their brands business. This will be a multibillion-dollar asset going on the block. It will be up to Fonterra’s 10,000 dairy farming shareholders who hold the voting rights. They hold this decision—this impactful, long-term decision—in their hands. Do they take the money now, or do they look to the long term and maybe some of the risks and threats that are out there and decide to hang on to that brands business? It sits with them; it should sit with them, as it sits.
But why should this Parliament care? Obviously, the outcome of that will be pivotal for us, one way or the other. But the reason it matters is because Fonterra is a creature of statute. It was created by this House in 2001. We gave them extraordinary powers to amalgamate what was then two major cooperatives, New Zealand Dairy Group and Kiwi Dairies, and merge them with the Dairy Board, which was the exporter—the single exporter—at the time as that was being disestablished. That was a major long-term decision that that Parliament made, but it granted the single company extraordinary powers. The consequences of this could be vital.
We’ve got a situation, we’ve got a technology coming along called precision fermentation—which is, essentially, artificially creating the ingredients—that Fonterra have decided is their future. Now, this technology exists—Fonterra are trying to crack this code themselves; that’s how seriously they take it. But overseas, everyone is out there trying to do this. Do not believe that the Nestlés of the world would not drop us like a stone if they thought they could get the equivalent protein for cheaper. Because this is an ingredient. It’s not like meat, where you’re having the raw product; this is easier to replicate. Who knows what’s in your chocolate bar?
So this is a major decision, and I am going to be writing to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and asking Fonterra to attend and explain to this Parliament why they are using these extraordinary powers—are they making a wise decision on behalf of not just those 10,000 shareholders but the people of New Zealand? Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to remind members, you need to call so I know that you’re—
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Oh, kia ora, kia ora. Aroha mai.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā tātou e te Whare, tēnā rā koe e te māreikura, e te Pīka. Ka nui nei te mihi ki a tātou i roto i tēnei rā i a tātou e whakaaro ana mō te tirohanga whānui o ngā mokopuna i roto o Aotearoa. Ka hāngai pū taku titiro ki ngā whakatipuranga o te iwi Māori, otirā ki ngā āheinga i roto i te iwi Māori hei painga mō te katoa. Tērā ētahi kua kōrerotia i roto i tēnei Whare i roto i ngā rangi tata nei. Ko tāku he whakawherawhera i ērā āhuatanga hei whakarongo mā tātou i tēnei rā. Nō reira ka huri au ki te reo tuarua e mārama pū ai aku kōrero ki a tātou e noho nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei rangi.
[Thank you, thank you. Apologies. Greetings to all of us of this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Many greetings to us today as we consider the broad perspective of the grandchildren within New Zealand. My perspective will focus on the generations of the Māori people, indeed the capabilities within the Māori people for the benefit of everyone. Some of them have been spoken about in this House in recent days. What I will do is expand on those things for all of us to listen to today. So I will turn to the second language so that my comments are absolutely clear to us who sit here in our House today.]
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the call. I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to give some consideration to He Tirohanga Mokopuna 2021. “He tirohanga mokopuna” is a phrase from the Māori language, and it, basically, invites us to think forward as far as we can for the benefit of our grandchildren and our grandchildren’s grandchildren. Te iwi Māori has been on a long curve of rediscovery, of reclamation, of redevelopment, of growing things from a time in this country’s history where our people struggled to maintain their position not only in society but in many aspects of life in Aotearoa. Today, the Māori population is pushing on a million people, so “he tirohanga mokopuna Māori” is a very, very poignant statement and title when we’re considering what the future looks like. Māori babies, Māori mokopuna are an unequivocally important piece of the future of our country. They will comprise, along with their Moana nui a Kiwa cousins, one-third of the country’s labour workforce as we advance over the next two decades.
One of the key things that must happen is that we must begin to create systems, laws, processes, places of work, and places of education in our country that support those mokopuna to develop and become productive in an economy that we all rely on. The need to do this is ever-pressing, because the young population of Māori and Pacific Island peoples, and other people who come from cultured backgrounds, is already alive and kicking today. As they come through the developmental phases of life and enter into a workforce, they need to arrive as skilled people so that they can contribute to the same degree as the people who have gone before them. We should all be aware that, at the same time, the baby-boomer generation is exiting that labour workforce and taking with them a lot of the intellectual capital that has underpinned it. So it is vitally important that we strike the right settings that see he tirohanga mokopuna develop into the productive and leadership models that we need to maintain our country into the future.
The Māori economy is the second piece of that; the Māori economy. Every time the Māori economy is measured—and it’s currently ticking over $70 to $80 billion—it’s generally $10 billion behind. So before too long, definitely before 2030, the Māori economy will be worth more than $100 billion to this country. And all of that activity is driven on the basis of he tirohanga mokopuna, by the people in control of that economy, those resources. However they have come back to te iwi Māori, they are being used and managed in a way that will support everybody going forward. Me pēhea rā tātou? Me pēhea rā tātou te whai whakaaro nui ki ngā ara e ora ai te mokopuna? [What should we do? How are we to consider the big picture regarding the approaches for the wellbeing of the grandchildren?] How do we approach creating the pathways, doing the things that seize long-term prosperity and development for mokopuna—not only mokopuna Māori but all mokopuna of this country? That is indeed the intention of the report and its findings.
Nō reira ko tāku ki a tātou he akiaki. [So what I’d like to do is encourage us all.] So my words to us all, e hika mā, you know, friends, colleagues in this House, ko tāku he akiaki—mine is to encourage us all to consider: what are the pathways? What are the pathways that actually bring to life he tirohanga mokopuna, that bring to life he oranga tāngata, that bring to life he oranga whenua? He oranga tāngata, he oranga whenua—when the land is healthy, the people will be healthy with it. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As the newly minted committee chair, it’s a pleasure to be participating in this, the first parliamentary debate on the long-term insights briefings that were part of the last Parliament’s work programme.
Now, the whole point of these long-term insights briefings was that they were supposed to have the ministries, and the various Government departments and agencies that were required under statute to produce them, provide information to select committees and, ultimately, this House about the medium- and long-term trends, risks, and opportunities facing New Zealand. Now, that’s a very laudable, a very plausible, and a very worthy objective. So the Ministry for the Environment duly invested a lot of time—many, many hours of work by staff from the Ministry for the Environment, an agency that in the last six years of the last Government had quadrupled its number of employees—and they presented a very big, fulsome report to the select committee.
It was typical of Ministry for the Environment reports: it had lots of very nice warm words, lots of aspirational goals, lots of pretty pictures, and it sought to actually ensure—and I’ve got the select committee’s report here; it only runs to about four or five pages. It’s actually quite a short report in balance. But the Ministry for the Environment presented their long-term insights briefing. The briefing topic was Where to from here? How we ensure the future wellbeing of land and people. Well, that was good work. The briefing, it says in this committee report, looks towards 2050, which, it says, “represents an important timescale for both climate change and native ecosystems”. Well, that’s very true. I don’t know that that took too long to figure out.
In Chapter 2, they said that the briefing describes how New Zealand’s land is under pressure. Well, again, kind of obvious. Chapter 3 of the briefing referred to the need to set out a vision for the future of land. Again, very good, laudable. And then the report from the Ministry for the Environment went on to list some transformational change that was needed to meet the aspirations that they contained in their report. Chapter 4, for instance, discussed pathways to a more resilient future for the land and every generation. And they talked about achieving incremental change. They talked about increasing effectiveness of policy and legislation, empowering communities, investing in sustainable infrastructure and technology, investing in science, promoting environmental education, embracing collaborative governance. And it sounded all to me like a Bluegreens policy manifesto. I thought that they had been reading some of the stuff that the very good Bluegreens had put together! The briefing notes, as well—that there would be a need for transformational change that would require choices about priorities. Well, again, go figure. I think we all know what that is.
So I want to record in this debate, because this is the first of these debates that the House has had, and we’ll have more of them in years to come and in months to come, and that’s probably a good thing—but I want to read and quote from the select committee of the previous Government, where there was a then Labour Government majority on that select committee. I quote: “While the Long-term Insights Briefing articulates an integrated worldview, the committee considers the report did not significantly contribute to an increased understanding of the issues the committee regularly deals with and the issues that are important to New Zealand.” Further quote: “If these Long-term Insights Briefings are to be useful, they need to go beyond stating the obvious and bring new insights and potential solutions to inform policy thinking.”
I think that for a committee in the last Parliament that was dominated then by Labour caucus members to have given that approval, which was unanimously agreed by the committee at the time, speaks volumes about the quality of what was a really long, really glossy, beautifully presented, worthy piece of work but did not actually, as the report says, go beyond stating the obvious. I hope that future long-term insights briefings will be far more beneficial to the insightful work that this House has to do.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Ko au te whenua, ko te whenua, ko au. Now, if you haven’t read this document—I’m not sure if the previous speaker, Scott Simpson, has actually read the document—that is a summary of what it is about: “I am the land, and the land is me”.
In this document—which, to me, wasn’t full of beautiful, glossy graphs; it was full of challenges that our land is under pressure. I read this and was concerned—and I’ll speak about that shortly—
Hon Scott Simpson: Tāmati Coffey didn’t think so.
GLEN BENNETT: —because in this document, it talks about the challenges of our ecosystem, the challenges of our soil—
Hon Scott Simpson: Stuart Nash didn’t think so.
GLEN BENNETT: —the challenges of climate change in terms of things like invasive pests and diseases.
Hon Scott Simpson: Aupito William Sio didn’t think so.
GLEN BENNETT: This document talks about the challenges of our future—
Hon Scott Simpson: Phil Twyford didn’t think so.
GLEN BENNETT: —and our species that are at risk.
Hon Scott Simpson: Angie Warren-Clark didn’t think so.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Enough—enough!
GLEN BENNETT: So I’m not sure if the previous speaker has actually read this, because, to me, it wasn’t blissful, night-time reading; it was actually a challenge to myself, to this House, and to future generations.
For me, it both challenges me and it scares me—this document. It’s about the environment’s health; how do we look after the land to ensure it’s ready and fit for the next generation? How does it provide for our needs, for our food? It’s for our jobs, it’s for our rest and recreation, and it’s for our play. Our environment is our taonga and I believe that this document challenges us about that and whether we are actually taking that seriously. So it challenges me because I can see aspiration, yes; I can see possibility, yes; but it also scares me.
When I look at the number on one of the pages in this document, it talks about the at-risk land species: 3,283 threatened, at-risk land species. That’s just land, not to mention the others that are airborne in that 4,000 that we’re talking about, that are native, that our biodiversity hosts here in this place; we’re a hotbed for the beauty of what nature and the environment provide. But also I am scared because we could be the generation that wipes out species that will never ever come back again. It’s also estimated that 192 million tonnes of soil are lost to erosion every year, and 44 percent of that comes from our pastures. This is crucial to our own existence and crucial to our economy and crucial to our life.
As I said earlier, climate change, of course, featured in this, talking about the challenges of our rising temperatures, the challenges of our rising rainfalls, and how climate change is impacting and will continue to impact the future of agrifood in our communities. But it talks about the existing pressures that are going to get worse, about the increased invasive species, and about the increased diseases that come. So I find hope in this document. I find the possibility if we actually read it and understand it and work with it. But it also is sombre reading in terms of our generation and our responsibility if we don’t do the right thing and pay attention.
I want to finish on the section that engages our rangatahi, because they are our current and our present but they’re also our future. They were part of the engagement in this, and that’s why this does give me hope through the challenges. Through being scared in what I read, it also gives me hope when they talk about how they want action and they want us to be bold and collectively work across the House together to make change, when it talks about connections and bringing people from all over our communities together and across our country to make it better, when it talks about deep environmental responsibility that we need to take seriously as adults, but also as young people and children, and when they acknowledge the practice of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as something that is a gift to this nation—that is a gift—if we understand and honour it, then our nation will thrive and grow even more.
This is challenging. This is hopeful. This is scary. But I believe that all of us, on all sides of the House, need to make sure we read this, we understand it, but then of course we put this into practice.
LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Some really cool things happened in 1986 with the origin of this report. Not only was 1986 the year that my twin sister and I were born but it was also the year of the birth of the Environment Act. From what I’ve heard, apparently people didn’t get everything right in the 1980s, but they got something right in this Act when they mandated the Government and its agencies to ensure a full and balanced consideration of the things that really matter—things like the needs of future generations, the intrinsic value of ecosystems, and for Te Tiriti principles to be upheld in managing our natural and physical resources or, as we understand, te taiao, or the fundamental basis of life on which we all rely.
The directives in the Act, captured in this report, invite us in this House today not only to address our immediate responses to our climate and ecological crisis but to think more broadly about our actions or, rather, probably, our lack of actions, and, most importantly, to look ahead. And that is just what this report does. It looks forward to 2050 which, according to where current Government commitments head us, is the point in time when Aotearoa will have reached carbon neutrality. We will have achieved all those breathtakingly wonderous nature goals in te mana o te taiao, or our biodiversity strategy, and Predator Free 2050 will be our blissful current-day reality. And this will only have been possible by us working together under our foundation of Te Tiriti.
But, unfortunately, with this Government at the reins, it looks increasingly unlikely that this beautiful 2050 future is possible. Our current reality is rather painfully set out in this report. It includes the pressures of land-use change, invasive species, pollution, extraction, and a dangerously warming climate. Land intensification, as outlined, has drastically altered our landscapes, leaving us with deforestation, soil erosion, and a decline in our freshwater and marine ecosystems and our biodiversity. We’ve got urban pollution from our vehicles, our industries, and our waste-water treatment plants, and it’s degraded our air, our land, and our water. That impacts our health and our ability to connect with nature, and, therefore, we must take action to actually care for it and protect it. Our isolated island, as we’ve heard, is a biodiversity hotspot and it’s something to be celebrated, but we know that so many species—4,000—are threatened and at risk of extinction.
Everything laid out in this report leads to one question: sure, we’ve really screwed things up in the past, but why keep deciding to screw things up so badly? Next week, this Government will make critical decisions that majorly impact our environment and our existence within it. It’s astounding that these decisions look set to favour corporations and lobbyists at the expense of the awesome sustainable future—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I pull the member up. You’re talking about the Budget and none of us knows what’s in it. I think we should be focusing on the long-term briefing. At the outset, we said this was not to be a political debate but a long-term vision debate.
LAN PHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this report does make clear is that for our rangatahi, youth, the state of our environment is not a distant concern; it’s real to them now. They so clearly know what good decision-making looks like to get us out of this mess, and what it doesn’t look like.
If this Government took their fundamental role of a duty of care for our environment seriously, as envisaged back in 1986—and the challenges are so clearly set out in this report—we could ensure that the need, or worse, the greed of today doesn’t compromise the life and the wellbeing of those tomorrow. Put simply, there is no planet B. It makes it really clear in this report, and we need to voice and acknowledge and act on the critical need to care for ourselves and our environment.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m glad to rise again to speak on a long-term insights briefing. Now, this one is the Ministry for the Environment’s Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023 with a report-back from the Environment Committee. Now, as a Kiwi that has spent his life enjoying New Zealand’s environment, I often wonder: what is the environment? We can have—it’s actually quite a nice name—the “natural and built environment”. I mean, it gives us a bit of sense that there’s more than one environment. You know, I’ve built environments; I’ve been a builder. I’ve farmed environments; I’ve been a farmer. I’ve contributed to my part of cleaning up New Zealand’s pests by having stoat lines and other lines in the—well, two now in my life, and it’s always a bit of a pleasure when you find a stoat hanging from a tree and know that you’ve done your bit to protect the feel of your favourite valley. Now—
Hon Andrew Bayly: That’s success.
CAMERON LUXTON: It is success. So what all New Zealanders growing up in this country feel an affinity for is the environment, and some of us go out and strap our boots on and take the set of plans that have gone through that rigmarole at the council and go and contribute to our built environment.
We’ve heard from the Labour member that people should go out and read this report back from the Environment Committee. Well, I have to say, I’ve gone through it and it’s just a word salad. I mean, how is anyone who gets up in the morning to go out, put their boots on, grab a hammer, a shovel, a piece of machinery, a bulldozer, and goes out and tries to deal with flooding, replant a hill that should never have been cleared—how are they going to get anything out of “Futures thinking is critical to … Ministry for the Environment’s role as … environmental steward and system[s] leader.”? I mean, what on earth? Look, I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is, and I have no idea what a systems leader is. I mean, how are we supposed to get anything out of something like this?
Anyone who goes out to put in a piece of infrastructure, to build a house, someone who’s gone to get water to put through the pipe system to get into town or to spray on some crops to diversify the agricultural basket that is New Zealand—and, I might say, I found myself in the Wairarapa last week and saw what could be done with a bit of security around water to helping New Zealand’s long-term environmental standards improve while also diversifying our crops and making sure that New Zealand can battle with whatever challenge the rest of the world throws at us. We need to be able to get to minerals and use these to fuel our economy and the future life of New Zealanders. But I say again: how is anybody going to make sense out of what was written in this report? I, unfortunately, cannot.
Farmers, townies, Kiwis are doing more for the environment than the Ministry for the Environment. I’ve met with conservation groups throughout the Bay of Plenty who are picking up the mantle for themselves and going out and getting it done, and I think we should be supporting them in securing a better environment for the next generations. There is a lot to be said for New Zealanders going out and doing what needs to be done, for improving their farm sustainability, improving the value of the town in which they live, and enjoying the benefits that come from that.
What we need to do—and what ACT and this coalition Government with National and New Zealand First are doing—is focus on replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on property rights, because it’s only with true property rights that you can create wealth in a society, and it is only with wealth in a society that you can secure a healthy, prosperous, and sustainable environment. I look forward to New Zealand’s environment improving for new generations. My kids, my grandchildren will enjoy it, and I look forward to all New Zealanders enjoying it too.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this call on our land and our people and this briefing that has been put into this beautiful document in front of me, titled Where to from here? How we ensure the future wellbeing of land and people. So far, we’ve heard a lot in this debate around land, but we’re probably missing that one of the key factors in that title is “people”. It is the long-term future that we need to be looking at, and this document does say some important things. It was quite obvious, reading through it, that sometimes you can’t reinvent the wheel—it has already been done; it’s already been said. We know that issues around land, and that’s been very well-documented here—we know land is under pressure, and we know some of those pressures are coming from housing, housing intensification, trying to protect food production. As land is being taken up for housing, that high-quality food production land is being taken away.
This report outlines that we are losing things like our native plants, our native animals, our ecosystems, and they are under threat and there is no doubt about that. The amount of highly productive land is shrinking, and it’s shrinking dramatically in areas where we used to grow a lot of our high-quality crops. The way land is being used—we know that soils are being degraded and the water, and the environments in urban areas are being polluted. Another role that I’ve had was to do with the Resource Management Act, around being a hearings commissioner. It’s always those key elements around land, air, and water, and how those things link into each other. Through this report, some of the drivers that have been discussed are around those future land changes, around the intensification and what that will look like, around climate change and what that will look like for land, population change, the economics and the consumer demands that affect the land use, and invasive species. And we haven’t heard a lot about that in this debate—things in my district around wilding pines and stuff, and how that affects the use of land and farmland.
This report does set out having a vision. What I thought was really important in this report was that it talks about an enhanced role for all New Zealanders, and it’s all New Zealanders putting in their part and playing their part. It was good to hear, through this, that already that enhanced role is being implemented. But first, we’ve got to get the policy and the legislation effectiveness, and we’ve got to get the right legislation, the right policies, and we’ve got to get the buy-in, and we’ve got to get people empowering our communities. If we can empower communities, that is a really, really important thing. Investing in science—and that’s something that New Zealand First is really keen on: investing in science and how that enhances land use. Also, promoting environmental education—education is a really, really important thing for our young and for going forward.
In this report, we talk about transformational changes, and it talks about nine different pathways. One of those pathways is around the environmental responsibility. But we’ve got to find sustainability and balance. It’s all about choices, about priorities going forward, about housing, about food production, and about conservation. It’s the way in which we use the land, and that is the important thing.
The one thing I want to touch on in my last minute is the role of community-led incentives around catchment groups. That is the way forward in this country. We’ve got over 290 catchment groups. I did hear from the other side of the House around Jobs for Nature. That’s something New Zealand First is proud of and was proud of in 2017-2020. Those Jobs for Nature catchment groups are something we’ve got to encourage and keep supporting.
What I did want to talk about too was the effects of waste on land. We talk about forestry blocks, and there’s a lot of things with waste going on to land. We’ve got to find, through innovation, better ways for getting rid of forestry slash, like biochar and looking at those type of opportunities.
So this report, as much as it’s stating the obvious, is about that long-term thinking, and it’s not just about the next 50 years but the next 100 years. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Otirā, tēnā tātou. Kia ora, kia ora. Otirā tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou i te āhuatanga o ā tātou kōrero.
[Good health and wellbeing to us all. Greetings to us all in accordance with what’s been said.]
I want to use this opportunity to talk about something that’s not just one of the most important long-term issues facing Aotearoa but one of the most important issues facing humanity, and that is climate change. Climate change is probably the most prevalent theme across all of these reports. The Finance and Expenditure Committee report He Tirohanga Mokopuna discusses the uncertainty of the economic and fiscal impacts of climate change, especially in an economy like ours that is dependent on land use, our natural ecosystems, and the environment. The national security long-term insights briefing also noted climate change will create competition for scarce resources and result in more migration to Aotearoa. The increase in severe weather events—as we all know, a consistent occurrence around the world—will inevitably place more pressure on our ability to recover. We experienced these ourselves first hand, particularly on the East Coast with Cyclone Gabrielle.
Poor planning and management of land use, of flood protection, housing and infrastructure means the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle will be felt for many years to come. Tens of thousands of people were displaced in the middle of a cost of living crisis. People lost their loved ones, their homes, their livelihoods. The impacts will be intergenerational. We saw marae completely flooded, without insurance. We saw urupā desecrated and whānau having to dig up tūpāpaku so that they could be moved to safety.
As Māori, climate change poses a direct threat to our whakapapa, our culture, our livelihood, and also, as Māori, we have always adapted with the changing nature of Papatūānuku. Aotearoa cannot continue to treat climate change as a distant threat, because it is a very real part of our present day reality. We cannot sustain an economy that is based on the exploitation of whenua, the exploitation of our moana, and the exploitation of te taiao. Now that climate change is with us, we cannot continue to drag our feet on adaptation. Māori and poorer communities will be hit the hardest by the Government’s inaction in this space if we fail to move. Climate change isn’t just an environmental or economic issue, it is a human issue.
Anā kē ko te kīanga o te ao Māori. He aha kē te mea nui? Arā, he tangata he tangata he tangata.
[There is that proverb within the Māori culture. What is the most important thing? It is people, it is people, it is people.]
We cannot take care of our environment without taking care of our people, and we cannot take care of our people without also taking care of the environment. The only way to deal with climate change is with system change. None of this will be achieved to its ultimate extent without indigenous leadership and knowledge. It’s a leadership and knowledge base that has been developed in this very environment over more than 1,000 years, and the realisation of these rights and the place and value of mātauranga Māori that is inherent in tangata whenua, in the tangata whenua experience—experience of our lands, ō tātou whenua, ō tātou moana, me ngā rawa o te taiao, [our lands, our seas, and the resources of the environment] all of our resources. Only we have this knowledge, and only we can create the solutions that will bring us back to a more balanced place in terms of where we sit as he tangata ki te ao ka puta ki te whaiao ki te ao mārama. [people in this world to find the pathway to enlightenment.]
Tangata whenua have always been at the forefront of climate action, and we are always the first to step up for our communities in times of crisis. Our marae are safe havens in times of crisis, providing warm showers, food, and shelter for hundreds of people each and every day all around the country as natural disasters strike in their regions—places, like Takahanga Marae in Kaikōura, who stood up and looked after a community supported by Ngāi Tahu whānui at the time of the Kaikōura earthquakes; marae, like Whakatū Marae in the Nelson district, who came to the fore as the Nelson fires ravaged the area and looked after the people who were displaced.
The solution to climate change is through sustainable, resilient indigenous thinking, action, and modelling. Before I close off, I’d like to just expand on a couple of key ideas that are always talked about throughout discussion with te taiao and the environment—the sustainability of our environment—but are rooted in te ao Māori, and they are whakapapa. Whakapapa is not just about people; whakapapa is about everything—it’s the interconnectedness of everything and everything is connected to you.
Te mana o te taiao. [The rights of the environment.] We are not separate from te taiao. We are not separate from the environment; we are a part of it. So we must think more about not only the rights of the individual but the rights of the collective and the sustainability of the collective, te mana o te iwi, te mana o te taiao [the rights of the nation, the rights of the environment]. Nō reira e te Pīka, tēnā rā koe, tēnā rā tātou. [So then, Mr Speaker, thank you. Thank you all.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We come to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development long-term insights briefing.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the debate on long-term issues, informed by select committee reports on long-term insight briefings for the Social Services and Community Committee.
Now, the context around this is that the long-term insight briefings are about the Public Service Act 2020 mandating Government departments to develop and publish long-term insight briefings every three years. Briefings aim to inform the public about medium and long-term trends, risks, and opportunities in New Zealand, providing impartial analysis and potential policy responses. And from the Social Services and Community Committee, there are three particular long-term insights briefings from the previous term: the first being the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s long-term insights briefing, the next being the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ long-term insights briefing, and the final one being the Ministry for Culture and Heritage’s long-term insights briefing.
Now, if I look at the first one, which was around the long-term implications of our ageing population for our housing and urban futures, it had a few points which are quite stark and bring together a number of issues that we as a country are going to be facing in the coming years. The briefing explores how population ageing will affect housing and urban development in New Zealand. It projects an increase from 17 percent of the population being over the age of 65 in 2023 to 24 percent of the population by 2053. The ministry highlighted that each community needs different things and cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach.
Now, having looked at that and diving a little bit deeper into it, they identified four shifts that the housing and urban development sector will need to make to adapt to these population changes and support the needs of the ageing population. They included providing more affordable housing; secondly, supporting more opportunities for alternative tenure options such as cooperatives, cohousing arrangements, or papakāinga. They also recommended increasing the diversity, functionality, and accessibility of housing stock. Finally, designing neighbourhoods, towns, and cities so that it is easy for people to access amenities and essential services.
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development emphasised that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to housing and urban development. Instead, each community needs different things. So how neighbourhoods are designed and the housing dwelling types within them will differ depending on factors, including the age of population.
And then looking at the next, they had the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ long-term insights briefing, and this was around improving Pacific data equity—opportunities to enhance the future of Pacific wellbeing. The select committee heard from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, and that looked into Pacific data inequity in New Zealand. It looks at how to improve the data systems and processes so that data more accurately represents Pacific perspectives and values. The long-term insights briefing stated that Pacific data equity is about ensuring that the definition of Pacific data in its design, collection, analysis, interpretation, and use, including the presentation of information and narratives about Pacific peoples, represents Pacific voices and is free from bias. The ministry has found that Pacific worldviews are not consistently taken into account across Government data systems. This risks misrepresenting the issues that affect Pacific people, leading decision makers to misidentify potential solutions.
Finally, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage’s long-term insights briefing, and this was looking at ensuring we’ve got a thriving arts and culture sector across New Zealand, moving into the future. It also noted that the sector currently generates around $13 billion each year and employs just under 100,000 people as at the end of March 2022. The Social Services and Community Committee, from their long-term insights briefings, has looked into a number of issues and challenges facing our country moving forward, and I commend this debate topic to the House.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This report was really interesting reading, and I believe that it did touch on many of the challenges facing housing in this country, and, of course, no report of this size would touch on absolutely everything, but there were aspects here which, I think, will inform those that take the time to read it. I do hope that it informs those that make policy decisions in Government and in Government departments.
There were a couple of things that I thought it might be useful highlighting, and that was touching on the trends that they have identified, one of which, of course, is that there are people that earn an income that would, on current numbers, prevent them from accessing social housing but also isn’t big enough for them to realistically expect to save for a deposit. And, of course, this is a topic that has been canvassed over the last couple of days. In addition to that, it touches on a trend here that, essentially, means across the board, be they Pākehā, be they Māori or Pacific, the projected rate of homeownership is to go down. Now, there have been successive Governments that have promised to increase the housing supply. There have been recent Governments that have declined that there was a housing crisis. But, if we are to draw anything from this, at least it has to be said that there appears now to be a consensus in Parliament, on both sides, that the solution to this is in increasing supply. Where the disagreement in that debate appears to be is what role the State has to play in that.
Is it the State’s role to fund houses? We say yes. This Government believes that there is benefit in changing rules and requiring councils and all those sorts of things, and I’d note the nature of this debate isn’t to comment on that specifically, but to comment on this report and the trends that it identifies. But I mentioned that because I think that is the crux of the problem. In order to fix the housing crisis that we face, that this report refers to over four different areas, there actually does need to be some consensus moving forward. And that worries me a bit. I’m sure we’ve all heard it—and not that we agree with it, but we would have heard it from time to time—that for those who perhaps don’t take too much notice of politics, there’s not much difference between the National and Labour parties. Well, of course, we would disagree. There are areas where there are fundamental differences—like workplace relations, for example—and one of those, I think, is housing. But I don’t think we’re far off, because in here it touches on the need to identify the trends moving forward. So we’re going to have to address Māori and Pacific housing. That is going to require a change in attitude to programmes that are effective, directed, directly targeting and run by those particular groups that are going to benefit. There were programmes; there aren’t now. Perhaps that could be reconsidered.
Very similarly, this identifies that older people are particularly prone at the moment, and are projected to be even more so, to homelessness or the inability to be able to own their own home—86 percent, not that long ago, of those over 65 owned their own home. That’s projected to be lower than 50 very shortly, and that’s a worry. So the question needs to be: are those provisions that are currently in place catering for the older person? Now, I’m sure we can all think of an example where perhaps an older person or a couple are living in their family home, their children have moved out, it’s now too big, and they’re looking around to downsize because they want another family to move into their home and have the life that they had. There’s nowhere to go. There are no single rooms. There are no double-room units. There is somewhere to go if they can afford it, if they can afford to go into a very corporate aged-care, retirement-type village. Not everyone can. But the provision of houses, despite the fact that there has been tremendous progress over the last six years, I don’t think is yet catering for that particular group, and the need will only continue to grow.
So I’m hopeful that, if the last speech is anything to go by, they will take this seriously, but they will, I think, need to reflect on a couple of things in order to get there. Thank you, sir.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. Just for those speakers to come, we’ve had a pure non-political speech and one that was probably getting close to the edge, so we’ll be looking for people to be in the middle of those two. Thank you.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I will try my best to keep it mellow because we have had a very big week on housing this week. So we will keep it mellow.
I’m taking this call to speak on the past and the future of housing in Aotearoa, in regards to the long-term briefings. I want to begin with this quote by New Zealand author Rebecca Macfie, who said, “In a single generation New Zealand has transformed itself from a home-owning democracy into a society fractured by property wealth—between those who have it, and those who do not.” In Treasury’s He Tirohanga Mokopuna 2021 report, they said that sharp increases in house prices have exacerbated the challenges of housing affordability, especially for those seeking to purchase their first home. This reflects the reality for many young people in Aotearoa who are choosing to move overseas, where they can earn incomes that allow them to save up for a deposit and to service those regular mortgage payments.
The reality in New Zealand is that if you don’t have intergenerational wealth, if you don’t come from a rich family, then it’s going to be extremely hard to be able to scrape together the money for a deposit. I think this contributes even more to an ageing population, which is heavily touched on in this report. People aren’t having babies. That’s why our ageing population is increasing—because it’s too expensive and too unstable to raise a family under these conditions, and that’s the sort of country that we live in, where there is very little class mobility, where a huge chunk of our country’s wealth is concentrated in housing, and where our system is built around favouring those who are lucky enough to own their own homes. You used to be able to work really hard and save up enough for a home in Aotearoa, and now all of your wages are taken by supermarkets and the steep cost of living. It’s a massive shame to see our country’s brightest and best moving overseas.
But it’s not just those at the beginning of their lives who are struggling; it’s our kaumātua, our seniors in our communities who bear the brunt. This is a key theme throughout this long-term briefing around how our kaumātua are living in this day and age. Imagine spending your whole life contributing to the country that you live in, hoping to retire and be able to chill out, but your pension is calculated on the assumption that you own your home, so you’re living in poverty because your pension doesn’t even cover your rent and it doesn’t keep up with the rising cost of living.
I had a message from a family supporting their grandfather that really encapsulates the reality behind this briefing. It says, “My elderly grandfather lived under other people’s homes, or in tiny beds, on the North Shore of Tāmaki. He was in his 80s. He paid way too much for these dark, little places. He was kicked out each year for three years in a row from three places. It was such an ordeal moving him. He wasn’t eligible for funding for a place in a rest home and didn’t have the money to pay for one despite being a successful businessman for many years. It was so sad seeing him shuffled along every year.” This is why we continue to advocate, especially for multigenerational housing—I think that’s something we don’t have in our housing stock, is that diversity.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): It’s more about what the report said than what you’re advocating, actually, Ms Paul.
TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, so one of the key themes in this report is about increasing the diversity, functionality, and accessibility of our housing stock, and allowing for planning rules that allow for larger houses that are accessible and that are universally designed so that babies and kaumātua can live in the same house as an essential part of that.
The other point that I want to touch on is: housing trends for Māori and Pacific populations—another one of the four key points in this briefing. In particular, there is a really great resource called Homeless and landless in two generations - Averting the Māori housing disaster. That report by academics completely backs up what this briefing says about declining homeownership rates and increasing renting within Māori populations.
I want to use the last bit of my time to talk about the accessibility of our housing stock. Considering the amount of people who live with a disability in our society, our housing stock does not reflect the needs of our community. We can improve that by having higher standards for our public housing, our council housing, to meet universal design standards. That is going to go a long way to addressing stable homes for seniors and people with disabilities. Kia ora.
LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. I’m quite privileged and happy to take a call on the previous Social Services and Community Committee’s work that they did in putting together the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s long-term insights briefing.
So speaking to the report, there are a couple of key points that I want to talk about. The demographics and the ageing population, like the previous speaker, Tamatha Paul, actually alluded to is a really important thing. When houses are really expensive, we do see, in fact, the birth rate going down, which is quite evident at the moment.
If we look back and we think about the boomers, who are our ageing population, we think about why there was a baby boom in the first place. What were the conditions back then that allowed people to feel like they were safe and secure and to have a family and how was it easier to build homes? I mean, I have to think about regulation in that space, but because we’re talking about this report, I will keep it nice and on point.
Supporting more opportunities for alternative tenure options such as cooperatives, co-housing arrangements, or papa kāinga was one of the points that they made in this report—increasing the diversity, functionality, and accessibility of housing stock. They emphasise that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to housing and urban development and, instead, each community needs different things.
So let’s just think about that for a moment. What are we hearing and what are we seeing? We’re seeing that each individual community’s needs are different and that our housing needs to reflect this. We need more of those partnerships with CHPs, as they call them—or the community housing partners. Some of this work is actually beginning, and I think that this report really leads to how we need a lot more of this happening.
One thing I thought that I might actually talk about briefly, because it’s a really good example of what they talk about within this report, is actually Autism New Zealand. So Autism New Zealand, they have indicated that 2 percent of people in New Zealand suffer from autism, which is around 93,000 individuals. They are partnered with Equity House to bring together some of their own community housing that is solution-focused for people with autism. This is a great example of what we can see when you bind a community together to solve the issues that they have.
The likes of Community Housing Aotearoa and Emerge Aotearoa are actually amazing. I think that this report really does indicate that we need more of this—that central government, Kāinga Ora doesn’t always know what the community’s needs are, so I think that this report really highlights that for us.
Some other little bits that I’d like to point out: when they’re talking about having our cities more accessible and making sure that we have that urban planning correct, we have that urban development increasing, and we need to obviously increase our housing stock, we really need to think about that Resource Management Act reform, because if we’re looking for our future and our future development, this is going to be the key to that. I feel like it’s something that has held us back and you can tell that through some of the report here.
So, just in summary and talking through a couple of other things that we could mention within this report, I feel that while this is a great starting point, the writing’s already been on the wall. How am I standing here and we have a boomer generation that is completely ageing and we’re completely unaware of it? I mean, we call them the boomers; that in itself should actually be an indicator. We need to make sure that we have affordable accommodation to be able to care for people, and especially care for our elderly, and it is something that I’m gravely concerned about. Thank you.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be able to speak on this long-term insights briefing on housing. I think this is an excellent initiative of the 53rd Parliament. What’s really good is that we get the opportunity to be able to think about long-term issues: not about what’s happening in the next three years, or even the next news cycle, but think about things which are genuinely long term: 30-, 50-, 100-year issues.
What we’re discussing at the moment is the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s long-term insights on housing. They could have covered a whole range of different issues, but what they did is they focused on, I think, four major issues. First of all, the ageing population, which we’ve heard quite a bit about; secondly, the declining level of homeownership—in other words, more of us who are renting; thirdly, the place of Government housing; and, fourthly, the response to climate change. So I’m going to try and flick through some of those issues.
First of all, on the ageing population, the graphs in the report are really, really stark. In fact, you look at the number of nought to four-year-olds as a proportion of the population, it’s half what it was in 1961—half what it was. The ageing population—well, the good news is that our life expectancy is going up. Back in 1948, the average age expectancy for men was 66.7; for women it was 68.5. Now, for men, it’s 80 or over 80; and for women it’s about 83 or 84. So, actually, the good news is we’re living longer, we’re living healthier, and we’re living better. But the nature of our population structure has dramatically changed. As we’ve heard already, 17 percent of us today are over 65. By 2053, it’s going to be 24 percent of us.
So there’s a question which this report raises: is our housing stock appropriate for that ageing population? Clearly, the answer is no, at this stage it’s not. So is it accessible enough? Is it close enough to facilities? The ability to be able to drive, for many people as they get older, is simply not going to be there; that proximity is important. The placement of retirement housing is also very, very important. Is the housing size appropriate? Look, for many years we were building bigger and bigger and bigger houses, and now we’re starting to see the emergence of smaller houses. That, I think, is a response both to affordability but also to a changing population. Then, we’ve also heard about alternative 10-year plans.
There’s also a lot which is said about affordability, and the number of people who are renting is rising dramatically. That is particularly, as we’ve heard, a real problem for our older population. I mean, the superannuation system we’ve got at the moment is not designed on the basis of people having to rent as well—it’s simply not going to be able to afford it. The numbers actually are pretty challenging. In 1986, as the report says, 79 percent of Europeans and Asians owned their own home; it’s now 51 percent. For Māori, 54 percent; it’s now 40 percent. For Pasifika, 51 percent; it’s now 31 percent. So, right across our population, the number of people who can afford to buy a house has declined. That is a real problem for an ageing population.
So we’ve got to do something about these things. There are some people who would like to see the house prices fall. The problem is that we saw that post-COVID. We’ve got a housing crisis and we want to build more houses, but, of course, what people did is say, “Well, actually, there is no money in building houses because the house prices are falling, the cost of building is going up.”, and people stopped building houses. So that didn’t solve the problem at all. What we do need to do is to make sure that the cost of building a house—[Member is passed a note] Can I finish?
Jamie Arbuckle: Yeah.
ANDY FOSTER: The cost of building a house needs to come down, relatively. Minister Penk is doing some great work in that area to pull down the cost of building a house. Secondly, we need to make sure that we can actually raise incomes so that people can afford to buy those houses.
I’m being encouraged to move the speech on, so I think what I’ll do is just to commend the great work that’s been done here. There’s a lot more that can be said about housing—housing is a major issue for this country. We’ve got a huge amount of work to do to tackle those issues. The report raises a number of those issues, but I’m going to finish now because I know that there is an anxiousness to move on to the next issues.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Takutai Tarsh Kemp. Unfortunately, we’ve only got two minutes left for this speech for a timed debate, so New Zealand First gave up a little of theirs, so thank you.
TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, tēnā tātou e te Whare. Amohia ake te ora o te iwi ka puta ki te whai ao—the health and wellbeing of our people is paramount, and housing is paramount to the health and wellbeing of our people. So I’m going to kōrero all about what happens when a Government treats housing as a business instead of a social good.
Housing was identified as a key long-term issue in several reports. Treasury’s He Tirohanga Mokopuna 2021 talked about the ways in which housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable for first-home buyers, with the median house price in my electorate, Tāmaki Makaurau, now being over $1 million, way out of the price range of our whānau. Te Puni Kōkiri’s Thriving Whānau in 2040 talked about the barriers Māori face when accessing finance to buy a home. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s briefing talked about a stark decrease in homeownership for Māori and Pasifika and the increase of kaumātua living in rental properties. But I want to talk about what this means for our people, who are doing it tough day in, day out; pay cheque to pay cheque; benefit to benefit. They live on “Pōhara St”.
It means that tonight 100,000 people in Aotearoa will be sleeping rough on streets, in tents, in cars, in garages, or in unlivable houses that are making them sick. It means that 30,000 tamariki will be hospitalised this year because of substandard housing. This housing crisis is literally killing our tamariki and mokopuna. There are currently 94,000 unoccupied houses in this country doing nothing but collecting dust. That is enough empty houses to put roofs over the heads of every single person who’s experiencing homelessness in Aotearoa right now, yet in Aotearoa, we’re happy to allow tamariki to sleep in cars. This is what happens when you treat housing as a commodity and a business instead of as a human right. Māori make up 60 percent of homelessness in Aotearoa. Nothing paints a clearer picture of colonisation for indigenous people being homeless in their homeland.
While this Government is cutting minimum increases and sanctioning beneficiaries, rent and food prices are higher than ever. Our people are being forced to pay over half their income to feed their landlord’s whānau when they can barely afford to feed their own, and, just yesterday, this Government confirmed it will be scrapping first-home grants, further locking Māori, Pasifika, and rangatahi out of homeownership. This would save the Crown $245 million over four years, which is about 8 percent of the $3 billion handout they’re giving to landlords. This Government is making homeownership—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you to the member. I’m really sorry, but we have run out of time for this debate.
Motion agreed to.
Maiden Statements
Maiden Statements
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, so that I don’t have to interrupt the celebrations: at the conclusion of the maiden statement, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 May 2024. I call on Francisco Hernandez to make his maiden statement.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Welcome, and mabuhay.
Thank you to everyone for being here, particularly to distinguished guests Philippine Ambassador Kira Azucena, Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau, and “Dunedin Mayor in exile” Aaron Hawkins. Thank you to all my whānau, friends, and random Twitter strangers here in the gallery.
I’m a little intimidated by the size of the crowd. When I promised the party that I would bring the Filipino community to the Greens, I didn’t think that it would be quite so soon or so literally. Thank you to all of you who are here, and thank you to those who are watching it from afar, from the Philippines to America to Europe—the Filipino diaspora and my whānau have spread beyond.
My entire speech could just be thanking everyone who helped get me here, and 15 minutes wouldn’t be enough, but I’ll try in one minute: to my parents, Ross and Terry; and my brothers, Ian, Feodor, and Tighe; I love you more than you could ever know. Thank you for all the sacrifices you’ve made.
To my friends Jess, JC, Georgie, William, Josh, Meaghan, Jose, Scout, Hannah, Tracy, and Lauren; my fellow Deep South candidates, Scott, Dave, and Pleasance; the Kaitiaki group, Kathy, Alan, Marie, Ross, Hugh, Dan, and Ash; the Campus Greens, Rose, Nicholas, Henry, Tamika, Ella, Tessa, and Nicola; my campaign managers, Ged, Kam, and Mackenzie; the super-volunteers like Alex, Elliot, Peter, and Nat; our staff at Parliament and in the party, Chennoah, Miriam, Robin, Eden, Bridie, Lachlan, and Amber; Eilish, Dave, Briar, EGE, and the fellow gamers on Twitter.
Thank you to the voters around the country, but particularly the ones in Dunedin. I find myself in an unenviable position of succeeding such distinguished and accomplished individuals: our former co-leader James Shaw, who forged a cross-party consensus on climate policy; our friend Fa‘anānā Efeso Collins, who was, tragically, taken before his time, with only a glimpse of his gigantic potential as a parliamentarian; and Golriz Ghahraman, Parliament’s first refugee MP and a trailblazer for our migrant communities.
It’s a privilege to be here and an honour to serve our country. I love Aotearoa New Zealand, and it’s an honour to give back a small fraction of what it’s given me. Very few people love this country more than the people who have to earn their right to be here, and from Kaitāia to Bluff, tens of thousands of my fellow Filipinos are proving their love for our adoptive country. At the crack of dawn, we’re out there milking the cows; throughout the day, we’re maintaining the critical IT infrastructure; and till dusk, we provide the backbone of our hospitals and aged-care facilities; and now we are here in the halls of power, writing the laws and debating the future of our country.
I pay tribute to the Filipinos who have blazed a path in New Zealand: Kookie Samin, the first ever Filipino candidate for Parliament; Dennis Maga, the first Filipino and first Asian to helm a major trade union in Aotearoa; Thelma Bell, the first Filipino elected to public office; and my colleague Paulo Garcia, the first Filipino ever elected to Parliament. Paulo, you may have beaten me to be the first Filipino MP, but the race is still on to be the first Filipino Minister. While he and I could not be further apart ideologically, we are here, united in love for our communities and love for our adoptive country.
But what does it mean to love your country? To me, the true spirit of patriotism is not in pining for a nostalgic, ossified past of New Zealand as it was, frozen in amber and stuck in a past that it can never return to. It’s also not in loving the country unconditionally and without question, warts and all. Being a true patriot is wanting the country to live up to our mythos. True patriots are those who fight to narrow the gap between the New Zealand as it currently is and the New Zealand that we all think it is: a New Zealand that gives everyone a fair go, an Aotearoa that values and protects nature, and an Aotearoa New Zealand that stands up for the little guy and against foreign imperialism.
I arrived here when I was about 12 years old. My parents made great sacrifices to leave our old country behind, as my father had lost his job in the President’s office in the chaotic transition after the Estrada presidency. We’ll always be grateful to my Tito Jun and Tita Espie for sponsoring us through the family reunification category, and the support of our whānau Ding, Brenda, Shaun, TJ, BJ, Rene, Pop, Joey, and Jacob—Filipino families are big.
Shortly after we arrived, my mother had my brother Tighe. He was born with a congenital heart defect, and passed away just a few months later. But despite our status as new migrants who had nothing but the clothes on our backs, and despite my family’s humble means, with my dad working as a factory worker at Fisher & Paykel, New Zealand spared no effort to provide my brother with world-class healthcare at Greenlane and Starship Hospital. It was then that I decided that I would stop at nothing to give back to this country that had given so much to me and seemed to represent paradise on earth.
As I grew up, these childhood dreams of paradise would be lost. At Liston College, I noticed that there were those who had so much; there were those, like me, who had to work to help our parents pay the bills—a shout-out to Maccas—and there were those who had to drop out of school to find work to help their whānau survive. Hard work only takes you so far when you don’t start on a level playing field. Fuelled by the sense we could do more, I joined the Labour Party and got involved in Te Atatū Labour MP Chris Carter’s local election campaign.
After high school, I went to the University of Otago, where my long love affair with Ōtepoti—Dunedin—began. Naturally, I gravitated toward student politics, fuelled by the injustice that was becoming increasingly evident. Even in the relative privilege of university, there were so many who went to lectures hungry, and, even back then, too many had to choose between heating and eating.
I ran for the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) on a cost of living platform, modestly proposing that a student association with a $3 million budget could substitute and build a crypto-welfare State in the middle of a transition between universal to voluntary student membership. I didn’t fully succeed, but some of the fruits of my labour have stood the test of time. The free breakfast programme still exists to this very day, and the scarfie shuttles branched off into a very successful local business called Airport Shuttles Dunedin, still run by the taxi driver Divesh, whom we partnered with many years ago. This was thanks to the support of my execs; my secretary, Donna Jones; my general manager, Darell Hall; and our vice-chancellor, Harlene Hayne.
As the founding member of the Marxist-Shawist, market-socialist wing of the GreenLeft Network, I regard class as the biggest driver of inequality, but not the only driver. It was at university that my eyes were fully opened to the intersectional nature of inequality. Thank you to Te Roopu Māori and Uni Q for all your patience on educating me—particularly Neill, Ariana, Marama, Lisa, and Gianna, and my colleagues at Te Tira Ahu Pae, the first co-governed students association, for reinforcing them a decade later.
How can a country that claims to value a fair go for all tolerate the dispossession of Māori whenua and the blatant breaches of Te Tiriti? How can a country that claims to treat everyone equally stand by while our rainbow communities are targeted by imported foreign culture wars? How can a country that prides itself on a fair go for all sleep soundly while tens of thousands of kids go hungry and cold, while their landlords reap the benefit of billion-dollar tax cuts? True patriotism is recognising this country has erred and will continue to err, but working and committing to justice in the future.
After I finished my term with OUSA, I moved to Wellington. It was rough. I had to work several part-time jobs to get by. At Caritas, I stuffed and folded fund-raising envelopes; at the Health Promotion Agency, I researched problem gambling; and at Parliament, I took notes—really, really quickly—becoming part of a team of elite transcriptionists for Green MP Mojo Mathers. This led to my journey with the Greens as a cover executive assistant (EA), then as the EA for Denise, and finishing my term as a leader’s office staffer.
My time with Denise was the highlight of my time at Parliament. It was a privilege to support her through various campaigns on ending zero-hour contracts and abolishing the scourge of plastic bags. She taught me lessons about solidarity, the circular economy, and tikanga that have stayed with me to this very day. She supported me through various misadventures—becoming one of the youth delegates for the Paris climate talks, spending an inordinately large amount of time at our Auckland office as part of a doomed local government campaign—and she even gave me an impeccable reference when I applied to be a political and media adviser for the Green co-leaders’ office, even after I’d inadvertently sent her to the wrong Sacred Heart College, although I suspect she was just glad to get rid of me at that stage. Thank you for all the support you and your whānau—John, Mata, Dani, and Joe—have shown to me over the past decade. You’ve been a friend, a mentor, and a comrade.
To my fellow EAs, PMAs, and the caucus that I served proudly—particularly our co-leaders Metiria, Russel, and James—thank you for the privilege.
After the rollercoaster of 2017, I found myself adrift. Instead of hiring political hacks like me, Green Ministers, rightfully, chose to hire well-qualified, lifelong public servants, who are the pride of the world. Ironically, this led to me becoming a public servant, with stints at ACC and the Tertiary Education Commission, before I found my dream job at the Climate Change Commission.
I’d been part of the youth climate movement Generation Zero since 2012, and it helped with the push—ably led by Lisa McLaren and countless others—to establish the zero carbon Act, which set up the climate commission. To get in on the ground floor of a commission which I helped bring into existence was a real privilege. It was hard work being at the start-up phase of a new, independent Crown agency, and to establish a set of emissions budgets that will endure across Governments in this context is no small feat. I was lucky to work with such a talented calibre of people: Phil, Ben, Sandra, Sally, Matt, Melissa, Paul, Charli, Carly, and many others.
The climate movement didn’t get everything we wanted from the zero carbon Act—just look at Russel Norman’s tweets about the Greens over the past six years, if you want proof—but neither did Federated Farmers.
Members opposite should be very careful as to whether they want New Zealand’s hard-won consensus sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. When overseas markets and our trade agreements are demanding that New Zealand live up to our PR brand of being clean and green, backtracking would be dangerous to our nature and our prosperity as a country.
To be blunt: if members opposite shatter the Shawist legacy of working across the aisle to achieve wins for climate, then they’ll make climate another front in our culture wars, and—I promise—that’s not a war that they’ll win, but it’s not a war that we will win either. The nature of civil wars is that they don’t create too many winners. So, instead of war, let’s have peace. Instead of conflict, let’s have consensus. If we are serious about living up to our self-image as a country that truly values its environment and nature, we must ensure that the hard-won climate consensus that we’ve all worked for here across the aisle holds and that we forge a new one that goes faster and further in protecting climate and nature.
Climate action is hard work. My time as Otago Regional Council’s principal climate adviser showed me how tough implementing abstract policy at the flaxroots would be. Too often, central government tells local communities what to do, but it doesn’t give them the resources to do it. The lack of a consistent national framework and resourcing on adaptation, and the chopping and changing of policies makes the task of climate-proofing our communities even harder.
Working on climate change across councils is hard, but it’s a task that was made easier by my colleagues Shay, Ema, Emily, Vita, James, Andrea, Amanda, Hilary, Jean-Luc, Florence, and many others. We brought the region together through the Otago Climate Officers Group because cooperation is better than competition, and nowhere is that more obvious and evident than in climate change.
Sadly, the world is drifting farther and farther away from peace and cooperation, and closer to conflict and war. Tyrants around the world have taken to unilateral action and have flouted international laws. Whether it’s Ukraine or Palestine, the world must work towards a just outcome that enables the peoples of a free Ukraine and a free Palestine and any other nation in shackles to self-determine their futures.
New Zealanders rightfully pride themselves on having an independent foreign policy that stands up for the oppressed. But we’ve cosied up to a US-led world order, instead of working for a free and independent Pacific, free from empires.
Once again, I express my gratitude to this country for giving me this opportunity to serve. I am here as a cog in the Green machine, the 42nd Green MP to be sworn into Parliament, a tribune for the environmental and social movements that this party exercises power on behalf of and with.
To my friends, enemies, and frenemies across the aisle, I promise that my door will always be open to you to hear you out, because dialogue is the first step to consensus.
To my co-leaders, Marama and Chlöe, and my caucus colleagues, I promise that I will fight alongside you for our planet, our Tiriti, and our people every single day so that the New Zealand of today becomes the Aotearoa that we dream of. Ināia tonu nei—the time is now.
Waiata—“Te Aroha”
The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.