Tuesday, 30 July 2024
Volume 777
Sitting date: 30 July 2024
TUESDAY, 30 JULY 2024
TUESDAY, 30 JULY 2024
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/prayers
Karakia/prayers
SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk.
CLERK: Petition of Kath McDonald requesting that the House change the Standing Orders to allow the removal of petitions that would hurt groups protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993 from the Parliament website.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:
2024-25 statements of performance expectations for Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Predator Free 2050 Limited, and the Takeovers Panel
report of the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill
Climate Change Commission, Monitoring Report: Emissions Reduction.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been presented for presentation.
CLERK:
Report of the Health Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission
reports of the Justice Committee on the:
Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill
reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Anita Ye, Huck Smith-Haeata, and Jian Guo Yang
report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Arms Amendment Regulations 2022
report of the Social Service and Community Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Education Review Office related to the Independent Children’s Monitor.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Health Committee and Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK: Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to support Kiwis with the cost of living. From tomorrow, 3.5 million individuals will keep more of what they earn. We are adjusting tax brackets and eligibility for the independent earner tax credit after years of inflation dragging Kiwis into higher and higher tax brackets. We’re boosting Working for Families payments by up to $50 a fortnight, and that comes on top of our other changes to support Kiwis with the cost of living crisis. Whether that’s abolishing the Auckland regional fuel tax or introducing FamilyBoost to support families with the cost of childcare, we are putting the squeezed middle and low and middle income working New Zealanders at the heart of this Government.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the commitment made by Christopher Luxon in the 2023 general election leaders’ debate to halve child poverty by 2028?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, we’re going to work incredibly hard to lower child poverty across the country.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, then, did his Government quietly weaken child poverty targets last month, allowing approximately 23,000 more children to be pushed into hardship?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined to rebuild this economy so that we can grow the prosperity and wealth of all families and take children out of poverty.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it fair that his tax cut package, which he keeps saying will benefit low and middle income earners—while analysis in fact shows that 64 percent of the benefit goes to the top 40 percent of households—will see children and families struggling the most get nothing because they’re on benefits?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ninety-four percent of households across New Zealand are going to get tax relief; 83 percent of individuals in this country are going to get tax relief. What we have done is not ideologically difficult. Centre-left and centre-right Governments do this all around the world—of adjusting tax thresholds. That’s why we would hope that the Greens and Labour would support this adjustment.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he saying that children deserve to live in poverty if their parents’ income comes from benefits?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, we’re not saying that, but we are lifting tax thresholds so that families get to keep more of what they earn and support their own children.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Did he read the section of the royal commission into abuse in care report which says, “Child protection is also an economic and political issue rather than just the behaviour of individuals. Research shows a clear relationship between poverty and care system contact.”, and, if so, why is he choosing to allow for more children to live in poverty under his Government?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have read the report, and that’s why this Government is working incredibly hard to rebuild the economy, to kill inflation, and to lower the cost of living, so that, actually, we can make this country more prosperous. That’s what it’s about.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister: does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions? [Interruption]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do. I do stand by our—yes, especially the action we’ve—
SPEAKER: Hold on. Wait on. What was that? Where did that come from?
Hon Members: Backbenchers.
SPEAKER: I’m sorry; it’s not a playground, for goodness’ sake! Just keep your tittle-tattle to yourself. In the meantime, just everyone recognise that a question is asked in silence and doesn’t require any commentary. Please ask the question again.
2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially the action that we’re taking to fix our healthcare system. The previous Government’s botched merger left Health New Zealand with broken governance and poor financial controls. Just to give you a feel for it: if you’re a patient, you interact with a team member, the team member interacts with a team supervisor who reports to a team leader, who reports to an assistant manager, then a manager, then a service manager, the service manager reports to the general manager; the general manager reports to the group director of operations—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. We’ll just hear the rest in quiet. It’s just ridiculous. Carry on, Prime Minister.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I was saying, the amazing thing with our health system that we inherited from the previous Government is that a patient interacts with a team member, the team member reports to the team supervisor, who reports to the team leader, the team leader reports to the assistant manager, the assistant manager reports to the manager, who reports to the service manager, who then reports to the general manager. The general manager—you might be asking, “Well, who do they report to?” Well, they report to the group director of operations, and, of course, they report to the regional director, the national director, eventually the chief of staff, then the chief executive, and, of course, they report to the chair and the board. [Interruption]
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Health New Zealand verified—
SPEAKER: Hang on. When someone is standing to ask a question, keep quiet.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Health New Zealand verified that the reporting relationships, as the Prime Minister has just set out, is exactly what happens?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and that’s what was provided to me by Health New Zealand.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that his Government has a laser-like focus on bringing down the cost of living; if so, did hiking car registration fees and expanding road-user charges raise or lower the cost of living for New Zealand families?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the great news is that we are a Government that is introducing tax relief for the first time in 14 years. We are lifting the tax thresholds so that people don’t get caught in higher tax brackets they don’t need to be in. That means they’ve got more money so they can navigate the cost of living.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether raising registration fees and expanding road-user charges was raising or lowering the cost of living; I didn’t ask him about tax cuts.
SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister, I’m sure, might want to add to his comments so far.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m fine, actually.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s a reasonable position.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He couldn’t find any notes in his folder there for that one, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, no, hang on.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, the ventriloquist is away today, that’s right! Oh, there we go!
SPEAKER: Comments like that don’t help the order of the House and certainly don’t help dispose the member asking the question, or making the comment, to the goodwill of the Speaker. Could you please carry on with your next supplementary.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did that laser-like focus on bringing down the cost of living lead to charging children more for public transport, which has resulted in some young families spending hundreds of dollars more per week just to send their children to school?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, and what I’d say is that a majority of New Zealanders don’t use public transport, and some of them actually drive, and some of them really appreciate the removal of the Auckland regional fuel tax, and some of them really appreciate the removal of the ute tax. But what they all certainly appreciate is tax relief for low and middle income workers, a group of people who the Labour Party used to care about, but it has lost its way. David Parker cares about them, but the Labour Party doesn’t.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did that laser-like focus on bringing down the cost of living compel him to reintroduce prescription co-payments, driving people away from preventative care towards hospitals, costing more in the long run?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There’s no evidence of that. But what I would say is that it is important, isn’t it, because I saw a Labour Party press release, right? They had their numbers wrong, which is not surprising because this is actually what has been the issue. They assumed that people would get a prescription every single week, but there’s actually a $100 cap on those fees per household. So that’s wrong.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government is committed to spending wisely and cutting waste in order that it can afford to tax hard-working Kiwis less and provide the essential services they rely on?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and that was what was a feature of this last Budget—was that we were able to invest more in front-line services, remove wasteful spending, give people tax relief, and lay out the conditions for growth going forward.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who was that laser focus concentrated on: pensioners, who can expect to get just $2.50 a week; minimum wage earners, who can expect to get $12.50; or one Philip Morris, who just got $216 million in tax cuts?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member: are you against low and middle income working New Zealanders getting tax relief?
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s asked me a question, and I seek leave to answer it.
SPEAKER: No, he didn’t, actually; he asked it of me.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, he asked it of me.
SPEAKER: No, he said “you”, and you know who “you” is in this case.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, well, I seek leave to answer it on your behalf, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, thank you very much, but I’m quite capable of answering it myself. This time, I’m not going to.
Question No. 3—Regional Development
3. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made regarding the Regional Infrastructure Fund?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Recently I announced that I will be holding a series of nationwide summits, enabling people from the regions to identify priorities and aspirations and move on from the Wellington-centric, bureaucratic-laden approach of the last three years. These 15 summits will begin on 12 August in Nelson, but, most importantly, we need to boost economic resilience and create further opportunities to drive productivity, given the woeful state of the economy inherited when we arrived in power.
Andy Foster: What is the purpose of the regional summits and where will they be held?
Hon SHANE JONES: There’s been far too much handwringing. There’s been far too much culture wars afflicting economic development. These will be opportunities where we can elevate the importance of mining. We can lead a national discussion about the role of rare-earth minerals, including vanadium located in the iron sands off the coast of Taranaki. We can talk about water storage. We can talk about a host of other interventions that we will need, because New Zealand needs all the segments of economic growth pumping, creating export earnings, and turning around our fortunes. And these summits—hopefully, they will emulate the turnout I enjoyed in Blackball.
Andy Foster: What classes of infrastructure will the Regional Infrastructure Fund support?
Hon SHANE JONES: So this fund follows on from the great work achieved in an earlier Government in regional New Zealand—sadly, lapsed in more recent times. The types of infrastructure that one has in mind—and already people are queuing up, sending through their proposals to enable us to deal better with the inevitable shocks associated with volatile weather. Co-investment will now—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Climate change—say climate change.
Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t want any more Green ideological sludge from that side of the House. This is a pure economic development approach. Co-governance is gone; co-investment is in.
Andy Foster: What are examples of projects that we supported through the Regional Infrastructure Fund?
Hon SHANE JONES: It’s important that we respond with alacrity and work with partners in the regions so that we adapt to cope with the inevitable changes in our quality of life, in our infrastructure, as weather worsens.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Climate change.
Hon SHANE JONES: There’s no place in these serious debates for Green quackery. This will focus on those measurable types of investments, including that announced during the course of the Budget, which is to boost resilience through ensuring that our river systems and our catchments are better managed with flood management. That is a far more practical response, other than the Green handwringing that afflicts New Zealand.
SPEAKER: I’ll just say to members down in that back quadrant of the House that interjections are to be interjections, not just barracking from a seat. Please keep that in mind.
Question No. 4—Finance
4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: When will personal income tax thresholds be increased?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Income tax thresholds are being increased tomorrow. The in-work tax credit for low and middle income working families is being increased tomorrow. The independent earner tax credit is being extended to $70,000 of income tomorrow. New Zealanders and their families will keep more of their hard-earned income, and members on this side of the House are proud to have voted for it.
Stuart Smith: What has been done to prepare employers and payroll providers for these changes?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Delivering tax relief to employees requires more than 242,000 employers and more than 120 payroll providers to be ready. The IRD has been working with these providers, Government agencies, large entities, tax intermediaries, and employer associations to ensure they have the right information to update their payroll systems. Inland Revenue has ensured they know what to do and are ready to go tomorrow.
Stuart Smith: How much tax relief will people receive?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: People’s circumstances vary. To see how an individual or family will benefit from tomorrow, I strongly encourage people to go to budget.govt.nz and check out the tax calculator. But, on average, households will benefit by $60 a fortnight, and households with children by $78 a fortnight. This tax relief, as the Prime Minister has said, has been targeted at ordinary, hard-working families. On this side of the House, we’re proud to stand up for workers.
Stuart Smith: How many people have now used the Budget tax calculator?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, more good news. The Minister of Finance told the House last Thursday that 517,000 people had used the tax calculator. I’m now happy to update members. The number of people using the calculator has now risen to 561,000 people—up almost 45,000 since the statement last week. Kiwis can’t wait for tax relief, because they haven’t had it in 14 long years. And I just remind the House, members opposite voted against it.
Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “we won’t have to borrow extra to provide tax relief and we won’t be adding to inflationary pressures”; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Yes. Budget documents, including the Budget at a Glance document, clearly show that the $3.7 billion per annum of tax relief is fully funded from savings and revenue initiatives, so the Government is not borrowing to fund tax relief and it won’t add to inflation. On this side of the House, as I said in answer to the last question, we’re proud to be ensuring that hard-working Kiwis keep more of what they earn.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: What was net debt forecast to peak at in the pre-election fiscal update, and is it higher in her Budget?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If the member wants a specific answer in relation to that, she’ll have to put it down. But net debt continues to increase, as the member knows, because we have inherited a fiscal mess from the previous Government, and we are having to work as hard as we can to get debt under control. That is one of the reasons why Budget 2024 reprioritises low-value expenditure towards the front line and makes sure we get back on a fiscal track to get the Government books back in order.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with economist Shamubeel Eaqub, who said, “Borrowing in this Budget to fund tax cuts and operating spending is like earning less and living off the overdraft … This increase in borrowing chooses to rack up debt for future generations to give tax cuts now.”; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I don’t often agree with Shamubeel Eaqub, although I have respect for him, and I don’t agree with him in this circumstance. There is no doubt that the Government is not borrowing for tax relief in this Budget. I invite the member to read the Budget at a Glance document, which she is clearly unfamiliar with. It outlines the five changes in the Budget 2024 tax package, which total $3.68 billion in average annual cost. And I also invite her to go down to the next table—it’s only a couple of bars down—which outlines the savings and revenue to fund the tax relief.
SPEAKER: Before the member asks her question, can I just say that when a question is asked, it’s presumed that the people asking it, or on whose behalf it’s asked, want to know the answer. Just yelling at the answer doesn’t in any way make it any more palatable to those who are listening to it. It is the answer the Government decides to give, so just calm it down a little bit.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the head of BNZ research that the fiscal position will make the Reserve Bank more nervous and that “It’s not the tax cuts per se but the fact that the fiscal impulse is larger,”?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, and I refer the member to the Treasury’s analysis in the Budget update, which says, and I quote, “The decisions taken through Budget 2024 will on balance reduce the contribution fiscal policy is making to inflation pressure. Tax policy changes will boost aggregate demand, but this is more than offset by lower government spending and lower allowances compared to the Half Year Update.” The member cannot have it both ways. She cannot argue that debt is too high and also that we should go back on a spending spree. That sort of mentality has led us to the fiscal disaster that we have inherited from the previous Government. Unlike the last Government, this Government is taking a responsible path, getting debt back under control, and getting our fiscal books back in order.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the leader of the ACT Party, who said, “net debt is forecast to reach $100 billion by 2025. They’ve given up on New Zealand and New Zealanders need to give up on them.”, and has she given up on New Zealanders, given net debt at its peak will be higher due to her Budget decisions?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I often agree with the leader of the ACT Party, who I’ve found to make incisive and cogent remarks about public policy. And if members opposite, when they were in Government, had listened to the leader of the ACT Party and the leader of the National Party and, indeed, the leader of the New Zealand First Party when they had the opportunity, we wouldn’t be in the fiscal mess that we are in right now. We are working hard as a Government to get inflation back under control and be a friend to monetary policy, which is quite a contrast from the last three years when inflation peaked at over 7 percent, forcing the governor to hike interest rates very rapidly, which has put enormous pressure on households. We are taking the tough decisions as a Government to get our books back in order.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is committed to spending reductions of over $13 billion over four years and an operating allowance of over only $2.4 billion, or 1.7 percent of total spending for the next four years, and has the ACT Party leader said anything about how excited he is about that prospect?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I can confirm that, and one of the things that is notable about the Budget is that it sets lower operating allowances for Budget 2025 and onwards than the one that we have just gone through. And I would contrast that and compare it to the large operating allowances set by the previous Minister of Finance, which were notable by the fact that he never once met them. He always exceeded them, every single year, and that is why Government spending went up by such a large amount in such a short amount of time, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why inflation peaked at 7 percent and one of the reasons why we have net debt at a higher level now than would otherwise be the case.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Chris Bishop’s characterisation that $104 billion in debt is a blowout, and, if so, what does that make the $114 billion of net debt under her watch?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh well, I’ve always found Chris Bishop to be a very incisive and cogent commentator on the Crown books, and I often take his advice and I will continue to do so.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say the Government is not borrowing extra for tax cuts when her own Budget shows that the income tax cuts cost $10 billion and the Government is issuing an additional $12 billion of debt bonds?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because, as I have said twice already, I think, in this answer—and I invite the member to listen—it is very clear that every single dollar of the Budget 2024 tax package, which includes a lifting of the thresholds and changes to the independent earner tax credit to allow New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn—and I again remind the House that that member voted against it; tax relief for the first time in 14 years. Every single dollar of that is funded from baseline savings: closing stupid Labour programmes like industry transformation plans; a climate dividend; commercial buildings depreciation; taxing online casino operators, which the Minister of Internal Affairs issued a press release about just this morning, I believe; revenue from immigration levies; replacing first-year fees free with final-year fees free; and investment in tax compliance activities. All of these, on the Treasury’s numbers, add up to more than the cost of the tax package, so it is simply fallacious to claim the Government is borrowing for tax cuts.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that some of the people browsing on the Treasury’s tax calculator have been found, by analysis, to be Labour voters from Wadestown browsing in incognito mode?
SPEAKER: No, that’s not something you would know anything about at all.
Question No. 6—Transport
6. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Transport: What actions has the Government taken to reduce temporary traffic management?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier this month, I announced the Government is taking action to reduce expenditure on road cones and temporary traffic management while maintaining the safety of workers and road users. We’re rolling out a new risk-based approach to temporary traffic management which will see less reliance on road cones, requiring the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to report publicly on how much taxpayers’ money it’s spending on temporary traffic management, and we’re appointing independent members to the Road Efficiency Group to manage the reduction in expenditure and ensure all road-controlling authorities are focused on this outcome.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What reports has he seen on the excessive use of road cones on our roads?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’ve seen a report from the New Zealand Transport Agency that shows why we need to crack down on the excessive use of traffic management. NZTA conducted a review of temporary traffic management at 800 maintenance work sites on the State highway network across the country in February and found that 145 of these sites were not needed, revealing how out of control the use of road cones and temporary traffic management has become. Auckland Council Mayor Wayne Brown has also released a report showing that $145 million of expenditure has been incurred by his council group every single year. We need to get these costs under control.
Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the Government’s risk-based approach to temporary traffic management reduce the number of cones on our roads?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The new risk-based model is based on the Australian approach to temporary traffic management, where there is far less reliance on the no longer humble orange road cone. This new approach will include changes to contracts and a new way of training and monitoring to ensure that this meets both safety and cost efficiency outcomes. NZTA is now also continually reviewing current temporary traffic management on the network and instructing its suppliers to remove temporary traffic management that is not required.
Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is the Government requiring NZTA to report its expenditure on road cones and traffic management?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: When I became transport Minister, I asked NZTA to outline how much money has been spent by NZTA each year for the past three years on temporary traffic management, and was advised this information was not available as it was not compiled. This is unacceptable. That’s why the Government will be requiring NZTA and all road-controlling authorities to report quarterly on the amount of taxpayers’ money they are spending so that Kiwis know how much of their hard-earned money is being spent on road cones and temporary traffic management. We need to get this cost under control and reduce the inconvenience on motorists.
Hon Brooke van Velden: Can he confirm that one of the reasons New Zealanders are faced with a sea of orange road cones is unclear health and safety obligations, and that’s why this Government is going to make sure that our health and safety rules are clear, sensible, and proportionate to risk?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, and that is exactly why the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is undertaking a review of the Health and Safety at Work Act, to actually ensure that we are balancing the requirements to ensure our road workers are safe whilst also not inconveniencing motorists and increasing costs on councils and on the NZTA unnecessarily.
Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that there are 14 layers of management at Health New Zealand?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister, particularly when he said, “it’s actually been a botched restructuring and a botched merger that actually hasn’t delivered an efficient operating model.”, and that’s obvious when you talk to the front-line staff—the doctors and the nurses at the front line. Whether it’s patients or front-line staff, there was too much distance between them and Health New Zealand leaders. That’s why this Government has taken decisive action by appointing a commissioner to turn around Health New Zealand and to put patients and front-line workers front and centre.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that he advised the Prime Minister there were 14 layers of management at Health New Zealand?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes, it is correct. I received that advice from Health New Zealand.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he or his office create or change the list of 14 layers of management within Health New Zealand that he supplied to the Prime Minister or media last week?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We collaborated with Health New Zealand and we produced the table that was then published in public domain, which we stand by.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Isn’t it a bit rich to accuse others of being poor governors when, one week after his announcement, he’s still not really clear what the management structure of Te Whatu Ora really is?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What is not rich is Health New Zealand, because of the deficit that member left.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does his private health insurance cover injuries sustained while being thrown under the bus by the PM?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: No, you don’t—we move now to question—
Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.
SPEAKER: A point of order?
Hon Chris Bishop: A supplementary question.
SPEAKER: Oh, a supplementary—the Hon Chris Bishop.
Hon Chris Bishop: How many layers are there between Dr Ayesha Verrall and Kieran McAnulty in the Labour Party—
SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question. I’m just going to have to generally warn members about those sorts of questions. They’ll just lead to the curtailing of other questions.
Question No. 8—Children
8. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: How, if at all, will she ensure that an evidence-based approach is at the heart of the Government’s military-style boot camps?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): First of all, this Government does not have boot camps. The Government has begun a military-style academy pilot, which got under way yesterday, as part of the Government’s response to address serious youth offending and lowering harm in our communities. The ten young people will be at the heart of the military-style academy pilot, and they all deserve to have the opportunity to turn their lives around. In regards to the evidence, the design of the pilot was informed by evidence and lessons from other military-style programmes, such as the Limited Service Volunteer programme and the Military-style Activity Camp programme, as well as overseas examples. These lessons included the need for comprehensive assessment prior to starting, which each young person on the pilot has received from a clinical psychologist. Other lessons included the need to focus on the transition from the residential environment back into the community. This is why we are working with families, where possible, and each young person will have a mentor who will be alongside them throughout their journey, both for the three-month in-residence and nine-month community phase.
SPEAKER: Can I just notify the House that there is a small problem with the microphones at the back of the House, affecting the output from those microphones, so listening more intently is probably the best way to get the most out of these questions.
Tamatha Paul: Does she accept the finding by the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care: “Research demonstrates that boot camps and other harsh, sharp, short, and shock interventions for youth are ineffective at reducing repeat offending.”?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, I do agree that boot camps in the past were horrific and did cause harm to people who went on those boot camps. They were run inappropriately, with staff who were not trained, in a remote isolated area with no way to actually seek help. This is not what we’re doing, and I am proud to stand by this Government in working with these young people to address serious youth offending.
Tamatha Paul: Is she able to guarantee that young people will not be at risk of abuse in military-style boot camps, and, if not, why is she ploughing ahead with a failed system that puts young people at risk?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nobody can guarantee the actions of others, but what we can do is make sure we put everything in place to make sure that the risks are as low as possible and that, if something does happen, we act quickly and efficiently and in the right way.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Isn’t it the case that there are no drills at these military-style boot camps, no military fatigues, no military staff, and, in fact, there’s nothing particularly military at all about these military-style boot camps?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The New Zealand Defence Force has been involved from the very beginning in designing the programme, training the staff, and actually making sure that this is a well-rounded programme.
Laura Trask: What evidence has the Minister seen on previous approaches to youth crime?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ve seen evidence that the previous approaches to youth crime saw a 291 percent increase in ram raids over the last six years. In 2023, over 85 percent of offenders were younger than 18. I’ve also seen evidence that previous approaches made people feel scared to go to work and fear for their safety and for the safety of their families and employees. I’ve seen evidence that youth crime costs businesses thousands of dollars in damage and stolen goods every time they are hit, with business owners making the tough decision to shut their shops for good rather than put themselves at risk.
Tamatha Paul: What alternative interventions were considered before deciding on boot camps, and why were they dismissed?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: These young people are in a youth justice facility currently because they have committed serious offences. It is obvious that approaches that have been tried beforehand haven’t worked. That is why we are trying a new approach.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Thank you. The question was very succinct and clear about what options were provided to the Minister. She talked about previous attempts but at no point did she address any of the evidence or advice she would have been receiving.
Hon Todd McClay: We’re not in Mexico. That’s not how we do it here.
SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s a fair analysis of the answer that was given, with all due respect.
Tamatha Paul: What does she say to the survivors of abuse—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what. Ask the question when the House is quiet.
Tamatha Paul: What does she say to the survivors of abuse in State care, whose royal commission inquiry report had an entire 100-page chapter called “Boot camp”, and their pleas for no more military-style boot camps?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: With all due respect, I’ve stood here and said many times that I am sorry for what those people went through. But this military-style academy has nothing to do with the boot camps of the past, which were absolutely horrendous, run by untrained staff on a remote island with weapons, and they were allowed to do whatever they pleased. There is nothing like that in this military-style academy.
Question No. 9—Justice
9. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government is well advanced on our plan to restore law and order with a combination of both extra resources for front-line delivery and legislative change to ensure real consequences for crime. Yesterday, the military-style academy pilot began, a powerful intervention that’s necessary to turn the lives around of young people who are committing a significant proportion of youth crime in New Zealand. And, today, the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will have its second reading, providing police with more tools to deal with gangs.
James Meager: What will the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill do?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, set down for second reading, provides police with more tools to deal with gangs. It prohibits the display of gang insignia in public places, gives police the ability to issue dispersal notices to gatherings that disrupt the public, it creates new non-consorting orders, and amends the Sentencing Act to make gang membership, on its own, an aggravating factor. Gangs have, for some time, been allowed to behave as if they’re above the law; they are not.
James Meager: What progress has the Government made in recent weeks with its plan to restore law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I recently announced the Government will change the Sentencing Act to ensure real consequences for crime. This will cap the use of sentencing discounts at 40 percent, introduce a new aggravating factor to address serious retail crime, encourage the use of cumulative sentences, and a raft of other changes. Under this Government, victims—not offenders—will be the priority of the justice system.
James Meager: What other progress has been made?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In response to a significant increase in retail crime over the past five years, with the total number of reported victimisations up 86 percent, the Government tasked its ministerial advisory group for the victims of retail crime with developing specific proposals to address urgent challenges in retail crime, starting with considering greater powers for security guards to detain thieves.
Hon Nicole McKee: How will including violent attacks on sole-charge workers as an aggravating factor at sentencing, as outlined in the ACT and National coalition agreement, contribute to law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We think it’s only right that offending against people who live in fear of theft and assault, because they work alone or their business is interconnected with their home, results in a tougher sentence. Victims’ interests should always be front of mind at sentencing, and that is why the Government’s package of sentencing reform will give this greater weight, because this Government thinks victims are the priority, not the perpetrators.
James Meager: What recent comments has he seen about restoring law and order in regard to prioritising the needs of victims?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Today, I read a new report published by Victim Support that recommended: “The media, justice system, and public discourse should emphasise that crime is the fault of criminals, not victims.” This Government agrees, which is why, in Budget 2024, we provided an additional $8 million over four years to increase financial grants to victims of serious crime through the Victim Assistance Scheme and why we’ve set an ambitious target to reduce the number of people who are the victims of assault, robbery, or sexual assault by 20,000 by 2029.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, “I’m telling you, when we get in Government, we’re not doing working groups and endless kumbaya and lots of talking.”, and, if so, why is he setting up a working group that has two years of talking before reporting back?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I always agree with the Prime Minister. And, of course, we’re not setting up a working group to wait for two years. I’ve made it very clear that I want that group, which will be chaired by Sunny Kaushal, to come up with specific proposals, quickly, on how we can deal with the retail crime that we’ve got. We need to make progress faster in that area.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to raise this at the earliest available opportunity. I was just taking advice from the Clerk and so just wanted to raise a matter that I take personal offence to. So after the point of order that I did in relationship to Tamatha Paul’s question, Todd McClay, the Minister of Trade, threw a barb back saying—as best as I can understand—“You’re not in Mexico now. We don’t do things like that here.” I’ve just consulted with Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Teanau just to confirm the contents of that interjection. So I just want you to know that I take personal offence to it.
SPEAKER: Yeah, OK. So, firstly, the Hon Todd McClay, was that an interjection that was offered across the House? And if it was, I would suggest he might withdraw and apologise.
Hon Todd McClay: I withdraw and apologise.
Question No. 10—Tertiary Education and Skills
10. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: [Interruption][Member waits for silence]
SPEAKER: There’s actually a lot coming from the left as well, so by all means, wait but not for too long.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Does she stand by her statement that she will cut “the very expensive, bloated head office of Te Pūkenga” to fund the expected deficits that polytechnics are facing?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I stand by that statement in the context that it was given back in December 2023.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, then, has Te Pūkenga been instructed to employ highly paid consultants to find ways to cut costs?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) has recently exercised its statutory intervention power to require Te Pūkenga to obtain specialist external help to conduct the necessary cost-out work, to develop clear pathways to re-establishing an Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITP) network and to implement this work. The ITP sector faces significant financial sustainability issues that were not addressed by Te Pūkenga. This work should have gone ahead four years ago. Sadly, in the four years, millions of dollars have been wasted.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How can she expect Te Pūkenga to turn their financial situation around when she has not yet set out her plan for the future structure of Te Pūkenga and vocational education?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The previous Government reduced funding rates for front-line education delivery by polytechnics and other providers, diverting funding into central projects. This has also driven the increase in their deficits. In March 2024, Te Pūkenga’s chief executive initiated a review of head office with a view to reducing central roles to only what is essential to meet current legislative-compliance requirements and undertake disestablishment work. That work is also under way, as well as the cost-out that should have occurred four years ago.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe I asked about the Minister’s plan for the future of Te Pūkenga, not what was happening previously.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m pleased you believe it, because you did. The first thought I had was that this is not the way to answer the question, except it was qualifying the body of the answer, which was the action that was taken on 24 March this year.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Did Te Pūkenga advise her that her directive to cease restructuring ahead of her promised plan would result in additional costs of $53 million in 2024?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I don’t recall being given that advice from Te Pūkenga—they may have given advice to the TEC, who they report to. However, there is considerable work that has to carry on in terms of cost-out that should have occurred four years ago. That work is occurring now, as is the reduction in head office, and, as I previously said, the funding rates that were reduced by the previous Government for front-line education delivery by polytechnics and other providers also contribute to those deficits.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister saying that she has not received any advice or correspondence stating that the decisions she has made will cost Te Pūkenga $53 million?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: If the member would like to put that in writing to me, I’ll go back and check, but that is not information that I’ve immediately got to hand.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister saying that she has no recollection of any correspondence that clearly sets out, addressed to her, her decisions costing Te Pūkenga $53 million; and how could she possibly forget a sum of $53 million?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government is undertaking considerable work to take cost out of Te Pūkenga. We have asked for the head office to be reduced, we are looking at the funding decreases that were brought in by the previous Government, and we are considering what costs at individual institutions can be taken out. There is a range of work going on to take out the millions of dollars that have been wasted by Te Pūkenga, which was set up by the previous Government.
Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
11. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act affordability regulations are coming into effect this week?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good news too: from tomorrow, 31 July, 11 pages of overly prescriptive affordability regulations will no longer be part of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act—commonly referred to as the CCCFA. Primarily, the change will allow Kiwis to get access to the finance they need, when they need it. Many borrowers have been locked out due to the excessive regulation that stopped lenders offering small loans and made it more difficult for families looking to buy their first home. What hasn’t changed is the requirement for lenders to act in a responsible manner, and they will still be liable if they don’t.
Greg Fleming: So why did the regulations need to be changed?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The regulations treated borrowers like children. Borrowers were required to explain why they did things like buy an occasional coffee, join a gym, or treated the family to fish and chips every now and again—even when they clearly could afford to. Lenders had to do things like check whether the information provided by the applicant regarding their personal expenses was, for example, in line with the living data held by Stats New Zealand.
Greg Fleming: So what protections remain for borrowers under the CCCFA?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Let me be clear: the protections of the CCCFA remain in place. Lenders still have to properly assess loan affordability. Only the 11 pages of overly prescriptive lending regulations are being removed. We have also updated the responsible lending code. There are still stiff penalties for people who do not comply under the CCCFA—including $200,000 for individuals, or up to $600,000 for other entities.
Greg Fleming: What can a borrower do if they have been subject to poor lending practices?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There are financial dispute resolution services available for all Kiwis. As part of this package of reform, we’re considering ways to improve these services. We have standardised the rules—for example, all schemes are now able to award damages up to $500,000. We want Kiwis to be able to resolve their disputes quickly and easily.
Question No. 12—Environment
12. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent reports, if any, has he seen relating to farmer confidence?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A few days ago, Federated Farmers released their 31st farm confidence survey. Overall, it showed a weakening of farmer confidence with a net 66 percent of farmers pointing out that current economic conditions are very challenging and that profit margins for many are squeezed. These results underscore the importance of our efforts to get Government spending under control and to put downward pressure on inflation, do the rural banking inquiry through the Primary Production Committee, and for improving the regulatory environment for farmers.
Mark Cameron: What work is he doing in his portfolio to restore farm confidence?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Farmers are still concerned about the cost of regulatory compliance. We have a lot of work to do in this space, but we are doing it. For example, I am fast progressing our work to simplify and reduce costs in freshwater farm planning to provide a robust but affordable way of managing the environmental risks of farming. Officials are out talking to the sector now about what would work, and I’ve asked them to focus on making sure we can recognise the good stuff that farmers are already doing and avoid any duplication with existing farm planning frameworks.
Mark Cameron: What else is he working on that will help boost farm confidence?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Last week I was in South Australia—and I note, to question No. 6, I couldn’t spot a single road cone—viewing the pilot that they are running on an emerging biodiversity credit market. I was able to see different options for how a market might work in New Zealand. The aim of this is to help farmers diversify their income by attracting private funding to support all the work that our farmers are already doing to protect New Zealand’s native biodiversity. To me, this seems a much more sustainable, fairer, and more effective option than stripping property rights off landowners through the use of significant natural areas—something that we’re also addressing for farmers through changes to the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.
Mark Cameron: What other engagements has he had that support farmers to protect their natural biodiversity?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I was in the South Island two weeks ago—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Do you know where it is?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —looking at a range of pest control programmes—yes, great place to be—that have been supported by the Government, including wilding pines and wallabies. Getting on top of these pests will give a great boost to productivity, or productive farming, and biodiversity. Actions like these, as well as the reform this Government is undertaking in resource management, in fresh water, will go a long way to helping farmer confidence improve, even in these tough economic times.
SPEAKER: A new initiative from today: because I know a lot of members need to leave the House fairly quickly to go to other meetings and other responsibilities, at the end of question time, we’ll have a one-minute wait while people clear the House, but people lingering to have conversations won’t be a welcome thing. That concludes oral questions. [Interruption] It’s not an invitation to have those conversations—just leave the House.
Bills
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Today is a great day for local democracy, local democracy that listens to its communities and enables them to decide how they are represented at a local level. By passing this bill, our Government is restoring the right of local communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards.
This bill does three things. Firstly, it restores the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards, by reinstating binding polls for Māori wards and constituencies, a policy that was put in place by the Helen Clark Government. The Helen Clark Government put that policy in place and we’re reinstating it, and now this Labour Party wants to go against it. It requires councils that have established Māori wards and Māori constituencies since 2021 to ensure these wards are supported by the public in those local communities, and it changes statutory time frames to ensure the safe delivery of the 2025 local elections.
Divisive changes were introduced by the previous Government which denied—denied—local communities the ability to determine whether to establish local Māori wards in their communities. They took away the voices of local communities across the country and undermined the principles of democracy.
As the councillor for Northland’s Ngā Tai o Tokerau Māori ward said yesterday afternoon to the New Zealand Herald, “The previous Labour Government did not take New Zealanders with them when they removed the need for Māori ward polling in 2021.” Like they did with three waters, Labour introduced divisive changes that took away local communities’ voices in determining how their local communities should be governed.
Unlike members on the other side of the House, our Government is committed to restoring local democracy. As part of National’s coalition agreement with New Zealand First and the ACT Party, we are restoring the right for local referendums on the establishment and ongoing use of Māori wards. I thank my coalition parties and colleagues for supporting this bill. Any decision to establish or disestablish a Māori ward is one that remains with local communities. And, unlike Labour’s 2021 changes, our Government is ensuring that local communities have a say in their governance arrangements.
I put it to you, Mr Speaker, what we’ve heard from the other side is they talk about localism. Well, the ultimate form of localism is letting local voters have their say. When it comes to localism, they want to leave it with the mayor and the council. We believe that, actually, voters should be able to have their say and actually make decisions in terms of what goes down in their local communities. Well, localism only goes so far under a Labour Government: it goes to the council, it goes to the local councillors; we believe it goes to the people: the people of New Zealand, the people of the local communities. We are putting the voting power back in the hands of the people of New Zealand. So this bill does just that.
For those councils which have gone and put in place Māori wards since 2021, this bill requires them by 6 September to either rescind or disestablish that ward or go to the people in their community and let the people in their community have their say. And if the people in that community say yes, the ward stays. If they say no, the ward does not stay. That is democracy. And I know there’s people on the other side who think democracy has changed; well, on this side, democracy has not changed.
Hon Willie Jackson: It has changed—it has.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Democracy has not changed. The Hon Willie Jackson hasn’t learned a single thing from what happened on 14 October. He still thinks democracy has changed. He thinks that we should be taking the power away from local people. Well, the people of New Zealand rejected your form of democracy, Willie Jackson. They rejected it on 14 October, and they voted in the coalition Government to restore local democracy in New Zealand. And that is what this bill is doing. If the public and the people in that electorate and in that community say the ward stays, the ward stays; if they say it won’t, then it will leave.
I’ve heard members on the other side also talk about the speed at which this bill was put through. They put this bill through when they were in Government with only two days for public submissions. Shame on them. Shame on them. And let me put it to you, Mr Speaker, we are putting this bill through quickly to restore democracy. They rammed it through to get rid of democracy because that’s what that side of the House does. They don’t believe in democracy, and we do.
This bill also makes some important changes in terms of the time frame for local elections by extending the time frame for postal services, to ensure that the next local elections in 2025 can have enough time for the post to be able to deliver. This also signals the need, I think, for wider reform in terms of electoral reform for local elections.
As the committee of the whole House has also noted, there are some minor amendments made to the bill. The changes require affected councils to make an active decision on whether to disestablish their Māori ward or hold a poll at the 2025 elections by 6 September this year. If the council is required to hold a poll, like other operational decisions for local elections the electoral officer for a council is responsible for holding a poll during the 2025 local elections. The purpose of those amendments is to assure the affected parties of their roles and responsibilities once the bill comes into place.
I want to thank the select committee for their work, particularly the Justice Committee for their work on the bill. I want to thank the submitters who had their say, but I want to make it very clear, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: Well, so do I. I want to make it very clear that we will hear the balance of the speech in silence.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I want to make it very clear: this bill is all about local communities—giving people a say on how they’re represented and ensuring ample opportunity to have their voices heard. That should not be a point that is being debated in this House this afternoon, but it’s a point which the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party have walked far, far, far away from in their most recent policies and their most recent statements.
This bill is about turning the page on the previous Labour Government’s divisive changes that denied local communities the ability to determine whether to establish Māori wards. I’m proud to stand before this House to deliver on our Government’s commitment to restore local democracy for local communities. I commend this bill to the House.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): In the long history of this debating chamber, there have sadly been far too many examples of laws passed by this House that have discriminated against Māori New Zealanders. Sadly, I suspect today is going to be another one of those days. For several generations now, we have had Governments and Parliaments that have been committed to removing discrimination against Māori, to making sure that we don’t “other” Māori in their own country, and that we treat all Māori with respect. Sadly, this Government is not one of those Governments. This is a shameful day for our Parliament, as we pass another piece of legislation that discriminates against Māori, that treats Māori differently to other New Zealanders, and I’ll give you an illustration of exactly why that’s the case.
In my own home community of the Hutt Valley, the Lower Hutt council is currently undertaking a representation review. The representation review will look at the establishment of or whether we should continue with community boards or ward committees; the number of ward councillors there should be; the number of at-large councillors there should be; and, yes, whether or not to have, or to continue having, a Māori ward. Only one of the decisions that comes out of that review will be subject to a referendum. Only one, and that’s whether or not there is a Māori ward. There is no referendum on whether or not they should remove wards altogether and have at-large councillors—despite the fact that, actually, when wards are removed and at-large elections take place, whole chunks of the community get disenfranchised by that. No referendum on that topic. No referendum on the topic of whether there should be community boards or ward committees. No referendum on the topic of how many wards there should be. No referendum on the topic—for other councils—of whether there should be a rural ward within their councils. None of those things is subject to a referendum. The only thing that is subject to a referendum is whether there should be a Māori ward or not. That is discrimination. That is absolutely discrimination. When Māori are being treated differently to non-Māori, it is discrimination.
If people don’t like the other decisions that flow out of the representation review, well, that’s just tough luck. For example, if the community in Wainuiomata don’t like the idea that their community board might be disestablished, well, that’s tough luck. But if they don’t like the idea of having a Māori ward, well, they’ll get a say on that through the means of a referendum. Once again Māori are being singled out by this Government for discriminatory treatment. This is a Government that is determined to “other” Māori within their own country. They see Māori as a people to be put back in their place. It is a backwards view of the relationship between the Crown and Māori, and for the first time in my lifetime we have a Government that is doing that on a systemic basis—scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora, scrubbing te reo Māori from the names of Government departments, their divisive Treaty Principles Bill. This is the latest in a long line of legislative measures that are discriminating against Māori. My question to the members opposite is actually a really simple one: what are they so afraid of? What is it about Māori representation that they are so afraid of?
I think about my home communities in the Hutt Valley—Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt—and I think about the composition of those councils in my lifetime. I can say hand on heart that one of the things that’s absolutely been persistent during my lifetime has been the lack of Māori representation on our two local councils in the Hutt Valley. The fact that both of those councils have committed to doing something about that is something that I’m incredibly proud of as a Hutt Valley resident. It is something that, as a non-Māori resident of the Hutt Valley, I’m not threatened by at all. In fact, I celebrate that, and I think it’s a great thing that those councils have recognised the fact that Māori have been systematically under-represented in local government decision-making and that they have tried to do something about it.
It’s important to note that it’s not compulsory for councils to have Māori wards. If they decide as part of their representation reviews to have Māori wards, they should be able to do that, just as if they decide to have a rural ward, they should be able to do that as well. It’s also important to note that having a separate Māori ward confers no additional rights on Māori compared to non-Māori. Māori still only get the same number of votes as non-Māori. It doesn’t double the number of votes they get somehow. They still only get to vote in one ward or another. They don’t get to vote twice. And where there are proportional systems, of course, sometimes you get multiple votes, but that’s beside the point. They still get the number of votes that every other person gets. Having Māori wards is absolutely consistent with the principle of “one person, one vote”. It’s absolutely consistent with that. And it’s interesting—and Kieran McAnulty raises a very good point—that if this Government was so determined to ensure that one person should get one vote, why aren’t they legislating to remove the ability of wealthy property owners to vote in multiple different local government elections? If we’re actually talking about “one person, one vote”, why is it that wealthy property owners can have multiple votes but Māori aren’t allowed Māori wards? That is blatant discrimination by this Government.
This is the first Government in a generation that is proudly boasting about reintroducing discrimination against Māori, and it is a shameful day for New Zealand. I want to quote from the mayors themselves, who wrote to the Government and said that they did not want this legislation. And I’ll quote directly: “The Government’s decision to remove decision-making from councils by mandating that polls be run on Māori wards and constituencies is an overreach on local decision-making when current legislation already requires councils to seek community views. We are disappointed this is in contrast with the commitments the Government made during the election campaign to empower local government to make decisions about its own communities.” This is this Government seeking to override the democratic decision-making that takes place within local communities. This is this Government saying to local councils, “You can no longer make decisions about how Māori could be included in council decision-making.” It is directly overriding local government.
Let’s go back to the position of those very same mayors—52 mayors and chairs—who wrote to the Government: “Our position—a position that has been held by Local Government New Zealand since 2018—is that Māori wards and constituencies should be treated like all other wards and that decisions should be made at the [local] council level. Polls aren’t required on any other wards or constituencies, and requiring them will add increased costs to councils.” Not only is this discriminatory; it’s adding costs on to councils. It is a shameful day for this Parliament, a day when we have a Government reintroducing, proudly shouting about it, that they are discriminating against Māori and treating Māori differently to other New Zealanders. I thought we were well past the day when that sort of behaviour in this House was acceptable. I thought we were well past the day when Governments boasted about passing laws that discriminated against Māori. Unfortunately, it seems under this Government that is no longer the case.
This is another stain on New Zealand’s Parliament. Passing a law that treats Māori differently to non-Māori New Zealanders is a stain on the reputation of this Parliament. It is another way this Government is embarrassing our country, another way the Government is turning the clock backwards, another example of the Government seeking to divide Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders, in a way that we have not seen in this country for a generation. I’m not surprised the members opposite are so quiet now during this debate after all the shouting of the last contribution has disappeared, because they’ve got their heads down because they know that what I’m saying is true. This bill is discriminatory. This bill is wrong, and it should not proceed.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Green Party and share with this Whare that te iwi Māori are sick of the attacks of this coalition Government on our people: te reo Māori, Te Aka Whai Ora, 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the mega-prison, boot camps, killing our people with tobacco, reviewing all Treaty clauses within legislation and ripping them out, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act—you dare attack our takutai moana, touch it, watch te iwi Māori respond. We are sick of it. Te iwi Māori is seeing what you’re doing to us. The community sees you, migrants see you—
SPEAKER: No, no. With all due respect, I’m not doing anything to anyone.
HŪHANA LYNDON: Can’t say “you”.
SPEAKER: No.
HŪHANA LYNDON: Thank you. This Government—I’ll pull it back.
SPEAKER: And please just stay loosely, at least, within the bounds of the third reading of this bill.
HŪHANA LYNDON: Yes, thank you. I’m getting to my point that this Government continues to attack te iwi Māori. We’ve sat in this House and debated this legislation for how long? Last week we tried our best to reason with this Government. We shared that 10,000-plus submissions came in within a five-day period. Our people mobilised. Over 90 percent supported the retention of Māori wards—90 percent easily. We sat over three days, truncated position, truncated way of closing out the people of New Zealand, but there you go—we did it. And our select committee did its best. We had a variety of submitters that came in, whether it be democracy groups, whether it be university students, whether it be migrant groups, even our marae came in and they shared: “Retain our Māori wards.”
I want to share what Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board offered in their submission to us in the whare. “The Bill represents an irresponsible exercise of power. It is a retrograde and racist step: no other type of ward or constituency (including rural wards) [or ratepayer wards] requires a poll.” This proposal appears to have an intended impact to divide our people, and it’s been politicised, misrepresenting, actually, the mahitahi that we have in our communities. And Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board went on to talk about their strong relationship in council, and that this will divide our community.
I’ve shared in the past that the chair of our Māori standing committee at Northland Regional Council Pita Tipene has said that this Government is missing the heart of our communities and the people of New Zealand because we’ve gone so much further—we’ve gone so much further in our mahitahi, but they want to lock us up, they want to throw away the key, and exclude us from the local government decision-making table. Waipā District Council: localism in action. They shared with us at the select committee: “Waipā District Council established [our] first Māori ward in May 2021 following [a] comprehensive [engagement] with our community. That consultation drew … 900 submissions”—that’s 900 community members that came out to have a voice on this issue. Don’t talk about localism when you’re shutting out the people of Waipā, because 84 percent of those 900 submissions supported the establishment of a Māori ward. Nā wai i teka, kāhore te hapori e tautoko ana i ēnei o ngā wāri Māori? E tautoko pau te kaha ana. Titiro. [Who lied that the community does not support these Māori wards? They support to the limits of their strength. Look.]
In 2021, they established their Māori ward in Waipā because of the desire of the community. That desire was reflected in the councillors who all voted ae because they listened to the community. It is then and it is now still the desire of Waipā District Council to retain their Māori ward, but this Government is forcing us back. “Back on track.” they say—“Back on track.”—but it’s sending us back, back, back. It’s dividing our communities. It’s saying, “No Māori, you don’t get a say. You’re going to have to fight it out with community groups that come in. In fact, all those external forces, like what happened in Palmerston North, you’re going to have to fight it out with Hobson’s Pledge again, because they’re going to come in and they’re going to saturate our community with racist rhetoric.”
Tamaira Hook, cousin from Te Rāwhiti—humble young man, don’t get involved in this type of thing, but he put a submission in out of the 10,000-plus—managed to find Tamaira. Tamaira said, “Maori wards ensure the fair representation and participation of Maori in local government.” Kia ora tātou. “They hold the function of upholding democratic principles by allowing voters on the Maori electoral roll to have specific representation on local [government]. Maori wards ensure that Maori have a platform to articulate our own needs and contribute to local decision making”. Thank you, cousin Tamaira. He is providing the voice of young people, he is providing the voice of rural community because Te Rāwhiti is miles away from Kawakawa, miles away from Whangaruru.
Bringing to the heart of why Far North District Council has been so successful this term—so successful because you’ve got mahitahi, tangata Tiriti, tangata whenua. And while you might say, “Far North District Council, you’ve already got Māori on there.” Yes we do, but it’s a plus, plus, because now we have a full representation of the large number of community members across the rohe: Hokianga mai, Te Rāwhiti mai, you’ve got whānau from Whangaroa and Te Hiku all at the decision-making table mahitahi together.
It’s really disappointing that we’re at this point because this is it. We’re going to have to go out and tell our communities that we’ve lost the battle, because our communities have said, “Hold on to the Māori wards.” We have done so much to achieve this and now we are taking a step back. Over 50 mayors wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister, which has been ignored, and they told the Prime Minister that this is a clear overreach in local decision-making. Those 50 mayors have said that this is a distraction from the important work that they do in local government. But somehow this Government seems to think that they know better than the 50 mayors that wrote to them.
How many of our councils actually asked for this? I say that because I don’t think that they really wanted to do this; it’s being forced upon them—it is being forced upon them. So when we’re saying we’re upholding localism, we’re seeking for local voice. Local government at no time asked for this. Our communities fought back—10,000-plus—and said no. Our young people have said in their submissions, “We tautoko local representation.”, like cousin Nīkau Wi Neera here in Wellington. Māori are important, and these Māori wards brought to the table skills, expertise, tirohanga Māori, and connection into Māori communities that local government doesn’t always have.
Enough is enough. Local government is being attacked. When we see the changes in the Resource Management Act and the removal of Te Mana o te Wai, we’re getting stripped back. We’re going so far back. Why are we doing this at such a time where we’ve seen an integration of community, of mahitahi—we can’t even do a karakia at Te Whatu Ora any more. These attacks on our people are not OK. Te iwi Māori is watching this Government. We in the Opposition are watching this Government. And I can tell you, te iwi Māori is not happy with what’s happening today, what’s happened last week, and what’s going to happen into the future—just like we’ve got the gang patch legislation this afternoon.
Now, it’s critical that at this time, at this juncture in local government, we mahitahi, because the long-term plans are just being completed, and long-term plans require a diverse range of voices. Māori often don’t engage in these local government planning processes. So when you have Māori ward councillors, they can bring the council into Māori communities; whether it’s your rugby club, whether it’s at your marae, or the local community hall in Oakura, Whangaruru. They can drag you into the Māori community as a council. And I think that’s the missed opportunity that we have here. Te iwi Māori voice is important, Māori wards are important, and this Government is turning its back on the voice of community, the voice of local government who did not ask for this on top of them. Kia ora tātou.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Local community did ask for this. This Government is not turning its back on local community. It is the core foundation of localism to return control to those closest to the ground as possible, and the individual is the closest to the ground as possible. Giving people a right to have their say on the make-up of their council is the core of localism.
ACT is proud to support this bill. We campaigned on this during the election, and there was a coalition Government elected on listening to what people in their communities want and giving it back to them, because it was taken away. We are restoring local democracy.
Shanan Halbert: Stop flashing your logo.
CAMERON LUXTON: It’s a great logo—you should get one. Councils will have their chance to implement this bill. These 50 mayors that are complaining that they want to have a say—they have a say. They can either choose to disestablish a Māori ward if it was created without the consent of a binding referendum from their people, or they can go to a referendum. That choice is going to be created for them, and that means—
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: It’s not a choice.
CAMERON LUXTON: It is a choice. That’s two options; options create a choice. Then, we will go to another situation that I have had in my home council of Tauranga. We had the people, the citizens, go out and get the signatures, 5 percent of the local electors, to have a referendum on the Māori ward. The Minister of Local Government at the time, under the Labour Party Government, took away the ability of people who had gone out, done the hard work in collecting signatures, and had their say—to just be wiped over. The Tauranga commissioners—who, thank goodness, have now vacated their spot and we have democracy in its whole form returned to Tauranga—implemented something against the will of the people of Tauranga. Now, we are restoring, in this Government, the right of local communities to have their say.
There are local communities who have established Māori wards: 45 councils have established a Māori ward without a binding poll, but four have established a Māori ward which will not be affected by this legislation. Although I do not support race-based wards, one can support Māori wards and this bill. This bill is healing a divide that was created in this country—a divide which puts the provisions of race in the first place. This change is not an attack on Māori. It is a defence of the liberal value that all human beings have equal moral worth, and our political rights flow from that fundamental principle. Removing this divisive and backwards race-based policy from what is currently happening in local government is something that I’m incredibly proud to support.
Tangata whenua will still have a say on many institutions in councils. For example, take again the Tauranga City Council. We have the tangata whenua and council committee, which is a standing committee; we have the Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Partnership, which implements initiatives as well as advances and protects the interests of tangata whenua; and we have the Kāhui Kaumātua, which is the kaumātua forum in which any kaumātua in and around Tauranga can raise concerns and issues with the mayor, the chief executive, and the staff. That is a form of consultation that I think—if the members on the other side of the House would listen carefully—takes into account the feelings and the issues that are affecting mana whenua in their regions and brings that to the community and to the council without having to have a race-based ward.
Post-settlement governance entities represent 81.2 percent of Māori. These entities in many cases have a line directly to the decisions which are made in their local regions. And rightfully so—rightfully so. They should have that line. This party, the ACT Party, has supported Treaty settlements because we believe that the wrongs of the past need to be addressed. But we do not think that, going forward, over the next 200 years, our country can come together and be served by dividing people based on race.
On that note, I remember, after the last Government was unceremoniously sent into the night, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta gave an exit interview with Jack Tame. I listened to it, and I was quite impressed actually.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Oh, that’s mighty ware. Stop talking like that. Jeez.
CAMERON LUXTON: She said something in there which I—oh, well, look, I’m impressed by many things Nanaia Mahuta has done. This is one in particular—
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Say her name right if you are.
CAMERON LUXTON: Nanaia Mahuta said, “I think fundamentally, having a political party based on identity can be a challenged space.” She went on to ponder, “How do we bring Māori, as indigenous people, and the rest of New Zealand closer together rather than further apart?” Well, I would say, removing race-based wards is a key step in moving New Zealand closer together and not further apart.
To the people who have campaigned in the past to have a referendum to remove race-based wards, I would like to say that I’m sorry that you had to go through that and have that squashed by the last Government. But this coalition Government is standing up for the rights of New Zealanders, in their local communities, to have a say on fundamental things such as, “Do you want to have electors who are there in a race-based ward.”? I think that my fellow New Zealanders, from all walks of life and all ethnicities—when they think it through, if they haven’t already—will find it abhorrent to go about classing people based on who their ancestors were. We want to see all New Zealanders respected in their own inherent dignity—as an individual; as a person who’s making a key part and a key difference to the life of our country and the future that we can have together. I very happily commend this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I want to return to a theme which I’ve covered in previous stages of this debate—
Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, no thank you.
ANDY FOSTER: —and, actually, I think that sometimes even you, Willie Jackson, listened to some parts of it and saw that, actually, there was a point there. The point that I wanted to make is this. If I were to quote Winston Churchill, he said that “If you have an important point to make,”—
Hon Willie Jackson: What about Winston Peters?
ANDY FOSTER: —no, Winston Churchill—“don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time—a tremendous whack.”, and that’s exactly what I intend to do.
But Chris Hipkins was actually right in one part of his speech. He said that it is all about one person, one vote—and it is—and I think there are some people who are afraid that Māori wards—
Chlöe Swarbrick: So disestablish the ratepayer roll.
ANDY FOSTER: Just listen up. I think that some people are afraid that Māori wards actually mean that, somehow, Māori have more than one vote, and that’s wrong. They don’t have more than one vote.
But there is an issue which he also neglected, which is that the structure we’ve got in the Act itself means that sometimes those votes have different weight, and that is the fundamental issue. That is the fundamental issue that I want to—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: No, they don’t—how? How?
ANDY FOSTER: I’ll explain to you, Willow-Jean Prime, if you wanted to listen. Chris Hipkins said that Māori wards are one person, one vote, and that it doesn’t give Māori extra votes, and he’s correct on that. But what he has failed to see is that there is a major flaw in the Local Electoral Act.
Democracy also relies not just on one person, one vote, but on each vote being worth roughly the same. So in this House, every five years, the representation review gets done on the basis of the census and it says that every seat must be within a population of plus or minus 5 percent. They will ruthlessly move around the boundaries, with, of course, a bit of input from political parties to make sure that it does, and 22 seats got their boundaries moved the last time the review was done. The Local Electoral Act says that it’s plus or minus 10 percent, so it’s still trying to achieve the same objective there. It does have allowances for communities which are isolated. You might be on an island or you might be in the Marlborough Sounds—those kinds of communities—so it does allow for that kind of situation. The Local Government Commission can have a look at that, and, actually, that’s one other thing that Mr Hipkins failed to note, which is that while this legislation is about allowing referenda on Māori wards which are not available to other wards, all the other wards are able to be contested with the Local Government Commission, which, in the 2021 legislation, was not able to be done with Māori wards.
The problem, though, in the Local Electoral Act is that in Schedule 1A of the Act—and you might want to have a look at it—what it does is it allows a Māori ward to be established, potentially, on 50 percent of the size of the population of a general ward. So, effectively, that means that in that situation, a vote in a Māori ward is still one vote, but it has twice the weight of a vote in a general ward. It could actually flip the other way, but it doesn’t happen very often. It could actually be a situation where the Māori ward is larger than the general ward, and, in fact, there is one situation—and I’ve looked through the numbers—in which it is, but for all the others, it’s the other way and it’s sometimes very, very significant, and I do suggest that you actually look at that. So it is disappointing to me that this issue has not been addressed yet. I understand that it was actually looked at just a little bit when the Act was brought into the House in 2001-02, but it hasn’t been done yet.
As Cameron Luxton said, what this does—and this is an area which I do think you need to think about—is you could actually support a Māori ward, and, actually, a Māori ward was introduced when I was the Mayor of Wellington. You could actually—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah, you voted for it, Andy.
ANDY FOSTER: Exactly—you could actually support a Māori ward, but what you could do—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Foster, those “yous” are starting to add up.
ANDY FOSTER: Oh, sorry. One could support a Māori ward but actually be disturbed by the numbers, and the numbers are actually quite disturbing. There are 26 territorial councils which have Māori wards. Ten of them are under STV. In one case, as I’ve said, Māori are significantly under-represented. In one, it’s within that plus or minus 10 percent, but in the other, they are all well underneath, and sometimes significantly so.
What makes this worse is we have the situation where we have this great enthusiasm for Māori wards, but only half the people who whakapapa to Māori have decided that they want to be on the Māori roll for the national election and that also means that they are the only ones who are on the Māori roll for the local elections, and the turnout is abysmal in comparison. Across the board, the general wards’ turnout is 47 percent and the Māori wards’ turnout is 28 percent, so it’s significantly lower, and what that means under STV is that at the first iteration, on average, you require three times as many votes to be elected—three times as many votes to be elected—in a general ward than you do in a Māori ward. That is an issue, and in the worst of them it’s 10 times as much, in the same jurisdiction. In the same council area, it takes 10 times as many votes to get elected at a first iteration in a general ward than it does in a local ward.
Under FPP, it’s not much different. The turnout in general wards is just over 48 percent and the average turnout in Māori wards is 32 percent, and the other bit is that the number of non-contests in Māori wards is 23 percent against 12 percent. So those are significant differences.
Hon Willie Jackson: This is stupid.
ANDY FOSTER: I know numbers confuse you, Willie. I know numbers confuse you, but they are important and electoral integrity is important.
Just in conclusion, Labour’s legislation was rushed through in less than one eighth—I’ll use another number—of the time that this bill has taken to get through. Māori wards are generally far smaller than general wards in terms of population represented per person. Half the people with Māori whakapapa choose not to enrol in the Māori electorates or rolls, but choose the general ones, and the turnout in those wards is between a third and a half of what it is in the general wards. So there is a fundamental problem and, in my view, the Act—regardless of this bill—remains fundamentally flawed.
It’s quite clear that the Opposition either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to listen, but this is a fundamental problem for the democratic structure of this bill. So, just to conclude, as Cameron Luxton said, you may well support Māori wards, but this is a problem in the legislation which needs to be fixed, and I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call. I call—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Steve Abel.
Steve Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, what—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Steve Abel.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Steve Abel—thank you, Mr Abel.
STEVE ABEL (Green): I’ll take it. Thank you.
Hon Willie Jackson: Made a big impression on you, clearly!
STEVE ABEL: Clearly! The incoherence of this Government that purports to believe in local democracy and speaks in terms of rights-based frameworks—we hear the term “equality” used. Well, an equality that relies on taking rights from one group—iwi Māori—to somehow make us all more equal is snake-oil equality. We are all the poorer for it. By saying that a majority can vote on the rights of a minority, or that a majority can vote on indigenous rights, betrays a profound lack of understanding of basic democratic principles.
This law is not democracy; it is the tyranny of the majority. The greatest unspoken majority in the current structure of our local democracy is the ratepayer—the ratepayer who has multiple votes, potentially. What is being done to correct that utter imbalance of your supposed advocacy for one person, one vote?
Why do we have a bill of rights? We have a bill of rights because it has been well understood for centuries in the formulations of democracies across the world that there was a very evident problem with democracy: the tyranny of the majority—the tyranny of the majority. It is impossible by a purely majority rule to protect minority interests, and, indeed, persecution of minorities becomes nearly inevitable if you allow that tyranny. Therefore, all functional democracies have a bill of rights to guard against the tyranny of the majority.
What’s more, we have something exceptional in this country, even beyond the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We uniquely have a founding agreement that recognises the right to self-determination of tangata whenua Māori. That is something we should be profoundly proud of. Indeed, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—in the words of Moana Jackson, and you’ll hear me say it time and again—is a profound and visionary base on which to build a country. If we are to uphold that founding agreement, we must listen to the means by which Māori wish to express their self-determination, and if that means as Māori wards, then we must listen to that. That is the fulfilment of our agreement.
It is the poisonous untruth that permeates the programme of this anti-Māori Government: that by nullifying Māori rights, we make us all the better; we make us somehow more equal. It is a profound untruth and a poisonous, divisive idea. My colleague talks of bringing the country closer together; well, it doesn’t come by dishonouring that founding agreement. That is not a way to bring the country closer together—by dishonouring and nullifying that founding agreement. It doesn’t come by trampling on the relationship between the Crown and iwi Māori. It doesn’t come by that. It doesn’t come by showing disrespect to the means of self-determination that Māori express. That is not how you bring the country closer together. It comes by listening, by respecting, by honouring the relationship, by realising that that honouring is a profoundly—[Interruption] By honouring that relationship, we have the pathway to profoundly coherent nationhood. We do not have that pathway by dishonouring it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Abel, could you just mention the bill once before you finish.
STEVE ABEL: The Māori wards bill? I have mentioned the Māori wards. Yes, I have mentioned it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, tēnā tātou te Whare. My support of Māori wards came from my belief in the power of Māori political representation as a means of Tiriti justice. I will not waver in that belief, despite the nonsense that I’ve heard across the House.
I am realistic enough, though, in this Government; it is not actually concerned with what is right or logical or pragmatic. The removal of Māori wards now prompts a wider discussion that rests outside of Māori representation at a local council level. Deeper questions must be asked.
We cannot plead ignorance in the face of racism. All the bills, amendments, removals, and disestablishments to date are this Government’s attempt to normalise racism in the face of our nation so that no one, including their own, will speak up to fight for us when it reaches to that point; that today it may seem so unbelievable, but tomorrow it’s a reality. I see this reality dawning upon us with the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill.
The strategies and actions from Government are not new nor misguided; unfortunately, they are calculated, and I listened to the calculation speech across the House earlier. All the numbers but nothing about actual tangata whenua, people. The Government may mask their call for the removal of Māori wards behind the absolute lie that is democracy in this country, but I want them to know that we see you; we see you to the left of me in the back, and I see you in front. We Māori see you. We know what you are doing, and just understand this: we are ready.
The removal of Māori wards is merely another open invite to racists across this whenua to the open season against te iwi Māori. This open invite is welcomed by this Government and, in fact, it reinforces their agenda that would see our open and upfront extermination as a people, in whatever sense that may be—
Hon Member: Come on.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —hold it, just hold, just hold, you can do it—whether that be in the healthcare system, in the State care system or, as it is in this case, within systems of local council. It is shameful that this Government, in their efforts to deliberately remove Māori, has exposed us, in particular our taiohi, to racial slander and hateful discourse, not just in this reform but many gone and still on the go.
Why does this Government hate us? Why are they taking everything away from us? These are pleas that councillors from just over the way at Hutt City Council have heard from the rangatahi in their communities. It is nothing short of disgraceful that our rangatahi are forced into a position of questioning their own worth in this country, on their own whenua.
This Government is purposely strengthening and perpetuating reservations in the minds of our young Māori and non-Māori on what it means to be Māori—not something that you just stumbled across in the last few years, possibly—associating it with being inferior, less than, and a nuisance. This influence on the consciousness of our society is perhaps the greatest harm. Our mokopuna do not deserve being belittled by society before they are even born.
Over the course of the submissions process, I sat and listened to council after council plead with the select committee, asking for retention of Māori wards but clearly that fell on deaf ears. Councils in these processes alluded to the risk Māori communities will now face in becoming an isolated people, isolated and ostracised from politics.
In my closing comments: E te iwi, me āta whakarongo mai ki a tātou. Kei te haere mai te Māori, te ngākau o te iwi Māori. Kia ū tātou, me whawhai tonu tātou. [To the people, you should listen closely to us all. The Māori are coming, the heart of the Māori people. Let us be steadfast, we should continue to fight.] I absolutely reject and despise this bill. Tēnā tātou.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had a number of words written in preparation for this third reading speech tonight, but I’m not sure whether it’s worth it, because, clearly, many of the members opposite haven’t actually read the bill, don’t understand what the bill does, and don’t actually acknowledge any part of the bill.
The bill doesn’t remove Māori wards. The bill doesn’t remove constituencies. The bill reverts the law back to where it was in 2021 under Jacinda Ardern. It reverts the law back to where it was in the early 2000s as introduced by Helen Clark and the Labour Government and Nanaia Mahuta, supported by members sitting on the opposite benches. So I ask the question: is it worth standing up and continuing on speaking to a bill where members opposite clearly don’t understand what it does?
I thought I would make a contribution, because one of the themes that comes across from the members opposite is that they believe that they have the single dictate, that they have the one true idea in the world on what it is to be Māori, on what it is to count as a Māori, and what it is to have your view count as being one that is of Māori world view. They are the ones that get to decide; they are the ones that, apparently, hold all the cards. If you don’t look like them, if you don’t talk like them, if you don’t walk like them, if you don’t think like them, then you don’t count.
Here’s a message to the tens of thousands of individuals—of children, of young people, of workers—out there in New Zealand who identify, who whakapapa, Māori, who don’t look like them, who don’t think like them, who don’t share their world view, and who they think don’t count. Well, those people do count, and we share the view that their individual views count. Whether they share the views of Willie Jackson or Te Pāti Māori, their views count. I say to those people who are having their Māori whakapapa questioned by members in this debate tonight: if you do not agree with the members opposite, if you do agree that you have individual thought, that you are allowed to be a free thinker, we will welcome you, because we support people regardless of ethnicity, regardless of race, gender, creed, who can think independently.
This bill does one very simple thing: it restores the rights for local communities to have a say on the creation of Māori wards—a special ward created by statute. It is only right that locals have a say on the creation of those wards. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon Willie Jackson: Willie Jackson.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Are you seeking the call, Mr Jackson?
Hon Willie Jackson: Yes—yes, Mr Speaker.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, I oppose this Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I’m in obvious opposition. I want to say to that previous speaker, James Meager, I find that type of kōrero sad because nobody on this side questions that member’s whakapapa at all—at all. What we question, Mr Meager, is your commitment to kaupapa Māori. There is a quite a difference. But there is no doubt about this member’s whakapapa. He is Māori, and from what I gather, proudly Māori, and so please don’t run those sorts of lines with us, Mr Meager, because our challenge will always be on kaupapa and policy, particularly with Māori members on the other side of the House who we have worked with—I know I have worked with—on and off for many, many years. When I first came into the House, I was working with people like Georgina te Heuheu, and, obviously, Wira Gardiner. So, it’s not unusual for us to work with National Party members, and I wouldn’t have a problem with working with Mr Meager if the kaupapa was right, but to sort of hit us and criticise us in terms of giving a view that he’s not Māori or whatever, it’s just nonsense. No, we do not support the National Party view on this kaupapa. That’s where the criticism is coming from, Mr Meager.
I do agree with others in this House that it’s a shameful day. Obviously, from this side, that’s been the whakaaro, that’s been the view. I want to congratulate our leader, Chris Hipkins in particular, and Kieran McAnulty, who last week was very clear, because it’s important that we have Pākehā advocates who understand our kaupapa, particularly from mainstream parties. Today, you heard a great speech from our leader, Chris Hipkins, who talked about racism, who talked about prejudices, who talked about double standards in terms of Māori and Pākehā, and who talked about 52 mayors who are supporting this type of legislation. So I want to congratulate him. I think it’s great for the House when you get a Labour Party leader going down that track; Kieran McAnulty who’s gone down that track. And, of course, we mihi to Nanaia Mahuta who brought this forward, who actually initiated this.
Our leader is sick and tired, and we as the Labour Party are sick and tired of all the attacks on Māori. That’s been very plainly put forward today by members on this side of the House, whether it’s been the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, or ourselves. This, on top of the attacks in terms of the Treaty is—well, it’s sickening. We’ve got the Treaty being questioned right across legislation. Then, last Friday, we had the shocking revelation that, again, the Government is attacking Māori in terms of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and overturning the Court of Appeal decision—overturning a Court of Appeal decision. It hasn’t had a lot of publicity in the last few days; I can assure you, couple this with the rejection of Māori seats and with the rejection of te reo Māori—this is turning te ao Māori upside down.
We hear it all the time from both sides of the House—can I make this clear to Mr Meager—from National Party Māori members too. So many National Party members reject this type of legislation. It’s not just this side of the House.
Shanan Halbert: Hinurewa te Hau.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve got Hinurewa. We’ve heard Hinurewa. We’ve heard Tu Williams. We’ve heard other National Party members—Hekia Parata.
Shanan Halbert: Raewyn Kapa.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, these are all National Party members who also whakapapa Māori, who are very proudly Māori, who are ashamed and embarrassed by this type of legislation.
Let me be clear about what the Māori wards represent anyway. They actually represent more democratic infrastructure. You would think that this Government would want to invest in infrastructure, but all they want to do is privatise it. What’s wrong with building up a democratic infrastructure? Having more voices at the table when making decisions for the community, strengthens that decision. It makes it stronger. This lot are allowing their arguments of standing up for democracy to mask the petty bigotry that they are really peddling. By shutting down Māori wards, the Government are allowing their race-baiting rhetoric to cause harm to the Crown relationship with Māori. Allowing the indigenous people of the land a voice in the decision making, makes those decisions stronger. It builds unity. It includes Māori as per the Treaty and as per the Treaty principles.
There’s nothing radical going on here. No stealing of democracy. In fact, we’re strengthening democracy by allowing participation with local Māori of the community. That’s what Māori wards are: they allow people—I gave some examples the other day. Hilda Harawira, for example, is a wonderful candidate in the north who would not have got through on general wards. Toi Iti, Tama Iti’s son, would not have got through on general wards. Penetaui, Shane Jones’ son—well, you know, he’s a Māori ward councillor. Would he have got through on the general wards? Oh definitely, our Penetaui, but these people are examples of people who have benefited from a really important structure, a real democratic infrastructure like we used to have, like universal union membership and student unions: democratic infrastructure that we need more of, not less.
I think, in terms of this, it’s an insult for right-wing politicians to claim they want to decentralise power when they’re robbing councils of their right to have a Māori ward. Decentralising power only seems to be a problem for National, ACT, and New Zealand First when their power is going to Māori.
In terms of this one person, one vote carry-on, it’s a strange one. We’re getting lectured on the sanctity of one person, one vote when so many of the National Party and ACT Party colleagues and friends can vote multiple times in multiple elections if they own multiple properties. But we’re lectured on the sanctity of one person, one vote. Having a Māori voice in decision making strengthens our community. Our former Wellington mayor must know that. Attacking Māori wards behind the veneer of democratic values is hollow and shallow.
So, I say today, because I hear the kōrero and I heard the Minister earlier talking about one person, one vote, and I heard the former Wellington mayor talking about it—I ask him and I ask the House today: democracy is not just about the tyranny of the majority, surely? It’s not just about the majority winning. There seems to be a constant denial of this.
Andy Foster: Didn’t say that. Didn’t say that at all.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, but we keep hearing that. I’ve said what I’ve said in the past, and it’s been brought up today: that we’re part of a contemporary democracy. It’s not the tyranny of the majority anymore. There’s no better example of that than this rotten Government. I mean, here you’ve got three groups, you’ve got the three-headed monster. They’re an example of a new type of democracy.
When we were a Government, we were a Government with 37 percent of the vote. That’s a different type of democracy today. First past the post was quite different, and I’m just having problems understanding why the other side are finding this so hard to understand. The new democracy is about understanding the diversity in this country and understanding how the Treaty of Waitangi fits in terms of a modern democracy. Surely that’s a challenge for the other side to try and grasp—that it’s not just about one person, one vote. Hekia Parata said it: it’s about treaties, it’s about relationships, it’s about diversity. It’s about how we balance and work with the Treaty of Waitangi today. This is what we’re talking about. It’s about Māori getting the opportunity to vote. That’s what the Māori wards gave us, Mr Meager, and that’s why we’re so disappointed with your Government today.
We all know that if you strengthen Māori and if you work with Māori, when Māori flourish, the whole country flourishes. But Māori want the opportunity not just to do mihis, not just to do the haka, but to participate fully in this country. We want that opportunity, and the only way we’re going to get that opportunity again is if you vote for a Labour Government in 2026. That’s the aim. And if you vote for us, we’ll bring this kaupapa back. Kia ora tātou.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): We’ve just heard that the only way to get this opportunity is through the provision of Māori wards. Well, can I mention a few names as to other ways that one can get elected? Can I mention the names of our two Deputy Prime Ministers: Winston Peters and David Seymour? Can I mention Shane Jones? Can I mention Casey Costello? Can I mention Shane Reti? Can I mention Tama Potaka? Can I mention Nicole McKee? And can I mention Karen Chhour? None of them were elected through Māori wards or through Māori seats. It can be done, Mr Jackson, and you too are living proof of that. There are other ways and they are proven. We have now got a Cabinet of 35 percent Māori, something that a majority Labour Government didn’t achieve in the last term.
I stand in support of restoring the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards. I support this because we have a mandate from the New Zealand public. We have a mandate—a strong mandate; a strong mandate. In fact, I point you also to the two coalition agreements that National have with New Zealand First and with ACT. We are delivering on what we campaigned on and what our coalition agreements have quickly and succinctly said. It was well signalled in the 2023 election. In fact, it’s been well signalled since February 2021, when Labour rushed, without warning—rushed—the process through. Two days for submissions, am I right, Mr Chair of the Justice Committee? Two days for submissions, and two weeks from go to whoa. That was the last process.
It was Labour, as others have said—James Meager, our learned chair of the Justice Committee has already articulated that it was Labour who brought in local communities’ rights to petition for a referendum if they got above 5 percent, and that was through the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002. Willie Jackson knows this very well, because Mr Jackson was in The Alliance at the time that it was fully behind their Minister leader of The Alliance—and, of course, of Māori descent—Sandra Lee. She was the champion of this, and Willie was her wingman in Parliament, arguing for this, only 22 years ago. So we are merely bringing back what Mr Jackson fought so hard for only a generation or two ago. If we had a fourth reading, we’d go through the Hansard and quote him at length, but we won’t put you through that.
We’re bringing back the communities’ say. In fact, when you look at the likes of Auckland Council, they consulted on Māori wards last year—over 12,000 submissions—
Hon Willie Jackson: How close was the vote?
CAMERON BREWER: Sixty-eight percent were against, in the public. A majority of Auckland councillors listened to their community, and hence they won’t need to go to a referendum in the 2025 local elections—Auckland Council. To those councils that installed Māori wards without referendum, they will now have their decision tested at the 2025 local government elections. What’s wrong with giving locals a say with how their local representatives are elected? Locals deserve to have a say on their governance representation arrangements.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But Māori don’t.
CAMERON BREWER: They do. Why not? There’s nothing more pure than a referendum. This is localism in action.
Look, some mayors and councillors have told us, on the Justice Committee, that Māori wards have proved popular, and we accept that. We accept that Māori wards have proved popular in some district councils and city councils. So now we have the opportunity for those mayors and councillors to go out to the public and get a mandate to support what has been so effective for them, and I’m sure many will get across the line and retain their Māori wards. For those communities that might not support this, this is not the end of the road. Can I put to you and can I remind you that there’s no other sector that empowers, enables, and enacts te ao Māori more than local government—more than local government.
Guess what! I finish as I began. Māori can still get elected, and they do in huge numbers: 35 percent of our Cabinet. As I said in the second reading, 20 percent of Auckland councillors in that inaugural Auckland Council election were Māori and they’ve all stood in general wards. We’ve done it before and we will do it again. I commend the bill.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. All Māori have ever wanted, expected, is tino rangatiratanga, mana motuhake, respect for Te Tiriti, fairness, equity. All Māori have ever wanted is justice, to be treated fairly and equitably.
Today’s debate is actually about barriers, and what we see from the Government members in their speeches today is that they go back, they go backwards, to rules and laws that were implemented, put in place to obstruct Māori from advancing in our political system—to put barriers in place that obstructed Māori from better representation, from achieving mana motuhake, from gaining the justice that our people and all of our communities in Aotearoa deserve. This bill wants to put in place particular barriers that impact access to representation that is only going to be unique to tangata whenua, to Māori. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of rural-ward voters. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of general-ward voters. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of property owners having multiple votes in multiple districts where they own property, just like our Prime Minister. No, it is only Māori wards and their voters that must be approved through a district-wide vote.
The Government members say, “But the Labour Government put this in place” Well, that was back in the 1990s, and under the last Government we took away this barrier that disabled Māori from having better representation, because we recognised that it was only a barrier that was put in place for Māori. Today, as the Government members boastfully support this bill and legislation to go through the House, this is taking Aotearoa New Zealand backwards, back to the 1990s, back to obstructing voices that, since Māori had been at those tables, has only been applauded, has only added value, has only supported everyone in particular communities around the motu—Māori and non-Māori alike. Because when a Māori sits at the table who’s a representative of a Māori ward, they also represent everyone. They also make a wonderful contribution to the future of Te Tairāwhiti. They also make a wonderful contribution to Tukituki, to Ngāti Kahungunu, and the future of Hawke’s Bay. But members of the Government today are choosing to put back in place legislation that obstructs Māori voices from making a contribution to their communities.
The Minister today said, “What a great day for local democracy.”. “What a great day for local democracy.”—for who? Not for Māori; it’s not for New Zealand. And the fact that the Minister and Government members are so boastful—so whakahīhī—about what they are doing today is simply disgraceful. I end my contribution for today that this started when the Minister made a decision not to put this through the Māori Affairs Committee—not to include Māori and to obstruct them from this discussion.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to contribute to the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I wanted to begin just by saying that we are the House of Representatives, the Parliament of New Zealand, and being representatives of New Zealand, we represent everyone in our electorates—who may have voted for us; who may not have voted for us—and we establish a pathway into work for Parliament, and in local government as well, through hard work, the building of relationships, the establishment of friendships. And so we make and inch ourselves forward.
I am originally from the Philippines, as everyone knows. The first councillor of Filipino descent was elected in Ashburton in 2017, and it was a big surprise to all of us. Clearly, she put herself forward and she had created enough relationships and friendships and support, where she found herself being elected as a councillor.
I think we have heard harsh words in this debate. We have heard “extermination”, we have heard “racism”—we have heard a lot of harsh words—but what we aim for in this amendment bill is to give voice to the people that we all represent, in the places that represent. And that does not lose sight of the fact that there may be different constituencies in our electorates. But we in this Government are determined to celebrate the humanity that unites all of us and not to focus on division by using in-group rights and collective identity as a supervening fact over the equality of all of us.
The amendment bill seeks only to bring back to local communities their opportunity to have a say in their own governance. If I am not mistaken, Māori, Filipinos, Chinese, Indians, Pākehā form part of the local communities, so when we want to specify a specific treatment to a specific group—in the words of leader of the Labour Party who spoke earlier—when a specific group is treated differently, that is discrimination. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I understand this is a split call—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. He tino hōhā—hōhā—te noho ki roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi ki te whakarongo ki te kōrero a tērā taha. Rātou e whakanene, e whakahīhī ki a mātou anō nei he kūare mātou ki tēnei pire, nō. Mōhio pai mātou he aha tā koutou e hiahia ai.
Tō koutou hiahia kia hoki muri, hoki muri noa atu ki te wā horekau he tūru Māori i runga i ngā kaunihera. Ko te take i tīni ai te ture kia whai tūru Māori ki runga i ngā kaunihera, koirā te take nā te mea mai i tērā ture tawhito o te tau 2002 tae noa ki te tau 2019, kotahi anake te kaunihera i eke. Kotahi anake te kaunihera i whai tūru Māori.
Nō reira i runga anō i tērā taumahatanga, i tīni te ture. Neke atu i te tekau mā whā ngā kaunihera i hiahia ki te whakatū tūru Māori engari nā runga anō i tēnei kōti, kahore i eke. Nō reira i tīni te ture kia taea e ngā kaunihera te whakatū i ngā tūru Māori.
I te wā i tīni tērā ture, ka piki ake te nama o ngā kaunihera ki te rima tekau. Rima tekau ngā kaunihera whai tūru Māori ināianei. Koirā te rerekētanga o te ture. E mōhio ana tērā taha o te Whare, e mōhio ana rātou ki te kaikiri nei o tēnei kaupapa.
Engari e kōrero ana rātou, “kahore, kahore, e kūare ana koutou. Kahore koutou e mōhio ana ki te pānui, ki te mārama ki te ture. Kahore ngā kaitono e mārama ana, mōhio ana, matatau ana ki te pānui i tēnei ture.” He kūare katoa rātou, ngā kaitono? He kūare katoa ngā kaunihera i tono mai ki a koutou?
Koirā tā koutou i kōrero ai i tēnei ahiahi. E mihi ana ahau ki taku whaea, ki a Nanaia, me tana kaha ki te mau mai i tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare Pāremata ki te whakamāmā ake i tērā tūāhuatanga o te hītori kātahi anō ahau ka kōrero i roto i tēnei Whare.
Nā kua puta mai te pātai me te wero ki a koutou, pēhea oti ngā tāngata whai whare maha? Ka taea e rātou te pōti i roto i ngā rohe maha. Kahore tērā i te “tangata kotahi, pōti kotahi”, engari e whakarerekē ana koutou i tērā? Nō, kahore. Kahore. Ko tēnei anake.
Nā kua tonoa mai tētahi reta ki a koutou mai i ngā kaunihera, “waiho tēnei ture”. Engari kahore koutou i te whakarongo ki a rātou. Nō, e mōhio ana tō koutou Kāwanatanga, tō koutou mōhio me pēhea te whakahaere i ngā kaunihera ā-rohe. Kaua koutou e whakapono ana ki a rātou.
[Thank you, Speaker of the House. It is really annoying—annoying—to sit here in the House this afternoon to listen to the comments of that side. They who are teasing and behaving arrogantly to us as if we are ignorant of this bill, no. We are well aware of what you want.
What you want is to go backwards, go all the way back to the time when there were no Māori seats on the councils. The reason that the legislation changed was so there would be Māori seats on councils. That is the only reason because from the prior legislation of the 2002 up until the year 2019, only one council managed it. Only one council had Māori seats.
And so because of that difficulty, the legislation changed. More than 14 councils wanted to establish Māori seats, but because of this court, they couldn’t do it. And so the legislation changed so that councils would be able to establish Māori seats.
At the time that that legislation changed, the number of councils increased to 50. Fifty councils have Māori seats now. That is the difference of the law. That side of the House knows; they know of the discrimination of this action.
But they say, “No, no, you are ignorant. You don’t know how to read, to understand the legislation. Applicants don’t understand, they aren’t aware, they don’t know how to read this legislation.” Are they all ignorant, the applicants? Are all the councils that made applications to you ignorant?
That is what you said this afternoon. I congratulate my Auntie Nanaia, and her strength in bringing this bill into the House of Parliament to ease that particular circumstance of history that I have just spoken of in this House.
Now, the question and the challenge has been put to you, what about those people that own many homes? Are they able to vote in many electorates? That is not “one person, one vote”, but are you amending that? No, not at all. Not at all. Only this.
Now, a letter has been sent to you from the councils, “leave this legislation alone”. But you won’t listen to them. No, your Government knows, you know how to manage the regional councils. You don’t believe them.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Prime, my translation has you talking to “them”; could you talk to “you”—sorry, you are mentioning the word “you” quite often.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: “Koutou”—“them”? Āe. Aroha mai. Anō, Mr Speaker? [Yes. I’m sorry. Again, Mr Speaker?]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): My translation has you using “you” frequently, so could you just address the Speaker, please.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Āe.
Shanan Halbert: Koutou or rātou?
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Koutou or rātou? Rātou? Koutou? [“You” or “they”? “They”? “You”?]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Carry on and just avoid the use of “you”, please.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: OK. Oh, well kua tata pau taku wā i runga anō i tērā, engari e mōhio ana rātou i te mutunga iho o tēnei o ā rātou mahi. He kaupapa kaikiri tēnei. Kahore i koni atu, i koni mai i tērā. Mōhio ana rātou, nō reira kahore ahau, kei tēnei taha, e tautoko ana i tā rātou mahi kaikiri nei. Tēnā koe.
[My time has almost expired on that, but they know the conclusion of this one of their activities. This is a racist action. There are no two ways about it. They know, so I will not, on this side, support their racist actions. Thank you.]
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Koutou mā, e kore au e ngaro, he kākano i ruia mai i Rangiātea.
[Thank you, Speaker of the House. To you all, I will never be lost. I am a seed that was sown from Rangiātea.]
I stand to speak on the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, aka the “You Māori can just stay on the advisory panel and the Kāhui Kaumātua Bill.”
I just wanted to address, first of all, one of the comments that was made from that side of the House where he suggested that we should all just stand together as one. Sadly, , for Māori, this country doesn’t have a very good track record of that. I recently had the privilege of becoming a member of the Ngarimu VC Scholarship board and one of the new categories is audiovisual. One of the entrants was a beautiful young wahine who I believe is from te nota and she told the story of how our tīpuna went away and fought together as one; we went and we fought for Aotearoa as one. When they came back, they were left landless, didn’t have access to the grants for homes, and some were even excluded from the RSA—Returned Services Association—so, as you can understand, the track record is not very good and that’s why this representation is so important.
Furthermore, though, since the term “localism” has been used so much, what about the 52 local and regional councils who say, “No, this is not what we want. We’ve been through the process and we say no, kahore, leave us alone to be local, manage local, and govern locally.”—which is what they are. What about them?
The clear message here is: you do what you’re told. So while my colleagues all across this side of the House, and I know it is the view of some sitting opposite as well, have done a really good job of clarifying how this bill is clearly an attack on Māori, my warning is to Aotearoa whānui because kei te oreore katoa te iwi Māori, e hoa mā [the Māori people are all stirring, my friends]. Māori are excited, alive, ready to be heard, and going nowhere, because we belong to this whenua; we can’t go anywhere. We will return to this whenua. But everyone else—for example, Hastings Heretaunga council who says, “We are strongly and unanimously opposed to this.”—sorry, this Government don’t care.
Our leaders already quoted the 52 mayors who said, “This is an overreach.” This Government’s not listening, whānau. They don’t care. If they’re coming for Māori, anyone out there who’s sitting comfortable, do not. You are in the firing line too. And this word “kuare” has been used, aptly; the word “kuare”, whānau, means ignorant. Whakahihi has been used—that word means arrogant. But the word that comes to my mind is “mataku”—fear—and yet fear, when in 1840, when our tīpuna signed the Treaty, what we were doing was giving everybody somewhere to belong. And now we’re fighting for our voice around the tables.
Fear makes you do funny things, whānau, and I’m talking to all the Māori and non-Māori listening. Fear makes you even turn on your own, like my poor Labour colleagues who got called white saviours in the House last week. So what does that tell us? Not only are Māori being attacked for standing up for our own rights, our rights as mana whenua and tangata whenua, but anyone listening out there, kia tupato, because if you stand with us, they’re going to turn on you too. And I say to you: kia kaha ra—that’s standing in partnership, that’s standing together as one, not basing your opinion on what your race is; actually basing your opinion on what’s right.
Here’s one more message to our whānau out there—and Andy Foster, thank you for your statistics, and if this Government carries on the way it’s going, every Māori’s going to be forced to get on the Māori roll so we might have to make room for more Māori seats in this House; how exciting is that, how exciting if that was to happen under this Government. Heoi anō rā, kua mutu te wā ki a au. I will remind you, Māori mā, e kore koutou e ngaro, he kākano koutou i ruia mai i Rangiātea. [However, my time has expired. I will remind you, Māori people, you will never be lost. You are a seed that was sown from Rangiātea.] I do not commend this bill to the House.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take this final call on the third reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. In essence, this bill—
Shanan Halbert: What a disgrace, Rima.
RIMA NAKHLE: I’m just going to take it back to basics, because there has been a lot of, as my colleague prior said, unparliamentary words thrown around in this House. So I’m just going to take it back to basics, notwithstanding what’s being hurled at me from across the room.
First, the bill will amend the legislation around Māori wards in local government to how it was before the previous Government rushed legislation through by stealth in 2021—so that it’s back to where the wider community had a fair chance to help decide whether to add Māori wards to their local area.
Second, for councils who have already implemented Māori wards, it provides a pathway for the disestablishment of existing Māori wards that were brought in without having attained wider community support through a binding poll—getting back to basics. And, furthermore, if these councils choose to retain their Māori wards until the 2025 local elections, they will be required to hold a poll at next year’s local elections.
Third—just bringing it back to basics, without hurling abuse at each other, because we’re all human beings—for those councils that have agreed to establish Māori wards again devoid of having sought the support of the wider community through a binding poll showing wider community support, this bill provides a pathway to rescind that decision before the next local election in 2025.
I think the fourth amendment that I’d like to highlight as well, which is something that hasn’t really been touched upon, but I understand it doesn’t fit the magnitude of the thoughts expressed, is that this bill seeks to also address the increasing pressures within the domain of postal delivery of voting papers. So it will amend some of the local election time frames to allow increases for postal delivery and for the voting period.
I am just going to go back again, if I may, to basics, about what our key messages are here. All three parties were clear about the fact that they were intending to do this during the election campaign—and beforehand, actually, back in 2021, when the changes were brought in almost by stealth. I want to say that I know there has been a lot of heartfelt emotion in this debate, and there were times when my eyes welled up with tears as well, because it has been heartfelt. But I want to reassure my brothers and sisters out there in the community that, from a National Party perspective, one of our principles is “equal citizenship, equal opportunity”. So whether we personally agree with this or not, we agree to it in the coalition agreement, and National commends 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 third 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 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Marine Farm Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill now be read a second time.
About nine months ago, it occurred to the party that I belong to, New Zealand First, that we can create so much more wealth, jobs, export earnings, and regional resilience if we can give confidence and certainty to investors and owners of assets in the marine farming sector. Why is that important? It is important because, in the nature of our economy, $420 billion - odd worth—unlike Australia that can start turning the diggers on and expand the size of the quarry, otherwise known as their mining sector—we need every single engine of growth developing positive outcomes every single day.
We’ve inherited a situation in this industry where, despite our international reputation for high-quality food, despite the fact that we have an inordinately large ocean environment, we are only using a fraction of it. Many of the people in this industry are approaching a point where the level of red-tape burden is destroying not only their confidence but squashing initiative. So, as a consequence of the election result, the inevitable coalition discussions, we set upon, as a part of this Government, delivering that confidence and that certainty and introduced this bill. I remind the House that this bill enables every single owner of a marine-farming permit at the moment to enjoy confidence and greater certainty because their permits will be extended until 2050. Now, that may actually not seem a great achievement to people who don’t understand the challenges of running these types of industries, but it is an industry that can go well into the billions of dollars’ worth of returns. This is a small step to make.
Now, the Primary Production Committee did hear various submissions. I want to refer to some of those submissions. I also want to remind everyone that this will amend the Resource Management Act. Sadly, it will be one of many hundreds of amendments that have been afflicted upon that largely unworkable piece of legislation since 1991. But the effect of it is to give the director-general (DG) of primary produce, which is where fisheries is located, the ability to work with regional councils where there are egregious cases where farms need their conditions revisited. But they’re not going to be able to hand on the costs of that particular level of activity or those investigations to the long-suffering farmers, the council, or, indeed, the DG will have to ensure that they meet those costs themselves, and that will be an inordinately overdue discipline, because we’ve got a situation where far too often we see in regional and local government where, under the auspices of the various statutes, risks are overstated and costs are understated. This is an attempt to invert that particular equation.
Where there are cases that a farm has to go through a process of having its conditions reappraised, that can still happen, but it can only happen if the ratepayers, through their council, pay for it themselves. Boy, you will then see how actually necessary that is, and there will be a cost-benefit analysis, as opposed to some indiscriminate reaction to a lot of nimbies who don’t want this type of industry to exist in New Zealand.
In addition to that, there was a concern that somehow this would lay in concrete or calcify an industry that’s got a lot of bad habits. That reflects a very negative, jaundiced view, which we cannot afford in New Zealand. In New Zealand, we need pro-industry, pro-development, no more hand-wringing, no more locking things in a time capsule inversely related to whatever the challenges are that we’re trying to deal with in order to create more jobs, keep our people in New Zealand, and boost our export receipts. This small bill will actually unlock that confidence. Sure, there are some people who fear that this might, as I said, concrete bad habits in. Stop attacking industry. Stop depreciating entrepreneurialism. Stop diminishing this particular sector where, in parts of New Zealand, it is the only area that has great potential for growth. Why is it being supported by this side of the House? It’s because we are pro-growth politicians. We don’t catastrophise all these apparent risks, that it’s going to ruin the environment; that’s the other side of the House.
As I wind this speech up, I want to acknowledge that the select committee did its level-headed best. Sadly, it split on ideological lines. Those lines were driven by, as I said earlier today, quackery from the Greens, who don’t believe in development, who don’t believe in jobs, who don’t believe in using our natural resources. They contemplate that New Zealand is a people’s paradise. But if you live in a people’s paradise and you’re poor, you’re going to wake up tomorrow, believing you might be in paradise, but you’ll still be poor. That’s not the view of the party that I represent. But I accept that those are the ideas that were contested through some of the debates around this particular bill.
The date of 2050 is when the permits will expire. Sadly, I wanted it extended but I had to be reasonable, so I settled upon 2050. I think it’s a reasonable compromise when you balance not only the need for economic growth but, in many cases, marine farming and aquaculture. It’s infested by nimbyism. It’s a case where allocation of space has to run the gauntlet of a host of other stakeholders who may not want to ruin amenity values. Amenity values should play second fiddle to jobs, economic growth, and industry in coastal New Zealand. We don’t want a situation where, if you are blessed with owning a flash house, you decide that you don’t want to see King Salmon expand in a particular area of the Sounds; that type of power should no longer be permitted to be exercised to benefit only a tiny minority of the public.
Nowadays, those members of the public will not be able to undermine—those members of the anti-growth brigade sitting on that side of the House will not be allowed—to weaken the ability of regional communities to use resources, like open space for the purposes of mussels, oysters, salmon, kingfish, and a host of other types of marine species that entrepreneurialism and investment will unlock in the future. That’s the recipe that underlies this bill. That’s the recipe that will keep our young people in New Zealand, living in regional locations because they’ll see a future; not this climate alarmism, not all this catastrophising of “the risks are so big that we can’t have another marine farm”. What about the risks to the country’s wealth? What about the importance of trade-offs being made so that those who don’t want growth meet the costs by being confronted by their fellow New Zealanders of zero growth.
This small, modest bill reflects pragmatic thinking on my part as a representative of the party I belong to, and, as an emissary of the pro-growth Government that we have in place I commend the bill to the House. Long live the profitability and the opportunities for greater growth and regional wealth through the aquaculture sector. Thank you very much.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Before I call the next speaker, I note that the Minister moved the second reading without using the precise words shown on the bill. I’m taking it as read that the Minister’s moving the second reading of the bill as it is listed on the Order Paper. That is the only bill the Minister could be referring to. The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. For a moment there, I sensed déjà vu. I think that when this bill was last in front of the House, we had the same sort of issue from what is clearly an incompetent Minister for Oceans and Fisheries who just cannot even get the basics right.
This is a shambles in terms of moving forward. On this side of the House, we know that aquaculture is important. The Minister thinks that it’s an anti-growth brigade over here—it is far from it. He talks about confidence and certainty through to 2050, but the question that the Minister has not touched on is at what cost does that come, when we consider the environment. Listening through the Primary Production Committee process, that confidence and that certainty can still be achieved, just without the extent of the changes that are listed in this particular bill.
The Minister also refers to the select committee process—and I’m going to spend a bit of time on that in a moment. It’s interesting, though, that he chose not to delve into the depth of some of those concerns that were raised. And why might that be? Well, quite simply, it’s because this is a Government that signed off on putting to this House a truncated select committee process, shutting down the opportunity for communities to have their say, because they are simply not interested in any other views that are dissimilar to their own. Well, the message from this side of the House is: that is not how things work in terms of this Parliament and democracy.
This blanket extension of 20 years that the Minister has proposed is not only excessive but unreasonable. This is an extension process for a lengthy period where there will be no room for any assessment—or, indeed, any reassessment—opportunities when it comes to existing farms, or if circumstances change, or, indeed, if mitigation might change as well. What this bill simply does is change the expiry date on existing permits. It does not have any sense of change to reconsider the nature of the changing environment in these particular localities or any further conditions of consent that might mitigate some of that change.
Now, when we talk about or reflect on the select committee process, on this side of the House, the last time this came to the House, we expressed concerns about that limited opportunity for the select committee process. I do want to acknowledge the Primary Production Committee that has worked extremely hard to progress this bill in a short period of time. But, really, they were constrained in that sense because they were given a time frame from this House, because that is what the Government wanted. There were only 13 days that submitters had an opportunity to submit. I do want to congratulate and acknowledge the fact that, despite that, there were 1,100 submissions that were received from individuals and from organisations all around the motu. That was hard work for those individuals and organisations to meet that time frame. But what’s really significant there is that because this is such an important piece of legislation, they were committed to ensuring that their views were made known.
The overwhelming majority of submissions—the overwhelming majority—actually 1,000 of the 1,100, were absolutely opposed to this bill—absolutely opposed to this bill. This shows a lack of public confidence in what this Minister and this Government is wanting to ram through this parliamentary process. The overwhelming majority do not want this bill.
When we look at the report from the select committee, there were a number of amendments that were proposed in the spirit of making this more workable, and I want to just run through some of them that were proposed—certainly by Labour members on the committee. The first was in light of the fact that we do not support this blanket 20-year ban. There were many submitters—many submitters—that thought that a five-year extension might be the way to go. Now, we were very happy to support that. That was not the view of the majority of the committee, however. But in the spirit of trying to get some compromise around this, we offered up a 10-year extension period, albeit reluctantly. Again, that did not find favour with Government members on the committee. It’s also interesting that with the reduced number and time frame, that would allow for existing use opportunities, but that would be for a shorter time frame.
The second—and I acknowledge the Greens promoting the exclusions around finned fish farms, and that was something that we were very happy to support. But I think that acknowledges significant environmental aspects of that operation—there needed to be some stuff there that could have been worked through. That, again, did not find favour with the committee.
The Minister talks about this sort of sense—well, we infer—of distaste or dislike for anyone involved in local government—anyone involved in local government. As a committee, we heard eight councils who submitted to this process, many of them from areas that have coastal permits in operation in their particular rohe. Seven of the eight were in opposition to this particular bill. Now, if we think about the seven out of the eight, across the motu, that submitted, that reflect quite a significant sort of stretch of coastline—that is significant. The key focus from many of those councils was around this need for a cost recovery mechanism for any reviews that are undertaken. Now, again, we sought to provide some compromise in that space to perhaps limit the cost recovery opportunities by identifying maybe what might be fair and reasonable in those circumstances, and even went to the extent of offering up an opportunity, by way of amendment, to, effectively, cap the cost of review at 50 percent. So 50 percent of the total cost would be the maximum figure that could be recoverable by the council. Again, that found no favour from any of the Government members that sit on that particular committee.
Let’s be very clear, Minister: Labour members on this side of the House are of the firm view that there must be a provision for councils that are involved in the issue of these permits to be able to initiate a review, and that that actually needs to be without the consent or the permission of the director-general. This is extraordinary that the director-general would somehow be involved in a resource management process at that particular level. So we do have some concern around that. It’s certainly something that we were rather concerned with.
This is a bill that is going to be detrimental moving forward. The 20-year extension is not required. There is still time, Minister—the committee of the whole House will be the next step, and it might be something that you, on a road to Damascus, perhaps see the light on. But, on this side of the House, we remain of the view that this is a bill that we will not submit. But there is still time for the Minister to consider, through the committee, some of the changes to make this not just workable but sensible. On that basis, at this stage, we will not be supporting this beyond second reading.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The oceans is a commons; it belongs to no one. Māori have customary rights; the rest of us benefit from the rich ecology of the ocean. It’s the major absorber of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. That ecology feeds not only multitudes of species but, of course, us. The licence to use the ocean for commercial purposes, because it is a commons, should rightly be subject to local input and mana whenua input. And because it’s an incredible ecosystem, it should be subject to the input of independent environmental experts.
When we consider use of the ocean for commercial purposes, we should think about the customary, the recreational, and the commercial use of that space by other interests in the ocean—fishers, tourism, those not wanting—
Hon Shane Jones: Mining—mining!
STEVE ABEL: Yeah, that’s right.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Parliament voice, please, Mr Jones.
STEVE ABEL: It’s interesting, given that the Minister has raised mining, it is the fishing industry who are very opposed to his proposal to destroy the seabed for mining in Taranaki. That is exactly the sort of consideration that a regional council can take into account when it assesses the validity of any given application for resource consent to utilise the ocean. It can say: “What is the impact of this marine farm on the local crayfish harvesters; what is the impact of this deep-sea mining operation on the local fishing industry; what is the impact of this massive marine farm on tourism operators who might also have commercial use; and, what is more, what is the impact on the ecology? What is the impact on the customary use? What is the impact on the recreational users?” Those are all legitimate considerations when we are talking about how we as a society utilise our oceans and our commons.
This bill explicitly removes any say of locals in how their local oceans are used. It takes away the right of iwi, it takes away the right of local users, and it takes away the right of other commercial users to have a say. It takes away the right of local councils to have a say. And that is why every single regional and local council in this country opposed this legislation—every single one of them, even the Marlborough regional council, which has, incidentally, 80 percent of the commercially grown seafood in New Zealand, in Marlborough; 600 marine farms, half of all of the marine farms since the 1970s, a very significant industry. The regulatory impact statement for the bill, they quote, confirms “the status quo is working efficiently and effectively and provides for better environmental and Treaty outcomes than the other [proposed] options.” To proceed with the extension proposal would be worse than doing nothing.
So here we have a Government not listening to the locals, not listening to the experts in marine farming, in our biggest marine-farming area in the country, but what is also concerning, the Law Society—and to quote them—“Legislating for particular circumstances risks undermining democratic values and the legitimacy of Parliament, and in some cases may be seen as biasing the system towards interests that are well funded or well-connected and able to lobby for their interests.” Does it smell like vested interests lobbying to us? It smells like a bucket of fish guts left in the sun for a week. That’s how much it smells like vested interests lobbying to us—this extension of the marine farm.
Hon Shane Jones: Democracy—democracy!
STEVE ABEL: It’s the opposite of democracy. You should look up “democracy”, Mister Minister. We made some quite reasonable—some quite reasonable—propositions. I had this excellent bit of feedback from a former National Party member when I was inducted to Parliament in 2020. He said that the purpose of one on a select committee in Opposition is to try and make good legislation. Well, in our select committee, we did try and make good legislation. And I thought we had some quite useful conversations across the best select committee in this House, and those conversations struck upon a couple of very reasonable proposals that my colleague Mr Utikere has touched on. One of them was finfish farms.
Finfish farms are one of the most controversial forms of marine farming and one of the most impactful. Not all marine farms are alike. Finfish farms are banned in some jurisdictions. They have a huge impact on the ocean. They involve large fish in battery-like cages. We heard, on the impact on the fish, that they are probably risking being against our current code of welfare, in terms of animals. They are a sentient species. They also produce a lot of waste and excrement. There is also, actually, in the assessment of this legislation, the impact of antibiotics—the impact of fish food that is given to those farms. So we made a very simple proposal: not that fish farms should be banned, but that fish farms should be subject to the status quo scrutiny of local councils when assessed. They just should not be given this free consent, and they represent a tiny percentage of the total number of farms but with a potentially large impact. That was voted down by the Government members.
We also made another very reasonable and nominal proposal, which was that given that regional councils have designated certain marine farms, not just fish farms but marine farms, to be in inappropriate areas, perhaps those ones—a very small percentage, I would say; fewer than 2 percent of all the marine farms in this country are designated already by regional councils to be in inappropriate areas—we shouldn’t give the extension. They should be subject to the same assessment. No—voted down by the Government members. A very reasonable proposal.
Cost recovery: why is it that ratepayers should have to pay for the assessment of a commercial activity where that local council believes that it needs to be reviewed and assessed? Why is it that ratepayers should have to pay for that? Surely it’s appropriate that there be cost recovery against the industry who has benefited from the right to use that commons that is the oceans.
Hon Jo Luxton: The industry didn’t mind.
STEVE ABEL: The industry actually expressed that they didn’t have a problem with cost recovery. They agreed it was fair. It was voted down, unfortunately, by the Government members.
Where a review is designated to be appropriate by the regional council under this new legislation, we also suggested—it was supported by my Labour colleagues—that the director-general need not have a determining say on whether that review could proceed. If a local council decided they were going to review a given consent, surely they should be allowed to make that decision? Why does the director-general need to get in the way? That was also voted down by the Government side. And as my colleague Tangi Utikere pointed out, the five-year extension proposal was voted down. The 10-year extension proposal was voted down.
This is a sad situation where a very bad piece of legislation was attempted to be made slightly better, with some very reasonable modifications and amendments and they were voted down. Well, I will put it to the Minister, and I will put it to the Government side, that we will bring those amendments to you in the next stage, and we would like you to seriously consider them as important improvements and modifications to this law that is otherwise terribly undemocratic, anti - Te Tiriti, bad for the environment, tramples on local decision-making. It’s all the bad things that we should disdain and we should not like.
Finally, we heard that 91 percent of the submissions were against this legislation, including the Iwi Chairs Forum, including numerous iwi, including ocean users, the New Zealand Angling and Casting Association, New Zealand Sport Fishing Council, the New Zealand Underwater Association, because, of course, the ocean is used by multiple people and it is appropriate that regional councils should have a full say and local people should have a full say. This bill tramples all over that and throws it out. We absolutely do not support the bill. We call on the members opposite to see common sense and vote against it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. I want to sort of touch on a couple of notable remarks from the Opposition members—I think they’re very salient, a couple that I absolutely agree with, and that was the collegiality of the committee and how we worked, I would say, to progress the bill forward. I note some of the language in and around “constrained” was used. I have a slightly divergent view. I imagine that thus doing our work in a tight time frame could be viewed as constrained, but equally I would argue it was constructive.
We had a varying degree of views. And I do note in the submissions process, there was a heavy voice in opposition. But I also make the remarks of the 10 percent that were for it. Now, just to put some context on the 10 percent that were for this legislation—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: I thought we were all about equality.
MARK CAMERON: And I think it’s salient to the Opposition member that’s just commented there. A lot of the people that were in support of this bill were iwi Māori—they were iwi Māori in the fisheries space. Coastal commercial—
Hon Jo Luxton: Oh, not that many, Mark.
MARK CAMERON: I respect the member Jo Luxton for her remarks, but I have a slightly divergent view—iwi Māori that spoke to tino rangatiratanga, self-determination, to run their business and afford themselves economic activity in their practice. Now, withstanding, as we would all agree, some of the submissions that we heard were considered fraught. And I know the member Steve Abel was very pressing when he was concerned about the animal welfare issues. Salient remarks to make, I argue, but equally then, the submission process—we might say, we also heard remarks from those in the industry.
If we could, I’d ask the House to indulge me further and let’s delve into the sentience, the animal welfare issues, the benthic nature of sedimentation, the nutrient loading in the localised area, especially in the finfish space. I think a lot of the controversy that we heard was predicated on that concern. Industry had a different view on how they could alleviate that. They felt that innovation and investment surety that this legislation brought them allowed them scope of operations; talking to the fact that we have afforded, we might say, a greater period for them to go through that practice and that consentable regime, 20 years or out to 2050.
Now, I do note—being in the role of the committee chair, and appreciating the varying degrees of views that were heard—there were some in iwi Māori that were divergent from me and this side of the House that said it was too prescriptive. It didn’t afford them the flexibility that they needed. Waikato-Tainui noted that they were in opposition to the bill. They maintained that that was problematic. We heard language like “bespoke” and/or “compromised” by some of the councils when it was being discussed.
I think, moving forward when we reconcile those that were against and those that were for—trying to find a balanced argument. I became cognisant of the fact that many in the industry—and it was the industry I was most interested in, notwithstanding we have to, I think we would all agree, balance our language and the policies of this House to afford better environmental outcomes. I think we would all agree, we are a country constrained by red tape. We have seen the productive sector across the primary industries fraught with difficulty when it comes to physical activity, economic investment, and their economic surety and innovation. This bill certainly speaks to that.
I would maintain it is not perfect. I think we would all agree, in all legislation there is the ability to only further the conversation, add to better lawmaking, and I think that will be afforded to this House in the committee stage. But I will tie up with my reflections about what the industry was really asking for, and that was investment surety. A consentable regime that in some instances—and there were many of these farms that were actually very, very small. They were mum and dad operations, and they spoke to their inordinate sums of money, exorbitant sums of money—whatever adjectives you want to use—to invest, to innovate. They were huge sums of money to get that consentable regime over the line, and thus have a projected future forward that offered them surety. I think that was the counterfactual that I was struck by as a Government member.
I go back to my previous remarks. Many of the people that saw the benefit of this legislation were iwi Māori. Iwi Māori live in coastal communities, often found with small businesses trying very, very hard to circumvent—wrong wording you might say, but certainly cope with the huge amounts of red tape that they are affronted by that costs them in terms of their productivity and their future out the other side. This bill speaks to expediting a process to afford them better insights, better opportunities in terms of innovation. I can only support the bill at this stage moving forward. Let’s see where it lands with the committee stage, but I maintain investing in our people in regional New Zealand is only a good thing.
Without over-litigating the point, I would make my final remarks as this: we’re a country that has been built on our primary industries. The people that this industry supports are absolutely gold, and anything that we can do that makes their tomorrows a little bit easier than today is only a good thing. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We support the bill.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise in support of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill because this is a great bill, because it will drive productivity and it will help our Government achieve what we want to in the next 10 years, and that is doubling the value of our exports.
Aquaculture is going to play a very large role in this. The sector generated, in 2023, $763 million, including $575 million of export revenue; and the sector employs over 3,000 people—3,225 people to be exact. The aquaculture sector has huge potential to grow and it has potential to be a multibillion-dollar industry. As the chair of our committee who has just spoken has said, we did hear from a lot of industry players during the Primary Production Committee process. We heard from the marine farms and many of them spoke to us about the cost, the red tape, and the regulation that they were all facing as industries at the moment, which was obviously very, very restrictive for the industry. They spoke about the bureaucratic process and just the restriction in terms of being able to grow as an industry.
Officials actually spoke to us and said that it was costing about $6 million at the moment in terms of these reconsenting processes. So this is a cost that these industries could be putting back into innovation, into technology, into rebuilding—and building—their industries. The industry representative groups, as we’ve already heard, did speak about some of this innovation that they could be investing in. The Marine Farming Association spoke about the King Shag research project and the mussel bed restoration project—all examples of things that they could be refocusing a lot of that potential cost into, these projects.
Then we heard from Moana, which is the largest Māori-owned seafood company, a fully integrated oyster farming operation with 28 farms. They spoke about their concerns around the consenting process and then having to go through these processes over and over and over again with the same information, kind of the same bureaucracy, they were going through. They spoke about how this was really restrictive in terms of being able to grow as an industry. And, you know, this is a company which is providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs and opportunities in provincial New Zealand, as the member has already spoken about. These businesses talked about wanting confidence and certainty to be able to reinvest. This bill is all about creating confidence and certainty and driving productivity in this sector.
I must say, there was one couple who did come up from the Marlborough Sounds during the submission process, and they are a couple that I will remember. It was the first time that they had submitted, and they just spoke about the hard work that they had been doing over decades in this industry. They were creating hundreds of jobs down there in the Marlborough Sounds, and they just talked about the red tape gone mad, the bureaucracy gone mad, and the cost. It’s businesses like this that we want to be aspirational for. We want to be aspirational for our food producers and for our primary industries in New Zealand. That is why this is a good bill. It supports aquaculture in New Zealand, and it supports us moving forward and driving productivity. That is why I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to this bill, and it’s a shame, actually, that the Minister presenting it is not here, because I take on board the absolute importance of speaking to climate deniers in this House. We continuously hear the fermenting and the maturing of a bucket of stale fish heads coming out of this House, where we have Ministers who are threatened by the freshness of innovation and sustainable futuristic investments. That is what we continuously are put back and are relegated to hearing, and, really, the prospect here is something that has so ripened for too long, it is actually rotten. This bill is another rotten part of the crumbling empire that we’ve seen all year of bloated capitalism.
This isn’t a prospect for growth. In fact, it’s the desperation of twilight politicians whose random retorts in the House remind me of a boar that’s been captured and has just been told to get its snout out of the trough. I can’t think of a better way to prescribe exactly what it is that we continuously have to be affronted by with this particular Minister. Actually, it’s interesting: did you know that alligators have snouts too? That’s just a side issue.
There were 1,100 submissions heard and 1,000 were against this bill. We continuously hear that side of the House talk about democracy and the importance and power that, in a democratic sense, they have been awarded since the election last year, but then every day since then, they’ve ignored democracy. That is why we have select committees, that’s why we have hearings, and that is why we ask our people for their views. A thousand out of the 1,100 submissions opposed this, and if that’s not democracy, what is it?
Again, I put it to you that we are continuously exposed to the desperation of twilight politicians whose retorts sound like desperate boars, because their snouts have got no other direction but to take, take, take. From the very perspective of Māori, this bill undermines tangata whenua rights. It undermines community autonomy. It undermines environmental protections. It shifts the clean-up costs and the pollution costs of anything to the public—to the public. That’s not growth. Where’s this boar’s retorts now?
In fact, it’s an example of why this Government is amending the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. It is an example of why you’re going and taking us back down towards the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, because the whole plot and plight, which is so lacking in any innovation, is for this Government to use what’s left of our natural resources, all the whenua under the moana, to exploit and to contain and run with the only game in capitalism that colonisers know, which is—what? Muru, muru, muru, muru, muru, muru, muru, muru—muru raupatu. Who cares how our mana whenua feel? Who cares how the thousand who actually took the time to submit feel?
Stop calling this growth. This is not growth; this is climate deniers fermenting in the maturing of a bucket of stale fish heads, and it’s rotten to the core. Ngāti Toa pointed out that, potentially, this creates new grievances under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—new grievances. Environmental experts highlighted the severe potential impact on marine biodiversity, but who cares? We’ve got a Minister whose snout is just saying, “Mine, mine, mine; milk mother Earth; take everything we’ve got.”, because by 2050, when these permits are finished, this Minister is not going to be here. We’re not going to be here. This is the legacy of bloated capitalism which doesn’t give a heck about this next generation. This is going to be the mess for our mokopuna and the future generations to clean up.
It is irreversible damage that is being proposed environmentally, but it is also irreversible damage that is being proposed politically, and we are here to be part of an Opposition that has defied a Government trying to bring out the Foreshore and Seabed Bill for us all. This Government is so intent on its one-way track and it’s so intent on its anti-Māori, anti-Tiriti, anti-environment, climate-denial fermenting greed that it cannot see any path other than taking us backwards. There is nothing innovative. It’s harmful.
Te Pāti Māori will continue to fight this Government and show our mokopuna what true, true innovation looks like, and it is nothing that is being proposed in this House. We are adamantly and vehemently opposed to this bill. Kia ora rā.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā anō tātou katoa. The Green Party opposes this legislation as we know that it’s going to provide a blanket extension, to 2050, for marine farms. Now, there’s some 1,200 marine farms across the motu and we know 60 percent-odd are oyster farms. As mokopuna of the Bay of Islands and also Whangaroa, I have grown up around oyster farms, and many whānau have benefited from having jobs. But, ultimately, there is a desecration of our marine spaces if we do not take the time to review resource consents.
The rushed process that this Government is implementing undermines the ability for community, for iwi Māori, to input into these resource consents. Because we know some of them are ancient, before I was even born—they’re from back in the 1970s and have not been tested, have not been reviewed. The environmental impact has not been assessed nor any cultural impact assessments completed, so how can we say we just let them carry on doing what they’ve been doing for so long, to 2050? It is abhorrent and it disrespects the local haukāinga and communities who continue to be impacted.
Ultimately—ultimately—we know that our iwi Māori have largely opposed this. They have affirmed that it’s a clear breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Many of us are before the Waitangi Tribunal right now, and in urgency, for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (MACA) takutai moana; and we are, in Whangārei, in front of the High Court for our MACA takutai moana rights as well. We participate but we oppose that legislation that seeks to raupatu our takutai moana. Iwi and submissions have defended the right for kaitiakitanga. They are worried about our marine spaces and they also want to exercise their rangatiratanga according to their own tikanga, acknowledging many iwi are already in this space. They receive benefit and so do their people.
Ultimately, if we look at the way that this Government implemented this consultation—if you can call it that—one month of consultation targeted and focused; one hui on 1 March with iwi. What was it?—1,100 submissions, in the end. Iwi had one week to reply and get notice that they’re going to call the one hui for iwi to be consulted on this legislation. How disrespectful is that to iwi, as mana o te whenua, mana takutai moana. The process has been rushed. Our people have been locked out. But 1,100 people mobilised, and 1,000 objected.
The voice of council was also strong and worried. They are very cautious—and may I go to Marlborough District Council who provided their opinion saying that this proposal, in its blunt form, involves risk of “unintended consequences that will be detrimental to Marlborough’s coastal environment.” Marlborough would know. They’ve got 324 marine consents due by the end of 2024—324 marine consents, that’s huge. These guys know the business. But they started in 2019 reviewing these resource consents, because they’re a proactive council, and they’ve got 101 left for this year to review. Now, they’re saying that “Actually, the existing legislation is fine; let us do the work that we need to and these guys who have huge numbers of marine farms in their rohe are doing the work right now.” The Ministry for Primary Industries has also warned that this legislation could cause unintended consequences. You cannot rule it out.
Te Tiriti impact is real. Settlements could be prejudiced. And, as Ngātiwai Trust Board’s chair, they oppose this—based on the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There has been no meaningful engagement, only one who is not good enough. It’s a breach of good faith. This bill cannot be used to advance private marine interests at the expense of the environment and at the expense of Māori rights.
May I go to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, another iwi of mine. They are in this industry, they’re doing the mahi, but, ultimately, they are saying that this legislation is Trump-esque. This bill does not represent all the voices of the aquaculture sector. This blanket approach by this Government puts our marine environment at risk. That is the voice of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki; that is the voice of Ngātiwai. Kia ora tātou.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill delivers on the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to extend the duration for marine-farming permits. I want to thank Minister Shane Jones for his foresight and courage in introducing this bill, and for clearly articulating the purpose and intent of this piece of legislation when he spoke to the Primary Production Committee. I’d like to thank all those who made submissions on this bill during the select committee process.
It’s a great bill—great for aquaculture, great for regional development and regional New Zealand, and another step on the ladder in this Government’s determination to double export receipts from our primary industries in the next 10 years. This bill removes barriers to growth and investment in the aquaculture sector, and we heard this message loud and clear from businesses and organisations during the select committee process.
We heard from Gary Hooper, the chief executive at Aquaculture New Zealand, who reminded us that the aquaculture sector earns $780 million annually in revenue, employs over 3,000 people, and has the potential to grow exponentially. The aquaculture sector is estimated to be facing $28 million in expenditure to renew the consents of 300 farms. The 20-year extension will provide the certainty and confidence needed for the industry to invest in its productivity, its places, and, ultimately, its people.
We heard from Elizabeth Redwood, a second-generation mussel farmer in the Marlborough Sounds whose passion for what she does was infectious. Elizabeth said the costs involved in “securing existing space have stifled new developments and other opportunities for growth, like investment in spat techniques and [new] technology. … This extension … [will] have huge benefits in growing not only … [their] operation but the aquaculture industry as a whole. The world is constantly looking for protein sources … [which] have a low impact on the environment and … [as mussel farmers that] is exactly what … [they] provide.”
David Hogg, also a mussel farmer in the Marlborough Sounds for over 26 years with interests in three farms, said this bill will “improve productivity and resilience”, and “in turn free up resources for ongoing investment into innovation and productivity initiatives”.
Jesse and Kirstie Calhoun of MT Farms Pahi also highlighted the fact that “Farming seafood is one of the most environmentally efficient ways of producing animal protein.” and “New Zealand’s aquaculture industry is well placed to be part of our future sustainable, lower emissions economy.” They describe the duration of marine farm consents as a handbrake on the industry.
Longer-duration consents give industry the confidence to invest long term, and that’s good for business and it’s good for New Zealand. This Government has a plan to grow the economy. We’re about promoting business. We’re about cutting unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. Just like we’ve passed legislation delivering Kiwis tax cuts for the first time in 14 years so they can keep more of what they earn—one more sleep—so too are we delivering for the aquaculture industry so businesses have the confidence, the opportunity, the certainty, and the resources to grow, to innovate, and to thrive. Mr Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation. This bill is just another example of rushed legislation by this Government riding roughshod over the democratic process, only allowing people 13 days to make submissions on this bill. The Government’s own regulatory impact statement itself talked about the fact that this had been rushed—well, “rushed” is the word I use. There had been inadequate time frames for appropriate consultation. There was some consultation, and it was a targeted consultation between 26 February and 4 March with local councils. As we have heard today, the majority of local councils oppose this piece of legislation.
The advice that the Primary Production Committee had was that given the fast pace of policy development for this bill, the environmental impacts of the bill have not been fully assessed. I think that is absolutely irresponsible of this Government to not fully assess the environmental impacts.
We heard from many Māori, as my colleague Mark Cameron alluded to before, and he said there were some that were in support of this bill. But I want to highlight a couple of submissions that we received that represent thousands of Māori across New Zealand. If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I just would like to take a little quote out of a couple of these submissions. The first submission I want to read a quote from is from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and I quote, “The engagement on this proposal has fallen well short of Cabinet guidelines and our expectations as a Te Tiriti partner. Te Rūnanga is deeply disappointed in the processes of engagement with iwi in respect of these proposals.” And on behalf of Waikato-Tainui, the submission by Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Inc.: “While the Government has committed in its coalition agreement to deliver longer durations for marine farming permits, it has also committed to honour the undertakings in the Treaty of Waitangi settlements. This proposal is a clear breach of that commitment.” So, once again, we are having the voice of iwi Māori disregarded and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being completely disregarded.
We had 1,100 submitters on this bill. I give kudos to those that managed to pull the submissions together that they did, in a matter of 13 days. One thousand submitters opposed the bill—opposed the bill. What we have here is a Government that is ignoring—ignoring—the voice of the people, the overwhelming majority of people that submitted on this bill, in opposition to this bill.
We know that there are several farms that are in inappropriate areas, particularly in the area around Marlborough. One of the issues that we’ve heard quite clearly, in Opposition, from councils is the fact that if a council wishes to review consent, it is to be at their own expense, thereby at the ratepayers expense, and only if the director-general approves for them to review that consent. I do not see any need, and members on this side of the House see absolutely no need, for the director-general to be involved. I think it is irresponsible that councils should have to foot the bill should they choose to review these consents. Many consents were granted in a time—well, before some of us in this House were even born. At that time, when those consents were given, there was no consideration given to environmental impacts—
Ryan Hamilton: That’s not true.
Hon JO LUXTON: That is true. There was no consideration given to environmental impacts, and yet those consents will now have an automatic rollover of 20 years, disregarding—absolutely disregarding—any impact on the environment.
Hon Simeon Brown: More jobs.
Hon JO LUXTON: “More jobs.”, says Mr Brown. At what expense? If there is no environment, there will be no jobs, Mr Brown. But, you know, in wanting to be collegial—the select committee is a very collegial select committee—we on this side of the House came up with some propositions to the legislation as it was introduced to us. Many submitters thought that 20 years was too long and they thought that five years would be enough. As my colleague Tangi Utikere mentioned before, in the spirit of collegiality, we came up with 10 years as a medium, as a way that we thought would meet the needs of giving the sector certainty. But the Government members voted that down.
We heard quite clearly that finfishing does have quite an impact on the environment. So we thought—well, we agreed with the Green member’s proposal that perhaps the rollover shouldn’t occur for finfish farms, and so we supported that as well. Again, voted down by Government members opposite me.
This bill is a rushed bill. The overwhelming majority of submitters opposed this bill. Once again, we have a Government that is riding roughshod over the democratic process of allowing submitters voices to be heard and listened to and taken notice of. We do not support this bill.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in support of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill in the second reading. I think it’s very clear. The objective of this bill is to extend the duration of existing marine farm—and I just will re-emphasise the “existing marine farm”—consents to give consent holders certainty and greater confidence to invest in assets and improvement.
Now, we have heard many, many things this afternoon, but, really, I think what I’m going to focus on is kind of the uncertainty that the current aquaculture industry faces. If you were building a house and only had five years to use the land, I don’t think you’d invest very much in it at all. Even if you had 10 years—
Hon David Parker: It’s not your land.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —you wouldn’t use much. No, it’s not land. Thank you very much. Space—the space you would use. If you knew you couldn’t use a space, you wouldn’t invest very heavily on it. There’s a lot of technology coming in the aquaculture space, and we’ve heard that from some of the previous members.
I mean, we have to bear in mind—and we’ve heard about the finfisheries that the other side want to get rid of. Marine farms came around in the late 1980s when the wild fish stocks were actually plummeting, and since then nearly all the increase in fish protein that we consume has come from aquaculture. If the world wants to continue to eat fish—and I think it’s probably a healthy thing to do—we need more aquaculture; we don’t need less.
If we want to think about it, actually, farm bivalves—things like oysters and mussels—are probably some of the cleanest source of animal protein we can produce, if we’re looking at greenhouse gases. Just having a little bit of a look, if we want a kilogram of beef, it’s probably going to emit about 20 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Now, that is from a New Zealand farm, and that is probably half what the world average actually is. If we look at something like a kilogram of salmon, those greenhouse gas emissions are down to about 6 kilograms, and if we look at something like mussels, it’s probably about 600 grams. That is what we’re talking about, about being environmentally friendly. That is just putting out a little bit of numbers. We can say we’re plundering our resources, but, actually, if we’re talking long term, this is actually going to be better. Once again, I will actually re-emphasise the words “existing consents”, because the way some of the other people are speaking in this House, you’d think we’re turning our whole marine area into aquaculture, which is clearly not the case.
This is a very, very important bill. We have actually crippled this industry. We’ve put one foot in a watery grave and the other foot on a banana skin. The thing is, as we said, it brings in about $763 million a year, but that is when we have handicapped this industry. This industry could really do a lot, and you know what? We need that money, because we need it to have the public services that we want in this country. We want to make sure that our kids can have the absolute best, can reach all their aspirations and their potential, and that includes having a clean environment. That’s why we need to remove the greenhouse gases.
Hon Simeon Brown: And they need jobs—our children need jobs.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Absolutely right—our children need jobs. There’s over 3,000 people employed by this industry, and there could be more if we could actually give it the chance. But we also need to think about our challenged coastal communities that need this employment. We could double our exports if we could just give it a chance, and that’s why I rise to support this bill. I think it is a great bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Nōku te whiwhi ki te kōrero anō i roto i tēnei Whare o tātou i tēnei pō.
[Thank you to the Speaker of the House. It is my good fortune to speak again in this House of ours this evening.]
I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill.
As I return to the Whare, a children’s song came to mind:
One day, a taniwha
went swimming in the moana.
He whispered in my taringa,
“Why don’t you come with me—
—and we’ll extend permits across your kāpata kai [pantry].
Taniwha are lurking, whānau, and here’s the problem with taniwha: they’re sneaky. Sneaky. They only give you 13 days to have your say. Didn’t even let me finish—you know, get to reply with a verse and here they are.
Hon Simeon Brown: Encore!
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Oh, you just listen up, mate. It’s coming. Here’s the thing. Only 13 days to consult, and, once again: different topic, same thing. “We’re not going to listen to you, 91 percent of the people; we are not going to listen to you.” This is the problem, Aotearoa. Ahakoa te kaupapa kōrero. [No matter the topic of discussion.] No matter what we’re talking about in this House, the message is the same: you can come, we’re going to open up for submissions; you make them; we will ignore them. One thousand people who took the time—experts in their field, Māori experts in their field who took the time—Government don’t care. Kāre rātou e paku whakarongo ki a koutou. Heoi anō. [They don’t listen to you at all. Anyway.] Don’t just listen to me; there’s other people with other amazing songs, like Rangitāne Tini Whetū. Rangitāne ki te Whenua. [A myriad of stars in the sky; so are Rangitāne on the land.]
Now, there was a comment made earlier about people resisting this bill, resisting wealth. You show me one tangata whenua; one Māori; one anybody who submitted opposing this bill who doesn’t want wealth—who doesn’t want to be wealthy—for their whānau and ngā uri whakatipu, for generations to come. I will defy you to show me one. Yet when the moana and the whenua are prioritised, our colleagues from the Greens get called wishy-washy and anti-wealth. Ridiculous argument—absolutely ridiculous argument.
Hoi anō rā. Let’s actually listen to some mana whenua—Rangitāne. Mana whenua and mana moana is the basis of Rangitāne values, tikanga, traditions—which are important aspects of Rangitāne. Rangitāne, by the way, are a post-settlement group entity in charge of the wealth; in charge of creating and growing wealth for their iwi, for their region—not just Māori; the whole region will benefit. “We do not support this Bill in its current form, for the following reasons: … the Trust records its concerns about the timeframes proposed and set for implementation of this Bill; … (b) the rolling over of extant coastal permits has impact on mana whenua ability to undertake our kaitiaki responsibilities in this space, we thus oppose options three to five in the [regulatory statement]; (c) there has been a lack of information, adequate engagement and consultation, especially in regard to environmental and cultural impacts that this proposal brings; … we are concerned with the lack of robust analysis of the Bill; … although we agree with reviews on coastal permits, we are concerned with the expectations of the councils to undertake reviews without having any recompense in any way from Government; … we are also concerned that there is a lack of balance between commercial and environmental interests and protections. Economic growth and industry or business assurance should not be at the expense of our environment”.
Now, that sentiment was echoed through many submissions. I just want to say, as my colleague the Hon Jo Luxton pointed out, this side of the House was not completely, vehemently opposed. All we ask for was more time, as are the submitters. I do not—not to serenade you; that’s for real, Mr Speaker—commend this bill to the House.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Look, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m standing to support the second reading of this bill, and I do so having not sat on the select committee, so I wasn’t part of that process. But listening to speeches in the House today, members of the public who might be watching this debate on television or listening on their wirelesses, would be thinking that, actually, this was about the difference between a Government that wants to get things done, to get things moving, to get growth in the economy, to make it easier to create jobs and business and opportunity for people in a sector like aquaculture that has become so important to not only our nation but to regions like mine in the beautiful Coromandel—then, to hear Opposition members talking about why they can’t do things. We’re a Government that can do things and wants to do things. We’re a can-do Government. We’re not a can’t Government. We’re not a Government that says, “You can’t do this, you can’t do that.” and find every reason in creation not to do things.
I invite members of the Opposition to start thinking more broadly about how to do things. How can they help contribute to the urgent need for our country to be back on track, to get back into some sense of fiscal sensibilities? I think, when I’m speaking on this piece of legislation, of the wonderful aquaculture sector in the beautiful Coromandel, the electorate that I have the privilege to represent in this House. I think of people like Gilbert James, who was one of the founding fathers of today’s modern aquaculture sector, who through his imagination, inspiration, and gritty determination was actually really the founding father of what we now know as the muscle farming sector, not just in the Coromandel but using his processes throughout the entire muscle-growing sector, whether that be in Marlborough or in any other part of the country.
It’s people like Gilbert James that are actually the inspirations for this Government wanting to get things done, because we know that people like Gilbert James have an inspiration, have an idea, and they want to see growth and development. Actually, on this side of the House, we don’t see the environment and the economy as necessarily being binary or mutually exclusive. We think that, actually, if you have a strong and growing economy, then you can better protect the natural environment by maintaining, enhancing, and protecting it. But you can only do that if you have an economy that is big and bold enough to allow you to do that, because we all know on this side of the House that it’s very difficult to be green if you’re in the red. So, we support this bill on this side of the House, and I do commend it to the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, there’s no doubt that aquaculture plays an important role in New Zealand and around the world. I agreed with the comments that Hamish Campbell made that, increasingly, the world is reliant on aquaculture for fisheries output, both shellfish and finfish, and that most of the additional production is coming from farmed fish, and that’s not a bad thing. There’s also no doubt that New Zealand can accommodate some more aquaculture in New Zealand, and that’s a good thing.
There’s also no doubt that the planning restrictions around increased aquaculture have been problematic in some parts of the country. In my own opinion, the answer to that lies in more spatial planning rather than relying on individual consents. We need to have high-level spatial plans delineating the areas which are suitable for more aquaculture and then finer-level decisions as to what might be the rules for uses of those plans. Indeed, as a country we’ve already made some progress around a minor part of that, where we have a national environmental standard that we didn’t used to have that helps in that space. But the spatial planning part of that is still not well activated in New Zealand, and it’s a sadness for me that that Spatial Planning Act that was part of the suite of reforms that we had in the last Government has been ditched. I hope that it will come back in some form, because I think that’s actually the essential point of the puzzle when it comes to more aquaculture.
That’s not actually what we’re debating today. We’re actually debating the terms of existing aquaculture, and, in that, I think some of the criticisms that we’ve heard from other speakers today are justified. How can you say that you have had thorough consultation with councils if you have consultation with them that goes from a period of 26 February to 4 March? It really is pretty inadequate, particularly when you’re taking away their ability to charge for the services that they provide to the industry. I don’t think that many people listening to this debate would think that that is reasonable—similarly, the truncated select committee process which prevented those councils and others from coming to the select committee and presenting their concerns.
Now, one of the things that I have a problem with the Government on in terms of their attitude to environmental issues is that they over-interpret private property rights. We heard from Hamish Campbell saying, “Why would people invest if they didn’t have a longer period of consent?” Well, the first point is they already have invested. We’re actually not talking about new consents; we’re talking about renewals.
Dr Hamish Campbell: New innovation in technology.
Hon DAVID PARKER: But we’re—well, that’s fair; you do need security of tenure in order to innovate, but the idea that you would confer an additional private owner-occupier of the marine space—which is not their space; they have a licence to occupy it. The idea that we would just, in a universal sense, extend that for another 20 years and take away councils’ right to charge for proper environmental oversight seems to me to be wrong, both from an environmental perspective but I also have a problem with the privatisation of the public commons. Now, there will be a debate within Māoridom as to what share of that commons should be used by them and what share should be used by other participants in aquaculture, and that’s a proper debate to have, but it ought not to get in the way of a proper recompense of the public for the use of that public space.
Now, since the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991, there has been the ability to have a resource rental charge for the use of coastal space, but it’s never been done, and now what the Government is doing is, effectively, preventing that happening in respect of these areas for another 20 years. I personally think that that is wrong, that you would take a decision now that would, effectively, forestall a proper charging regime for the use of that space. Now, people would say, “Well, what, would you do if this was your private land?” If this was my private land and people were leasing it for an agriculture thing, I would charge for it, and if I’m the Government holding that resource on behalf of the public, I think they should charge for it. They should extract a fair rental. Now, that will encourage competition and innovation. We hear the other side saying that they want productivity and innovation. Well, if you want efficient use of that resource, you should have a market mechanism that allocates that space in a way that is more efficient.
In respect of the issue that was raised by Hamish Campbell—again, a fair point—in respect of greenhouse gas emissions of aquaculture compared with other forms of protein production, that’s exactly the reason why we should actually have an open debate in New Zealand about whether we should be pricing these externalities, because we want to be driving the capital into the areas that produce protein with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, not the highest greenhouse gas emissions. We have that signal—
Grant McCallum: More farming—more farming. More farming in New Zealand, then.
Hon DAVID PARKER: More farming in New Zealand? Well, that might be the eventual outcome, but in terms of the question as to whether we should have more aquaculture farming or whether we should have more dairy farming, that is a proper question for New Zealand that should involve an economic question as to the cost of greenhouse gas emissions.
At the moment, on the other side the Government has again pushed that off for ever in the pricing of greenhouse gas emissions and the 50 percent of our emissions that come from agriculture. The rest of our economy pays a price. The rest of our economy allocates capital as between a greenhouse gas - producing electricity production facility, like a coal-fired station or gas-fired station, compared with renewables. The transport sector—you know, all the other sectors of the economy face a rational price signal, and yet we haven’t got this rational price signal that would encourage more capital into agriculture rather than more into dairying, if the only difference was the greenhouse gas emissions. The paucity of economic logic carried forward by the National Party worries me at times.
I won’t recount all of the other issues that have been raised by other people before me, except to reinforce that I do think that it is unfair on ratepayers that they have to subsidise their councils in respect of this class of activity. I can’t see a rationale for treating this particular activity different from any other activity that councils have to monitor. Why should this one get a free pass at the cost of ratepayers that, effectively, passes the cost on to other ratepayers and to other productive ratepayers, other businesses in the district? That is wrong and cannot be justified, and for those reasons, the Labour Party will be opposing this bill.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I rise in support of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill in the second reading. As with my colleague from the Environment Committee, Scott Simpson, I also acknowledge that this is a bill that’s been in front of the Primary Production Committee, so it’s a great privilege to be able to speak on it, being from the Environment Committee. And having had experience in the last couple of bills that we’ve had through the Environment Committee that add some context to this bill, to talk about the fact that, obviously, this is an extension to existing marine farm permits or consents, and really the rationale behind that is to be rebuilding our economy as fast as we can. And to acknowledge that aquaculture is a burgeoning, if not already really strong, sector for our primary sector as well.
It is really important for us, and we heard in the Environment Committee how burdensome the reconsenting process is. These organisations, and specifically in context of this aquaculture sector, have gone through the process of consenting. They have established management practices in place, and they have to then go through that process again to continue operating in the way that they already are. We have heard from many—and not just in this sector, but in all primary production sectors, whether it’s on land—how long this process takes and how disruptive it is and how truly costly it is to the output, and in this case in export as well. So we want to do whatever it takes to make sure that this sector is able to operate well, bring money back into our economy to grow our economy back to where it was and beyond so that we aren’t continuing to burden ratepayers so much so that they have an inability to be able to fund the exciting activities that they might do in their own areas.
I just want to also make mention of the fact that this is not just occupying but maintaining and managing. We heard this at length during the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, that some of these operators do more for that space that they occupy than would be if it was left by itself, and that is a really important thing to consider. This is productivity. This is, as my colleague Hamish Campbell mentioned, about the ability for businesses and organisations to invest. You don’t invest in innovation if you don’t have certainty of tenure. These organisations have made a huge investment in what they’re already doing, and a lot of them need to invest in updating and improving their equipment, their plant, and the sites that they already have maintained and are managing.
Look, as has been made quite clear through the last many speakers today, this is about section 87(c) and consents that relate to the replacement of permits under section 165ZH of the Act. It is a very tight amendment to this bill, and it is a really important one for us to have certainty going forward in the recovery and rebuilding of our economy. This is a sector that we support as a Government. It shows a lot of promise. It does a lot for our reputation internationally. As I said, with our experience hearing in the Environment Committee in the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, they do a great deal to maintain and improve and protect the environments that they occupy as well. So with that, I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be now read a second 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 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, it is time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Bills
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 25 July.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening, members. I call on Government order of the day No. 3. This is the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. There are two calls left, and it is the Labour Party call. I call the Hon—
Hon Members: Rachel Brooking.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): —Rachel Brooking. I’m so sorry. I’ve got to get my House head back on!
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is much excitement to be making this speech, given that it is an interrupted debate—and I thought I might have got in before the dinner break, but alas no. Of course, at the end of last week’s sitting week as well, I was ready to go. So here I am speaking in opposition to this Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, which, of course, is all about pipes and treatment stations.
I’ll go back and remind the House of some of the previous speeches we’ve had on this bill, given that I am speech No. 11. We’re about to hear speech No. 12, and then that’s it for the second reading. Of course, we heard from the Hon Kieran McAnulty that the main implication from this piece of legislation is that rates will go up, and that is the fault of this central government, not of councils.
We heard from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell about how this was not helping small councils. We know, in New Zealand, we have huge infrastructure problems, and particularly with those small councils. There are 68 councils that provide water infrastructure. A lot of them are very small, and this bill won’t help them.
We heard as well from the Hon Dr Megan Woods about how this bill is taking us backwards. It is not dealing with our infrastructure funding problems at all, and it is more centralisation. We keep hearing from the other side tonight about localism and the importance of that, yet here we have central government being able to tell councils what to do and not make any funding towards that. We heard her ask the Government spokespeople on this bill whether they would stand up and say that this will not lead to privatisation of our water assets. I have not heard an answer to that question. There is one more speech in the second reading, and I hope that that question will be answered.
We also heard from Simon Court of the ACT Party, and he led off, in his contribution, about lead in pipes in my part of the world—in fact, in the very beautiful electorate of Dunedin. He was talking about Karitane, but also Waikouaiti and Hawksbury, where there was a lead scare in the water system. Now, he blamed that on the city council and that the pipes were old. In fact, there was a long investigation as to why elevated lead was found in the water, in those very beautiful northern suburbs, and people were very worried about it. It was never determined what the case was, but it certainly wasn’t determined that it was lead in pipes, but it may be some of the tap hardware. And that problem is one that is a very important one, but it is not as simple as Simon Court made out.
He then went on to say that changes in this bill around Te Mana o te Wai were somehow to make sure that when councils are considering water infrastructure—of course, waste-water treatment in particular—waste water wouldn’t be put into fresh water. And he was suggesting, I think I heard, that we should be like Singapore and be reusing our water. In that way, of course, Singapore is quite different from New Zealand. It’s a lot smaller physically and has a lot of people in it as well, and we have very different infrastructure constraints from Singapore.
What I want to focus on is this talk about the changes to Te Mana o te Wai, because, quite strangely, in this bill, there is a Part 5 that was inserted, and that is to amend section 138 of the Taumata Arowai Act. That Act says, at section 138(1), that Taumata Arowai—which, of course, is the water regulator created under the previous Government, because we know that drinking water can be substandard and that has produced health problems. One of the first components of a full reform of our water infrastructure issues was to get a water regulator in place. We have this water regulator and, under section 138, they can make waste-water environmental performance standards. Now, there is nothing in that talking about the Resource Management Act (RMA) or, in fact, the national policy statement on freshwater, but this change that we have in Part 5 of this bill—that section that I just summarised—says that there would be an insertion that “When making these wastewater environmental performance standards … Taumata Arowai must not have regard to the hierarchy of obligations in clause 1.3(5) of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.”
If you go to that clause 1.3 in the national policy statement for fresh water, it talks about this fundamental concept of Te Mana o te Wai. It talks about the concept, it talks about the framework, it talks about the principles, and then, at subclause (5), there’s a hierarchy of obligations, prioritising health and wellbeing of water bodies, then the health needs of people, such as drinking water, and then the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing now and into the future. So what this bill does is say that you can think about all the other things about Te Mana o te Wai but not that hierarchy. And why does this bill do this? I have no idea.
Another curious thing about this bill is that they insert a new section 138A, and that is a “King Henry VIII” clause so that, if this national policy statement on fresh water is amended, the insertion I’ve just been talking about can be repealed. Why would you go to the lengths of having a “King Henry VIII” clause—which, of course, we know nobody likes; nobody who thinks about making good laws recommends having “King Henry VIII” clauses. But here we have one so that a body that already doesn’t mention the RMA can’t think about one particular subclause of this national policy statement. And that subclause is all about a hierarchy that puts the water body at the top and commercial interests at the bottom. So why is it that this Government is so obsessed with getting references to this hierarchy out of legislation—legislation that is not even mentioned in the first place? That can only be because they want more pollution, and that will lead to dirtier water that people will drink. Shame on them.
Now, I’ve been in this House many times, talking about pipes and treatment stations, and I have to say they’re very important things. We all know that, for good societies to work, we need to be able to get rid of our waste water in a sanitary way and we need to be able to drink clean drinking water. We also know that stormwater is a huge issue in New Zealand, and we’re seeing more and more problems with that with climate change. That is why Nanaia Mahuta worked so hard when we were in Government to address the problems of how you fund the upgrades of all of that infrastructure. This bill does not address those issues. This bill enables councils to do what they can already do, in terms of having council-controlled organisations. We’ve seen that. We see that here in Wellington. We know that there are already council-controlled organisations, and it doesn’t fix any of the funding issues that are still issues. This bill will do nothing except for cost ratepayers more, and it is just like everything to do with water that this Government seems to be interested in promoting. It’s just shameful.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The former speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking, was entertaining, albeit a little bit incorrect, because whilst council-controlled organisations (CCOs) do exist and can and, in fact, are encouraged under this bill, what this does is this is only bill two out of three, so I can tell you the trilogy is not yet complete; wait for bill three. Just like the CCO in Auckland called Watercare, which now has a separate debt-to-revenue cap, which is one of the options available to us, because you asked about finance and also infrastructure funding and financing. So there’s a whole raft of tools that are coming.
One of the former speakers on this bill—MP Cushla—actually talked about a children’s song as well, and I actually felt like breaking into children’s song a little bit too; it’s called the “Hokey Pokey” dance. It was on this bill, or a separate bill. But, you know, when you put your right arm in and you put your right arm out, you put your right arm in and you shake it all about, you do the hokey pokey, you turn yourself around. That’s what it’s all about. That’s what it felt like if you think back to the three waters debacle when it was opt in, opt out, opt in, opt out—no council would be worse off. But you remember there was actually, you may not even—
Tom Rutherford: Just shake the money tree.
RYAN HAMILTON: The money tree, that’s right. You may not actually remember, but there were 30 options modelled around the water infrastructures throughout the councils, throughout New Zealand—30 models. Do you remember how many councils got to see or got to implement? One—it was one. That’s so much for localism. And do you know what? The Labour Government was actually very creative with those bills as well, with those entities. They came up with four names: the first one was called Entity A; the second one was called Entity B. It was ludicrous.
The other thing which was flawed and why we’ve had to bring in good water done well was because of the disproportionality. So, for example, where I live in the Waikato and Hamilton City Council, there were 24 entities or 24 councils that would make up Entity B, even though Hamilton City Council’s water assets are around $2 billion. There was a district council and their assets were worth about $50 million—so 40 times the magnitude—and yet do you know what the voting proportionality was going to be in Entity B? One each—how is that fair? How is that equitable when a $2 billion asset and investor and ratepayer legacy has one vote to a $50 million harmonisation—Entity B, as it was called. It was terrible. Not to mention co-governance, not to mention unelected representation with no accountability.
We had 14 layers of bureaucracy mentioned today through the Ministry of Health. There are three or four already just in the three waters proposal. No localism, no control, no certainty; central government knows best and we’re in here to clean up the mess. I could go on about what’s good about this bill, but I think it’s best just to get on and commend it to the House. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 48
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be now read a second 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 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
This bill gives effect to the Government’s 100-day plan to restore law and order and ensure that New Zealanders are safer in their communities. This is a response to gang membership increasing by 51 percent over the past five years, alongside violent crimes increasing by 33 percent. The Government wants to prevent the current level of violence from becoming a permanent feature in New Zealand society, so we’re giving police additional tools to go after the criminal gangs who inflict fear and misery on our communities.
Over the past week or so, we’ve heard many harrowing stories from the royal commission into abuse in care, including on people who went on to join gangs. No abuse in care is ever acceptable. At the same time, no society can function safely if people are not held to account and held responsible for things they do today. Gangs peddle in misery, and this Government is determined to give police the powers that they need to deal with them.
The bill has been reported back to the House from the Justice Committee. I’d like to thank the Justice Committee and its members for their careful consideration, and the submitters who took their time to share their views with the committee. The Justice Committee has recommended some changes in response to the submissions that will strengthen policy in the bill. We welcome those amendments and look forward to the implementation. That implementation will improve public confidence in how the law responds to gangs. It will stop the violence and prevent the antisocial behaviour of gangs becoming normalised in New Zealand.
The bill does four things. It creates a new criminal offence of displaying gang insignia in public. Insignia such as gang patches cause fear and intimidation to some members of the public. They’re also status symbols the gangs use to market themselves to potential prospects and future recruits. They also have the potential to exacerbate inter-gang rivalries, leading to violence. This ban on gang insignia in public will reduce the negative effects on communities. The bill also contains a provision requiring these insignia to be forfeited to the Crown following a conviction. This will ensure that the insignia cannot be used again to cause further harm to the public.
The bill creates a new dispersal power to stop gang members from gathering in public and, once issued, it will prevent them from associating in public for seven days. This is a tool that will enable the police to act to disrupt gatherings that interfere with law-abiding Kiwis who are attempting to go about their lives peacefully.
Thirdly, the bill creates a non-consorting order. This is issued by the court and will require specified people not to associate or communicate for three years. Coordination planning is required to undertake much of the crime committed by gangs, such as drug trafficking or violent inter-gang conflict. This bill gives the police an additional tool to respond, preventing the communication between these gang members to keep our communities safe.
The bill also amends the Sentencing Act so that judges can give greater weight to gang membership at sentencing. The Government wants there to be more severe sentences for gang members so that they understand there will be consequences for the unlawful activities of gangs. We want to publicly denounce and deter harmful gang behaviour and gang membership.
The select committee has made some important amendments around what gangs this bill applies to. The bill as introduced carried over the list and process for designation that was in the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act from 2013. The Justice Committee took a close look at that test and the list and has recommended a number of changes. With respect to the test, a number of submitters were concerned about the low threshold to qualify for inclusion. The select committee recommended a number of changes, and I understand that many of these were considerations that police already undertook when providing advice to the Minister of Police considering additions to the list. To be included on the gangs list, the Minister of Police has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has a common name or identifying signs, symbols, or representation; is currently active in New Zealand; and has members or associates who have committed offences punishable by more than two years imprisonment in New Zealand or overseas. In addition, the offending cannot be conduct that consists primarily of civil disobedience for the purpose of political activism.
With respect to the list itself, the police provided advice to the committee. There were 11 gangs that were removed from the list as they were now considered defunct, and there were also some gangs that were added to the list. To ensure that the list remains up to date, the police will review the entire list each time an addition or removal is considered, and every five years if no changes are made.
The committee also recommended a commencement date of 21 November 2024. The impact of this bill will be felt before Christmas. I am putting gangs on notice and letting them know that this Government is indeed committed to law and order. The bill will enable law-abiding Kiwis to feel safe, and it ensures that there are appropriate consequences for those who engage in antisocial behaviour and think it’s acceptable to break the law. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. We in the Labour Party agree that gangs cause harm in our community. We know that they not only cause violence and hurt not only within their own whānau and social circles but also cause public hurt, and in our streets as well. We know that the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine hits the poorest communities in New Zealand. It fuels retail crime, it causes mental health issues, and it drives violent statistics even further. It causes intergenerational damage and it destroys the very fabric and the building blocks of our community, and we agree on that. But this bill—this bill—does not provide the solutions to that problem.
Banning gang patches typifies the approach that this Government takes to law and order: it is cosmetic and ornamental. It would like to not see the problem, and it thinks that if the problem is not seen, then it goes away. But it fails to address the root causes of what drives organised criminal activity in New Zealand, and it’s for that reason that this bill is a failure. This Government has focused completely on looking tough, and we’ve just heard the Minister say that he’s put gangs on notice. But what I would like to know is what this bill does to stop young people growing up in homes where they see and experience family violence on a daily basis. How will the banning of gang patches or the issuing of a dispersal notice make any difference in making our communities safer?
Dispersal orders—let’s take a look at those. We had a good look at those in the Justice Committee. So the way it’s going to work is that if there’s is a gathering of some gang members and they will be intimidating by being there, that’s not OK. So the police officer or officers who approach that group will go up and say, “We’re going to issue you with a dispersal notice and we’re required to do that in writing, so could you give me your email, please? mmm69@yahoo.com—oh, you haven’t got an email. Right, so if you haven’t got an email, would you please accompany me down to the station and I’ll print one off at the office and provide it to you so you can take it home.” I kid you not, Madam Speaker, this is the process outlined in this bill. Dispersal notices will be provided to gang members by asking them to provide their email address, and if they don’t have one, they are then required to accompany an officer to the station to get a printed copy. You couldn’t write it, but, in fact, they have, and it’s in legislation and we’re debating it tonight.
What will happen is there won’t be an anything noted. There won’t be any recording apart from in the police intel, and what will happen then if that is breached? Then that person is up for five years in jail. There is no other law in New Zealand, or even overseas, that we can find where someone who doesn’t even get a written notice delivered to them is up for a five-year imprisonment penalty.
We already know that police resources are stretched. We know that for sure because Vote Police received a $107 million less in this Budget compared to the last Budget. The Police Association themselves have said that the risk of this bill is it threatens to undermine the credibility of police when there are some parts of New Zealand where it just won’t be able to be enforced, and that is of real concern. There are parts of New Zealand where there are insufficient police and insufficient resources to be able to enforce this law, so it might work in urban areas, but it definitely won’t work in parts of rural New Zealand.
The concern and the sad irony of this bill is that while it’s packaged to look like it’s making our country safer, it is, in fact, part of a range of policies that just take us backwards, because you can’t just take this issue in isolation—we know that. So what we’ve seen is that the Minister of Police has written a letter to the Commissioner of Police—he’s very proud of that; he says it’s the biggest thing he’s done since being the Minister of Police—and he has said he wants more foot patrols and more visibility, and he wants gangs to be controlled, with no taking over of the streets. That’s very clear, and he’s said it a number of times.
The police have got $107 million less in the Budget and they’ve been required to be more visible. Well, something’s got to give, and it has—it’s called family violence. There were 3,000 fewer family violence investigations since December this year. In addition to that, there was a 29 percent reduction where the victim has known the offender. So that’s family violence—a 29 percent reduction in investigations.
This is my problem: why is it that for this Government, public violence and intimidation is intolerable, but having that happening in our own homes is somehow different? That is my question. Why is it that our young people are left to grow up in homes where they witness and experience family violence, and there is no one there to pick up the phone when they ask for help? No other social services have received funding. Police have gone and there’s no one else coming, and this is what our answer is. What happens to those young people? Do we start up some more boot camps so that we can look after those young people in boot camps when they haven’t received the support and care and love that they need, because they’re being exposed to family violence? This is the integrated problem that we’re dealing with, and the solution that we’ve had is that we’re going to email gang members and tell them to take their patches off.
Right, I’ll just wrap this up because we’ve only got a few minutes left. This is a Government that wants to look like they’re delivering a safer New Zealand, and, in reality, it is absolutely cosmetic. I mean, I challenge the Government to show us in these speeches and to come forward and have a debate tonight about the types of engrained issues that gangs provide to our community and how that’s interrelated with family violence and young people being exposed to family violence as they grow up, the lack of social services currently available to provide that support, and about how we address those engrained problems that, in New Zealand, we need to face up to.
By treating gangs in isolation and demonising them and taking their patches off, it does absolutely nothing for the next generation of young people, who need hope and who need something to look and to hold out for that things will get better. Providing them with answers like getting tough on gangs and putting them on notice and setting up boot camps for young people does nothing but drive these issues underground. It merely ticks a box that serves a purpose in a focus group to give a couple of extra points to the National Party or to ACT or to New Zealand First to show that they’re delivering and getting tough and they’re going to show who’s who and what’s going to happen, but, in reality, there are no real answers, and that is the sad part. This Government has failed to provide any real answers or any real solutions to a problem that those members campaigned so heavily about.
If restoring law and order—if that’s what it is—is taking off a gang patch and giving gangs a dispersal notice, then I am deeply concerned for where our country is heading, because it is going backwards. If that is the solution that this Government provides to an intergenerational problem of organised crime and the violence, the havoc, and the drugs they deal—if that is their answer, then I am absolutely dismayed at the lack of ability to fix a problem.
This is a cosmetic solution that looks good on the telly, that gives you a sound bite, and that might even get a TikTok video if you’re Paul Goldsmith, but it does absolutely nothing to make our communities any safer, and I think that the police will struggle to be able to actually enforce this law in some parts. So we will watch—we will watch—from this side of the House to see what happens as this legislation is rolled out. Let’s see what those operational instructions look like for the police service as they struggle to be able to figure out how to even deliver a dispersal notice, and let’s see—let’s see—what organised crime does in response to a tick-box, cosmetic solution to a problem that runs far deeper than this Government has given the time to even consider.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise this evening to reaffirm our opposition to the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. The main reasons for that are, first, that it completely fails to address the reasons that gangs were created in the first place, including the State’s role in that creation and political choices that lead to our communities living in poverty, which fuel the presence of and membership into gangs. The second reason is because the surveillance-and-suppression approach is ideologically driven and isn’t informed by evidence; instead, it is driven by political expediency, and it has been completely designed to win votes, as opposed to making our community safer. The third reason that we oppose this bill is because giving police more powers means an increased interaction between marginalised communities and the criminal justice system. These tools—the non-consorting orders, the dispersal notices, and adding being a gang member to the aggravating factors within sentencing—will disproportionately impact Māori, as we have seen in other jurisdictions around the world where indigenous people bear the brunt of tools like this.
Last week, we had the release of the report of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care, detailing the abuse of 200,000 children by the State and faith-based institutions between 1950 and 1999, and this was the person who was on the cover when that dropped last week. [Holds up newspaper] This is Eugene Ryder. He came and spoke to us at select committee about what this bill means to him and how he found his way into a gang in the first place. I want to make it really clear that not every person that was abused in State care became a gang member, but we know that almost every gang member has been traumatised, abused, raped, or tormented within State care, which sows the seeds for a lifetime of shame, violence, addiction, and fear.
The link between abuse by the State and the formation of gangs in New Zealand is undeniable. I spoke about this connection in the first reading of this bill, and now we have had the largest royal commission of inquiry that our country has ever seen showing us exactly where gangs come from and I want to pull this from the submission that Eugene Ryder made to the Justice Committee. This is what he said: “A lot of reference has been made already to the formation—the why—gangs exist. I was a state ward, I was abused while I was in care, and I found solace in the Black Power community here in Wellington. The reason I found solace with them is because we shared similar, if not exact, experiences within state care. At the time, there was the people that were put in charge on behalf of the state to care for us. They were raping us. What we learnt from them was violence, extreme violence.”
That’s echoed by Alf, who was spoken to by Aaron Smale, who is a member of the Mongrel Mob. He was passed around different care institutions like Epuni Boys’ Home until he was put into Lake Alice psychiatric hospital, where he was stripped naked, subjected to horrendous racism, and drugged and raped by both the staff at the institution and also by adult patients within the institution. Alf would be made unconscious by drugs, and when he was an adult, he would black out and take out his rage on those around him because he was taught that violence was the only chance that he had at surviving.
Within State care, children learnt that violence can and should be used as the main tool that they used to navigate life. They learnt that if they spoke up and tried to communicate, by using their words, they would not be believed and this would lead to future harm. They learnt that you must always be on edge and on the defence. They learnt that authorities and institutions were not to be trusted, because those who were meant to care for them abused them, and when they ran away, the police would bring them back into the care of their abusers. They learnt that there was safety and strength in numbers, and that in order to feel safer, they should join a group.
With hundreds of thousands of children enduring unspeakable torture and abuse, who could they turn to for comfort? They couldn’t afford counselling or therapy and they couldn’t trust the institutions set up to support them; they could only turn to each other, and that—right there—is where gangs come from. Understanding that connection between the abuse in State care and the formation of gangs is important because the abuse of children in State care still happens today, and if you don’t want to see gangs, then we need to make sure that children are not being taught that violence is the only tool that they can use in order to navigate their lives.
I want to talk now about the ineffectiveness of gang-busting policy. There have been some really good articles that have come out over the weekend about this from a whole bunch of academics within the criminology space. They’ve come out and they’ve said that the Government is employing an ideological basis for their policy and that cracking down on gangs and taking the approach of suppression and surveillance has never worked. It’s been the only approach that we’ve tried for the last few decades and it has not decreased gang membership at all. How is it that prisons are the number one place where people are able to recruit and increase gang membership? There are no patches worn in prison, so eliminating their visual presence in some communities is not going to reduce their membership, at all.
This bill is actually quite useless, because all of the powers that are in the bill already exist. So gang activities that cause issues in public are already an offence under the Summary Offences Act 1981, including disorderly or offensive behaviour and associating with those convicted of theft, violence, or drug-related offending; gang patches are already banned from all public buildings and structures through the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2013; and if arresting our way out of the problem and eliminating the visual presence of gangs worked, we wouldn’t have them anymore, because that has been in our legislation for more than 10 years.
Finally, I want to talk about the use of some of these tools within the bill. We know that where non-consorting and dispersal orders have been used in other jurisdictions, they have been disproportionately used on indigenous people. I spoke to Senator David Shoebridge over in New South Wales, who sent me this report, which is about the use of non-consorting orders in Sydney, and despite the fact that indigenous people only make up 2 percent of the general population there, the non-consorting orders have been used between 50 and 75 percent in all of their jurisdictions within New South Wales. This just contributes to the over-surveillance, over-policing, harsher sentencing of Māori communities. It does nothing to make our communities safer, at all.
One thing I do want to say is that I want to encourage the Government to speak to gang leaders. This is something that I’ve been talking about for a while now. There was some refusal from Ministers, like Minister Mitchell, who refused to meet with gang members, but I think he’s coming around to the idea that if you want to influence communities that are already hard to reach, you need to go and talk to the leaders of those communities. I know that Minister Stanford had a meeting with Eugene today and that he will be able to assist you in implementing all 138 recommendations of the royal commission. But they’re just normal people. Go and have a chat with them. I think you’ll find they’re quite nice. They will manaaki you—hopefully—and you will probably learn a lot of lessons.
If you want to reduce the patch, those conversations are already happening. Samantha Hayes did a really great article on visiting Whakatāne, visiting the Black Power there, and on how they’re potentially moving away from the patch. But talk to the communities, rather than creating a hostile environment between gangs and police who have to enforce these rules, and then we might make some traction towards eliminating the presence of gangs.
Nothing fuels gang membership and the presence of gangs and the activities of gangs like poverty. Poverty and misery is where gangs thrive. So if you don’t want them to exist, then let’s start by enforcing all of the recommendations in the royal commission. Let’s listen to people who have got experience and respect within the gang community, and work with them to figure out how we can make our communities safer and better. Kia ora.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise this evening to speak in support of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. I actually was enjoying the first few minutes of the Hon Ginny Andersen’s contribution, when she outlined what a scourge gangs are in New Zealand, and the damage and harm they cause. This coalition Government has promised a crackdown on crime, and that is what we are delivering.
Over the past five years, gangs have recruited more than 3,000 members—that’s a 51 percent increase—and we’ve seen a significant escalation in gang violence, crime, public intimidation, and shootings. Nothing was done under the previous Government, so we are bringing in a different approach where we are actually tackling head-on the issue of gangs and a number of other criminal justice issues.
Police will be able to issue dispersal notices and they will be able to enforce gang patch bans. We want to put these tools in place because we do actually want to focus on cracking down on these gangs, which are causing a lot of misery and crime.
We’ll be doing some other things as well, as a Government. We’ll be putting a cap on the discounts around sentences, we’ll also be doing some things to ensure that the victims of crime are prioritised, and—importantly—we are actually delivering 500 more front-line police by the end of 2025. We want to actually see a reduction in the victims of crime in New Zealand.
Now, just turning to the bill, I do want to thank my fellow members of the Justice Committee. Actually, all of the amendments that the Minister spoke to and accepted were passed unanimously by members of the Justice Committee. The Justice Committee has representatives from all of the parties, and they unanimously recommended the amendments that we are speaking to tonight.
As has been outlined by the Minister, we will see with this bill the prohibition of gang insignia, or gang patches, and some fines and imprisonment time for gang members who breach that—that’ll be enforceable by the police. We have these dispersal orders to stop gangs gathering in public and intimidating people. Police will be able to intervene and actually break up these groups of gang members, and then we’ll also have these non-consorting orders—again, stopping gang members associating with each other.
This is a very important piece of legislation, but it is just one piece of this Government’s law and order plan to turn New Zealand around. One of the more interesting things—and the Minister did reference this—is that this bill has a fixed date on which it will come into effect. That was so that the police could actually be prepared and ready to implement these laws, and that was something that the committee took on board. So, with that, I want to conclude my comments, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the second reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. I must say that I spoke on this bill in the first reading with tremendous confidence that we might get full support around the House on this bill, and I was slightly dismayed at some of the comments that were made by the Opposition. That, unfortunately, has continued. The view of the Opposition seems to be very different from that of the Government.
Unfortunately, I must say, as I said in the first reading, gangs are intimidating, and there’s no doubt that across New Zealand people find gang members and the way that they act is intimidating to them. It is fearful for the majority of New Zealanders. As we are going about our daily lives, because of gangs and the way they act, it is that fearfulness that it puts into communities that makes all of us feel unsafe. That is one of the reasons this Government and New Zealand First support this legislation to give the police some more tools in their tool box to actually go after gangs and make our streets safer and our communities safer so that we don’t feel as intimidated and we can go into our daily lives and just live how we want to live. Gangs, unfortunately, are involved in organised crime. We all know that, and to hear Opposition members continuously get up in this House and through the select committee to support gangs and their way of life—which, as we know, is around organised crime—is, to me, extremely disappointing.
In the 2023 election, while on the election campaign, I and many people on this side of the House heard continuously that New Zealanders want some action around gangs because of the way that they are intimidating people and putting fear into New Zealanders’ lives. I heard on the campaign trail that we wanted action. Since 2017—and this is the biggest part of this—there have been 5,343 registered gang members. By 2024, going by what the Minister of Police said in his press release recently this year, there were 8,607 registered gang members. That was a 61 percent increase in gang members under the Government of members on that side of the House, who were soft on gangs, and their way of fixing it was to give millions of dollars to gangs and to hand out money. “We will fix the gang problem”, they said, “by giving the gangs money.” How ridiculous is that? After their failure to keep gangs under control, we saw an explosion in numbers, and in our communities was that explosion of fear and intimidation.
This bill is trying to achieve some fresh signals from this Government towards raising the issue of prohibiting gang insignia in public places, enabling police to issue dispersal notices, and empowering the courts to issue consorting prohibition notices, which all signal to gangs that the game is up. No more intimidating behaviour and—importantly for New Zealand First—if someone is in court, it will be an aggravating part of their sentence.
We heard numerous discussions through the Justice Committee, and it was sometimes to the amusement, I think, of the Government side that it was almost suggested by members from the other side of the House that the police couldn’t issue a dispersal notice. This debate went on for weeks and weeks, to the point where the New Zealand Police came in a number of times and actually showed how a dispersal notice would be issued. Yes, personal service is, basically, the most common way that you would give a dispersal notice. At the time of the offence: “Here is the notice.”, and it is done. You can give an email—yes—or you could go to the police station. But it’s not rocket science. This is giving the police a tool in their tool box to give a dispersal notice to gang members that will actually say “Hey, you’re not allowed to be here—out.”, and, to me, for those members to say that the police could not issue a dispersal notice is absolutely ridiculous.
Also, non-consorting orders can be made around specified gang offenders. It would have to be a specified gang offender, and that is another tool in the tool box that means that certain gang members cannot interact together. But it is a process that would have to be done after the court has heard an application by the Commissioner of Police. So that is a very, very high bar.
We also heard through the submission period about the gang list, and there was a lot of discussion on the gang list. That has been updated and it can continue to be updated, and clause 30 of the bill gives the Governor-General, by Order in Council, the ability to update that list as it is required to be.
New Zealand First had committed to this in our manifesto, and now we are delivering what was set out in our coalition agreement into legislation. We have also been pleased to hear throughout the select committee process of practical and sensible ways in which this bill can be enhanced. Several points that were raised in the select committee were both insightful and strengthened the effectiveness of this bill. We must improve public confidence in law and order through creating new offences and giving the police powers relating to gangs.
As I say, making gang membership an aggravating part of a sentence is very important to the New Zealand First Party, and something that was strived for, for a number of years, was to get that into legislation. We are proud to deliver what we campaigned on, and we are confident that ensuring that gang membership is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing will bring about positive change.
Gang members that ruin so many people’s lives are now facing consequences for their behaviour—and the Opposition members continuously shout out in this House in support of gangs, probably because they were the only ones that voted for them at election time. But members opposite must realise that the victims of gangs are at the heart of our justice system, and criminal behaviour will be punished. Intimidating behaviour from gang members and having people feel unsafe is not acceptable. I proudly commend this bill to the House.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): E te Whare, tēnā tātou. As I rise to speak to the second reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, I can’t help but reflect on the lessons that Moana Jackson, a great rangatira of te ao Māori, left us. Over a 30-year period, he led three investigations into New Zealand’s justice system and increasingly found structural racism, systemic racism, and racist attitudes that permeated the entire justice system and that consistently produced more negative outcomes for Māori than any other group in Aotearoa. Moana’s view was that the institutions of Government that were born out of the vicious violence of colonialism and colonisations were created to suffocate Māori, to extinguish Māori aspiration, and to incarcerate Māori. Moana described these characteristics of Government institutions as carceral entities inasmuch as their ultimate underlying objective is to assimilate the Māori people, to incarcerate the Māori people, to restrict Māori development, and to erase the Māori culture and Māori identity.
When I reflect on the fact that the justice system is under the leadership of someone who believes that, on balance, colonisation was a good thing for Māori, it is no wonder that the abhorrent statistics for Māori in the justice system continue. Indeed, since the genesis of these institutions, when this very House passed legislation to allow itself to imprison Māori for two years without trial, the attitudes that subsequently embedded themselves deeply in the justice system over successive decades and generations would ultimately ensure that there was a pipeline that would deliver Māori from initial point of contact with the justice system, through the justice pipeline, and, ultimately, to prison, and it has done this with alarming regularity and astounding consistency, as was described by Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena in this House last week, as a survivor of State abuse. These are the lessons that Moana left us. They aren’t revolutionary findings; they’re well understood, they’re well researched, and they’re well-founded, and yet they’re ignored.
Just last week, this House received the report Whanaketia on historical abuse in State care, and I want to acknowledge the community of survivors and their whānau who have suffered and have had to endure the intergenerational damage of abuse meted out at the hands of Government institutions—the carceral entities that Moana so vividly described. In this House last week, the mood was sombre. The faces of MPs were anguished with the pain of having to address the rawness of the brutal truth as it gathered above us, and their messages were clear: stop attacking gangs. Gangs were born of State abuse. No military boot camps for youth; these are all continuations of the State violence these very survivors had to endure, and here we are, one week later, rolling out anti-gang legislation and cranking up boot camps. I tell you, it’s absurd. So what have we learnt? Well, apparently, nothing, because it’s clearly understood that when this law was last in place, it did nothing to reduce offending. It’s clearly understood that it had a disproportionately negative impact on Māori. It’s clearly understood that the bill is in breach of human rights and that it breaches Te Tiriti o Waitangi, yet it continues.
Let me conclude by offering some reflections of my own on the submissions that the Justice Committee received, because they’ve been referenced tonight and they got quite a shining review. I don’t think that the review should have been that shining. We pretty much received submissions from all of the national legal bodies—the Law Society, law associations, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, and many others—and they unequivocally, in unison, said that the bill was rubbish, that the bill should not have made it this far, that the bill should be thrown out, and that the Government should start again from a more restorative starting point. All of this was ignored and, as I’ve heard today, glossed over.
It was astounding that there was unanimous condemnation of the bill by the national legal community and that a Government could have brought a piece of legislation this far without taking any consultation or any advice from any of those bodies, and when cornered with the facts, the Government just reverts to saying, “Well, we campaigned on being tough on gangs and crime, we won the election, and, on that basis, we’re doing it.” Well, if that’s the quality of the argument and the rationale, then that’s just pathetic, and you should go back to the start.
Quite frankly, you know, not to ignore the voices that were here—the hundreds of voices that were here—as survivors last week, but to show the same bravery and courage as those survivors, take immediate action to remove this bill before it creates even more damage. E te Pīka, kāre mātou mō te whakaae ki tēnei pire—we do not commend the bill to the House.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are here talking about banning gang patches in public places and giving the police the ability to search the homes of people who are going to the supermarket or to pick up their kids from school, not because of what they have done, but because of what they might possibly, maybe, potentially do. If simply removing a piece of clothing could solve the real issues we are facing in New Zealand, we could all go on holiday and take off a few layers. Raincoat gone—cool, child poverty solved! Hoodies gone—homelessness solved! Gang patches gone is not going to make New Zealand a safer society.
Less than a week ago, we all sat here as the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care report was tabled. It outlined how the State targeted Māori kids, Pacific kids, and poor kids—a stolen generation of tamariki who were tortured, abused, and not believed or cared for. The report clearly outlines the pathway from abuse in State care to the creation of gangs.
We sat and listened to the Prime Minister say, “You have been heard, you have been believed.”, which resonated with New Zealanders because New Zealanders are compassionate people. They’re pretty on to it too, and we understand authoritative figures like the police and the State being so unsafe that people will find community with each other. That is how we—the State—are responsible for gangs being created.
We have a responsibility to implement real solutions—solutions which are spelt out for everyone to see in the 138 recommendations in the royal commission of inquiry report. The report also told us that most gang members are survivors of abuse in State care. We are the elected representatives of the State who abused these children and we must take responsibility for the problem that we’ve created.
The Minister for Children said that if you see something, to speak up—and this is me speaking up for all New Zealanders, because we cannot continue to class people as bottom-feeding criminals if we want a safe and thriving New Zealand. We can make sensible law when we work collaboratively and that is what the people of New Zealand want us to do to make meaningful change, and it’s a shame this bill is even before the House, because it makes the issue seem like an easy fix with the slogan “tough on crime”.
Guess what! The police were already tough on gangs before this Government came into power, but the conditions of poverty, housing insecurity, and making it harder for Kiwis to live is creating the perfect conditions for gangs to thrive. We know from experience that children in New Zealand who are in State care, stripped of their culture and rights, are on a pathway to prison and gangs, and we need to get serious about the causes, because if we don’t acknowledge the causes, we won’t fix anything.
Banning gang patches will not make New Zealand safer, and it’s an insult to every Kiwi’s intelligence to make it seem like they don’t know the real work that needs to be done. If we define people by whether they are affiliated with a gang or otherwise, we are ignoring the hard work that needs to be done.
The Government would rather talk about gang patches than fund Oranga Tamariki front-line staff. The Government would rather talk about gang patches than deal with poverty. The Government would rather talk about gang patches than deal with homelessness. The Government would rather talk about gang patches than protect tamariki Māori in care. I’d love to go on holiday and take my raincoat off if it solved the real issues New Zealand faces, but I am here to do the work New Zealanders want us to do: to make New Zealand a place where everyone can thrive and be safe.
I want you to ask yourself, would you rather be walking down a dark alley and see a patched member or a police officer? For many people in New Zealand, they would feel safer alone with a patched member than the police, and we need to ask ourselves why.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Let’s get real for a minute. Let’s actually understand what we’re talking about here. We are—unlike the views of many of the members opposite—not talking about wayward community groups who are doing their best but have a couple of bad eggs; we are talking about organisations that are systematically set up to cause misery, cause violence, and cause harm to our communities.
If we want to talk about systemic abuse in this country, why don’t we start talking about the organisations where rape and violence and thuggery and intimidation are not an unintended consequence of the organisation; they are a prerequisite for its membership. Why don’t we start talking about that? Why don’t we just get real about what we’re actually talking about here?
Yes, we can talk about some of the causes of our gang culture and, yes, we can talk about some of the horrific actions of the State in decades past, and we can talk about the social investment approach which this Government believes in, which will help to go some way towards solving the challenge of gang membership in 20 years’ time. But we will not stand by while these organisations are out there in our communities, causing absolute chaos and absolute misery, and that is what this is about. If members want to consider their position on whether or not they would like to support the continued existence of gangs and gang culture in this country, I would invite them to do so.
As chair of the Justice Committee, I do want to commend the work of the committee on this bill. There have been a number of changes made to the bill, and despite some of the back and forth that will go across the House tonight—and, I suspect, on Thursday as well—we actually did a lot of hard work looking into some of the unintended consequences of parts of the bill.
One of the parts I wanted to talk about was the changes we are making to the extent to which this bill applies on the grounds of Parliament, because, as someone who is interested in constitutional law and the place of Parliament in our constitution, we entered into a very interesting discussion with the Clerk of the House about the bill. The Clerk made a submission, which is there in the public domain for everyone to read, and we ended up recommending to the House that we exempt the grounds of Parliament from the prohibition on gang insignia but allow the Speaker to continue to make those decisions for the public on the grounds at Parliament.
That was a very, very important decision, I think, for us to make, because in terms of upholding the sanctity of Parliament as a place for everyone to come and freely express themselves, it is important that we allow that to happen as freely and safely as possible to the extent which Parliament itself allows it through the Speaker. But make no mistake, we do support the Speaker’s right to make those decisions. I suspect, as a caucus and as a Government, that we would support the Speaker in making decisions to continue the prohibition in Parliament’s grounds and on Parliament’s precincts as well as in public, but, ultimately, we recognise the fact that Parliament is not a ground for complete sanctity. It is not a place for immunity from the law, but, ultimately, it is the place of the Speaker to make those decisions, and so that is why we agreed on that change.
The committee did, at the end of the day, receive about 164 submissions and we heard from 32 oral submitters, and, as members have spoken about, they did represent a wide range of perspectives, actually, from law enforcement, legal experts, community organisations, and concerned citizens, to—yes—gang members themselves. While the gang members who showed up at select committee put on what I would call the positive, happy face—the “We are no more than a community group doing our best in the community” side of what they do—very few of them actually spoke at length about what it took for them to enter into the gang lifestyle. What did they have to do to become a member of the gang? What harm and what misery did they have to cause? That is what we are trying to stop—that’s what we’re trying to cut off at the pass here.
We did have a number of very considered submissions, and you’ll see throughout the changes to the bill that a lot of those submissions were taken into account and changes have been made. I’d like to acknowledge the work of Dr Webb and Ginny Andersen and Tracey McLellan and the other members of the committee—Tamatha Paul, Tākuta Ferris—and, of course, the members on the Government side for their work in trying to solve some pretty tricky issues around dispersal notices and around the extent to which the bans will apply, and how it will be implemented in practice. They were very, very difficult issues to work through, and, ultimately, we came to a point where I think the committee agreed by unanimity to the changes that we are going to suggest today.
I want to acknowledge that it is a contentious bill. However, we believe that the measures are justified and proportionate as a way to deal with the threat posed by criminal gangs. The measures in this bill send a clear message that our society will not tolerate the intimidation and the criminal activities of gangs. By disrupting their operations and reducing their visible presence in our society, we aim to create safer communities for all New Zealanders. I commend the report back to the House and I look forward to further robust debate as the bill progresses. Thank you.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, yes, we’ve got a gang problem; no, gangs aren’t lovely community organisations, but let’s stop the bidding war. If you were to have a bidding war on who’s going to take away the most human rights, you win. If it’s who’s going to impose the harshest sentences, you win. If it’s who’s going to give the police the greatest and most extensive powers, you win. But let’s ask this question: what works—right? Let’s stop arguing about one of the most important issues facing us.
Gangs, at their core, are organisations premised on living outside of the law and are violent and authoritarian. Around those gangs are communities of people—whānau, children, parents, grandparents—all of whom are part of the network that gangs affect. When I heard the Minister of Justice talk about the usual narrative of the crackdown, the consequences, and telling gangs to take notice, well, I don’t think the gangs follow him on Instagram. I don’t think him saying that “We’re coming after your patches.” is actually going to address the real ills. But do you know what? What I think isn’t as important as the evidence is.
I mean, the Chief Science Advisor to the Government has written a quite comprehensive report on gangs, which I won’t quote from at length, but, certainly, one of the things that the Chief Science Advisor said in 2023 was that “a ‘zero-tolerance’ style of policing builds distrust in the communities that police are tasked to serve. It creates alienation and dislocation from communities and risks fuelling gang membership and increasing gang dislocation and isolation.” That is an apolitical statement from someone tasked with the very important job of giving us the best approach to a difficult social problem. Let’s stop the bidding war. Let’s start talking about what we can really do, and, look, this window-dressing bill does nothing. Thank you for your kind words, Mr Meager, and we did try and make this bill less offensive than it would otherwise be, but the fact of the matter is that the bill is still entirely ineffective.
Look, the thoughtful opinions go on. There are Professors Deckert and Tauri, and I met Mr Tauri in Hamilton recently. They were very clear. These are very senior criminologists with an interest in the area, who said that “the current anti-gang policies will not reduce crime, but are likely to further alienate hard-to-reach communities.” Now, I get it—right? I get that there’s media time in talking about Harry Tam and how no one should talk to him, but what is the real answer to saying to these people that “There’s an opportunity, there’s space—get out of the gangs.”? It’s not just the hardened members who, if they commit serious crimes, we agree, should be penalised severely, but what about those young people? What about those people who are looking for opportunity and for whom this kind of narrative around banning gang patches is actually glamourising the very gangs that we want to suppress?
I must say I found it deeply troubling when the Minister, in his speech, referred to the abuse in State care in passing, and then, essentially, said, “But”—but nothing—“we don’t really care.” I mean, look, everyone should go and look at the evidence on the website and watch the videos, because they talk in their own words about their experiences, and the fact that the Government, in March, saying “Those experiences of trauma when you get caught up in offending are not relevant and we don’t want to know, and we won’t fund someone to tell us about them in section 27 reports.” was deeply offensive. I won’t name the people whom I looked at, but one of them said, “You know, when my parents died, I had no criminal record. I hadn’t done anything wrong. But when I came out of the boys’ home, I was a gang member doing everything wrong—drinking and drugs.” Now, if that person gets into trouble and commits serious crimes, of course the law must respond—and not just the law; our communities want a response. They want some retribution and some acknowledgment. That’s got to happen, but at the same time that doesn’t solve the problem, and this Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill doesn’t solve the problem, either.
If you look at, for example, the dispersal orders, it’s only window dressing, because it’s entirely unworkable. The poster child of this dispersal order is the Ōpōtiki tangi. Now, there is no way that these powers could meaningfully be used by police officers in that situation. If you look at what it actually is, though, it’s much more likely to be a group of gang members down at the park playing loud music, because if there’s three or more gang members who are “unreasonably disrupting the activities of other members of the public.”—so there’s your first question. What does that mean? What is “unreasonably” interfering with the activities of other members of the public? I don’t know. Is it playing reggae music or heavy metal, you know, because the fact of the matter is that this is just an open door for the police to say, “I don’t like what you’re doing.” It is so vague as to be pretty much meaningless.
You get that situation where the police come along, and then there’s this ridiculous service issue. They’ve got to give a notice, but the police made it very clear—and I don’t know what committee Jamie Arbuckle was in—that they don’t do paper; they only like electronic. Just like with the traffic ticket, if you’ve had one on the side of the road, they take your details—boom—it’ll be sent to you by email. Paper is the last thing that they want to do. They’re going to ask these burly members for their email address, and what is the likelihood? They might’ve had a few beers too, you know, and they might not be entirely cooperative, so that doesn’t work. They’re then going to take them down to the station and write them out a ticket—that is absolutely a ridiculous proposition, simply operationally. The power itself is deeply problematic, the trigger is largely meaningless, and the operation of it is entirely unworkable, and so that’s why this is simply window dressing.
Look, we do need to address the problem of gang membership. We do need to reduce the offending. We know that some things work: we know that depriving gang members of the funds that come from their criminal offending works; we know that intervention into their families in an intensive manner works. There are things that work, and my colleagues from the Green Party make a fair point that there are long-term things we can do about poverty, as well. But we also know that immediate interventions that actually occur prior to offending, and not the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, or—worse—Waikeria Prison, which is tantamount to being a graveyard after the ambulances didn’t turn up. We can do things, so let’s have a big, grown-up conversation about stopping the political football of being tough on crime and recognise that there’s community harm here that we need to address. We need a lasting solution based on evidence, not TikTok memes. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Oh, jeez! Oh, my giddy aunt! What are we actually looking at here? We just heard from a previous Green Party speaker that most New Zealanders would prefer to walk into a dark alleyway and come across a patched gang member than a police officer—you know, this is the parallel universe we’re dealing with here. Some of us come out of the community and then into Wellington and hear these debates. Well, if the Green Party are convinced of that, they should test that by way of public opinion. They should put that out as a postcard or an email as to who New Zealanders would prefer to walk into down a dark alley.
Then we heard from the previous Labour member “Let’s start the talk as to what really works.”, and something about “Let’s have a conversation.” Well, this is coming from a senior former Minister in the Labour Party, which had six years in power with an absolute majority of 65 MPs, and now they are telling us, nine months into Opposition, that we should start the conversation as to what really works. Well, I’ll tell you what worked under them. Over the past five years, gangs recruited more than 3,000 members—a 51 percent increase. While they were having that conversation, which they still want to continue, that was their track record. At the same time—
Ingrid Leary: Where’s your evidence? Give us your evidence of what’s going to work.
CAMERON BREWER: —we have seen a significant escalation in gang-related violence, in public intimidation, and in shootings, with violent crime up 33 percent, and retail crime and youth crime, and they say, “Show us your evidence.” Well, I’m quite happy to come out with all the empirical evidence that has been well tabled and well released by the New Zealand Police, but, again: “Oh, no, let’s not elevate the police; let’s elevate the status of gang members.”
That is the whole modus operandi of members over the way—elevating the status of gang members. They haven’t told us—and perhaps we need to ask them—how they got those patches that these people across the way in Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori are happy to defend. Those members elevate the status of people who have only peddled misery in our communities. They had their chance over six years, with, frankly, at the time, one of the most popular Prime Ministers, who could have got anyone to eat anything out of her hand. They had that. They had 65 MPs—an absolute majority—and they squandered it. All we saw was crime go up, crime go up, crime go up—and that’s all we saw.
It now comes to this Government to not only inherit an economic mess but inherit law and order in quite a state, and they say, “Oh, you’re just doing this for political reasons.” No, our agenda, whether it’s economic, law and order, health and education—guess what! When you do the polling—Labour does the polling, too—what’s the number one issue? Economy, cost of living, and inflation; number two, law and order, and health and education.
Ingrid Leary: What’s in the bill? What’s in the legislation that you want to put forward to the House?
CAMERON BREWER: OK, well, let’s talk about the bill then. Let’s go back to the bill because the previous speaker, Mr Webb, got into the weeds, and I’ll just remind the viewing public what the bill actually offers up as far as its provisions go. It prohibits the display of gang insignia in public places, it empowers police to issue dispersal notices that require specified gang members to leave a public place and not associate in public for seven days, it creates a new non-consorting order that prohibits association and communication between specific gang members for three years, and it amends the Sentencing Act 2002 to make gang membership an aggravating factor at sentencing. This is something that New Zealanders want us to crack down on up and down the country.
The Green Party in Opposition think that New Zealanders would rather walk into a dark alley and come across a patched gang member than a sworn constable. That’s how far they have lost reality, and, frankly, that’s how long they are going to stay in the Opposition and defending gang members, at this rate. So I support the second reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, and I look forward to further discussion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, ngā mihi o te wā whiriwhiri ki a koe. [Thank you, Madam Speaker, greetings of this sitting block to you.] This is a short call.
As the MP for Manurewa, this is a big issue for me. It’s something I find hard to talk about because the cost of gangs on my community—the human cost—and the way that gangs recruit young people in Manurewa is a scourge that we must fight. All parliamentarians must stand against the way that young people are recruited into a life of crime. They’ve already gone through the school system, the health system—which has for many generations underserved their families—and then the fact that they feel that they need to turn to gangs is a problem we all have to address, but this bill absolutely does not do that.
This bill lets down the people in Manurewa who thought that what they were getting would be a Government that was focused on crime, a Government that would put more police on the streets in South Auckland and would resource the local cops—who have good relationships with the people in Manurewa—to actually be able to do their jobs. We had these police coming into the Justice Committee and telling committee members that these were not the solutions that they would be able to action and that it would lead to an undermining of local cops, who build up over many years these hard-won relationships in hard-to-reach communities like South Auckland, and who will be out there making fools of themselves because of the political point-scoring that went on in the election campaign.
We are letting down people in Manurewa. We are letting down those mums who see their young boys being recruited by gangs in places where they should not have access to young people—in schools; in places where young people should be assured forward that the State is going to look out for them and that they have a Government who backs them. What are we seeing in Manurewa? We’re seeing gangs booming under this Government. The ability for ordinary people to walk down the street has not been improved by rhetoric like this. In fact, this is glamourising gang members, who have become, suddenly, overnight, a popular, glamourised culture that is counter to everything this Government is saying, and we’re seeing more of this activity.
I stopped at the intersection of Browns Road and Great South Road last week, where the window washer who’s there—I often stop and chat to him when I’m going past and he’s there. Peeni Henare will have seen him there. He is always there, and I pulled over, and usually I will tell him that he’s not meant to be doing that, but I’ll talk to him about what he’s seeing. He said to me, “You know, I’m lucky at the moment. I’m someone who’s got stuff sorted. There are more and more people out on their butts because they don’t have jobs at the moment. I’m seeing more and more people out on the streets, and I’m worried about how South Auckland is going to look in a couple of years when this has really taken hold.”, and it made me think about those ordinary people who are being punished by legislation like this. They are being punished by a Government that is using people like this—who have nowhere else to turn—as an opportunity to peddle the rhetoric which says that it is the responsibility of those people to keep themselves away from organised crime.
Well, it’s the responsibility of the Government to step in and give young people an alternative path so that they’re not washing windows at the lights—and that’s what they’re known for in their community—but they can find a good job, they can find training opportunities, or they can fit into a school that knows what their needs are and is resourced to be able to teach them in a way that they can learn—because these are the problems that have led to gang growth in New Zealand. These are the problems that we need to find the solutions to, instead of cosmetic solutions like this, which only serve to make politicians in this House feel like they are doing something about it.
There is a growth of new gangs in South Auckland—gangs like the Comancheros, gangs like the King Cobras—that did not exist before, and the solutions that we need are about stopping young people joining those gangs, which are active in recruiting on things like TikTok and social media. The things that actually work and that we need police to be able to be resourced to do are those solutions like Kotahi te Whakaaro, which was getting kids who were caught up in this off the streets overnight. It was getting each one of those cases in front of experts, who sat around the table in the morning and knew what to do with them, whether it was Oranga Tamariki here, whether it was taking them to a local community group to get back in the right place, or whether it was just taking them down to James Cook High School or Manurewa High School to have a meeting with the principal and their whānau. It was practical solutions like that which were actually making a difference. That is what Manurewa deserves from this Government, and that is not what we are getting.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Arena Williams, the member opposite, has just described a situation that she is observing now, which is a situation that is clearly the result of the past many years where the gangs have gained ground and have boomed. It’s been said many times over this debate that numbers have grown—a 51 percent increase. This didn’t happen in the last nine months alone; this is the result of a few years of momentum that the gangs have gained. At the same time, there has been significant violence. In New Lynn, where I am the MP, youth violence and assaults are rife. It’s happening and steps are being taken to deal with that, but what this bill seeks to address is specifically the behaviour that gangs are putting into the public space.
The bill specifically deals with the situation where gangs need to see consequences arise from the behaviour that they’ve been escalating over time. We are nine months in. We are going through legislation that will address that very specific circumstance of the behaviour of gangs in public. The bill seeks to reduce the behaviour engaged in by gangs and to disincentivise gang membership, because as it seeks to deal with the elements that make gang membership exciting, probably, and alluring to many, they will be dampened down.
It is a new offence—so new it has never been an offence—to wear gang patches and to display specific gang insignia in public places. The object of that is to reduce the incidence of menacing behaviour in public that makes people feel threatened. There is also the opportunity for police to intervene in situations where three or more are gathered, which, again, is there to seek to put some confidence in the public that the police are looking into and preventing threatening behaviour. It’s the behaviour and the consequences of that behaviour that this bill seeks to address.
We can all argue about the causes of why people are susceptible to and attracted by gang membership. We can talk about how people have in their life circumstances been disadvantaged so that gang membership seems to be the only opportunity for them to gain involvement in a familial space, but that is not what this bill is about, and we are here to debate the bill that seeks to address the misbehaviour.
In addition to the new offence of wearing gang patches and displaying insignia, with also the gathering together, there will be the opportunity for the police to ask the courts to issue non-consorting orders to prevent the long-term association of people who are clearly of a menacing and dangerous association. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the chance to conclude Labour’s contribution on this bill about gang patches, and to say a few words. I would like to start by also acknowledging the Justice Committee, chaired by James Meager. It’s generally a relatively collegial committee that does its best to take a piece of legislation, of which there are many in the Justice Committee, and make changes and listen to submitters and experts and take advice so that what comes out the other end can be perhaps a little bit better than what goes in.
This certainly happened in this process as well. However, compared to some of the other instances of bills that we’ve had before us, it was a process that I think was somewhat frustrating, because whilst the subject matter and the substantive nature of what we were talking about is important, fundamental, and, in some ways, sad and equally frustrating and scary—and all of those things—it just didn’t feel like the solution that we had before us was very weighty when literally, during the process of talking about gang patches and considering the core of people’s existence in a world that’s quite different to the ones that we’re used to, it asked us and forced us to think about unshared realities and paths that haven’t been the same as they have been for us. In a lot of respects, therefore, it was frustrating to only be talking about gang patches.
Certainly, on this side of the House—and I hope that we have made it clear; it certainly sounded clear to me when I listened to my colleagues—we all acknowledge the fact that gangs are a problem. The Labour Party fully acknowledges that criminal gangs are a significant problem in New Zealand and that keeping communities safe from gangs and disrupting their criminal activity should absolutely be a priority, and it should be a priority for this House. That is why, I say again, it’s a little bit frustrating that we’re only talking about people taking their jackets off, essentially, as the means by which to get to the part where we solve this problem.
Before I go into any more detail—and as has been said on several occasions tonight—I do want to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues. This debate started tonight where the Hon Ginny Andersen was able to illustrate her points by focusing on domestic violence, and I think that that was a really worthwhile contribution because she talked about it in so far as police resources go and all of the things that we could be doing differently if we were looking at what police are going to be focusing on to actually prevent the funnel and the pipeline in the future. I’d also like to acknowledge the contribution of Arena Williams because she talked about the everyday life that she sees in her electorate of Manurewa, in particular, and the absolute cruelty of being privy to the fact that predatory gangs are recruiting at schools and are doing things and taking advantage of people who are in disparate situations and may be looking for alternatives, and they are offering them something that in the long run is certainly not going to do them any good.
Again, it’s relatively frustrating and really annoying that at this time of night, having heard no really substantive contributions from the Government—I mean, we’ve heard contributions that talk around the edges, that talked about the technicalities, and that talked about fairly innocuous or fairly mundane aspects of the process, but we haven’t heard anybody really come out and sell this bill tonight. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that it’s largely cosmetic and that it tinkers around the edges. We certainly know—and we heard from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb—that it is absolutely unworkable.
Time and time again, we heard from submitters, and we stepped through processes. We almost kind of acted out a few scenarios, so I’m not entirely sure I agree with Duncan Webb, and I’m not entirely sure where Jamie Arbuckle was when we were trying to get to the sort of the crux of the matter about how unworkable this was when you actually took it step by step, when you thought about those disbursement orders. It’s almost comical to think of the process that needs to be in place for this to work. But I think the point that I’m trying to get to is that none of that actually matters, because that is not the point of this piece of legislation. The point of this legislation is for the Government to look tough on crime, and the point of this legislation is for them to be able to point to something to say that they are doing something when, actually, they’re not doing something, because—I agree with my colleagues—this is merely, merely window dressing.
If the Government was serious about actually tackling this problem, they would have made different choices, and that’s the common theme, isn’t it? We all have to make a choice about whether we put resource here or whether we prioritise this here. It’s a privilege to be in this House. It’s a privilege to work in service as being lawmakers for this country. Terms are very short and you don’t get an awful lot of time to make a difference and do things meaningfully, and if the Government was serious about tackling this, this is certainly not the piece of legislation that we’d be talking about tonight. It’s vacuous, it’s superficial, and, as I said, it’s about looking tough on crime without actually doing the work to make anything worthwhile.
Now, the select committee process also revealed a number of ways in which we believe that this bill is unworkable, and I think a couple of them have been touched on tonight and I won’t go over them again. But I do want to emphasise that the summation of that and the outcome of all of that information was that we are very genuinely concerned that this piece of legislation is absolutely unworkable. It’s not in so far as “Therefore, it does nothing; therefore that’s OK.”, because when it doesn’t work, it actually puts other people at harm, like our police force and our police officers.
We heard from the New Zealand Law Society and other submitters, and it was a real theme of the submissions that they were expressing real concern not only about whether it would not have the desired effect but whether it could have unintended consequences and whether some of those could be revolving around keeping our police officers safe. The New Zealand Law Society also noted—and I think it’s worth saying, and it has been touched on—that this bill, essentially, comes from the Australian law. We looked into that and we heard directly from people, and for those of us who did a little bit of homework, it didn’t take long to realise that it hasn’t actually worked that well.
We heard anecdotes from some submitters, some of whom were speaking in support, ironically, and providing quite contrary information—but most of whom weren’t, and they were talking about the fact that there really isn’t any good evidence to show that it worked in Australia. The couple of examples where people did try to sell it along those lines were from Perth, where, as it turns out, the gangs just packed up and left and went to the East Coast. So what are we going to do in New Zealand, where there’s nowhere else to go?
We also heard the example from Whanganui, and I think Michael Laws was one of the submitters who spoke very passionately about the experiment that happened there. He also acknowledged in relation to the question: “So what happened? Did people just stop being in gangs when you took their gang patches off them?”—he said, “No, I think they just moved somewhere else.” That’s not a solution that’s before us in this piece of legislation, so it really is quite silly.
The provisions, as we’ve said, give police the power to disperse gang members, and we believe them to be really unworkable. I think that the Hon Ginny Andersen said that best when she spoke tonight and talked us through the steps that are in play in so far as eliciting emails and asking someone who doesn’t want to give an email address whether they would kindly like to accompany you back to a police station so that something can be printed out, because none of that is enforceable without those steps.
I also want to just note again that if this Government really was serious about doing something about gangs, then why didn’t they just do more of what we were doing in the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, which we passed? When you go after gangs, you go after their money, you go after their vehicles, and you impound their motorbikes and their cars, and you hit them where it hurts. You don’t just take their jackets off them.
So, all in all, I’d like to reiterate the fact that Labour certainly won’t be supporting this bill. We think it’s been a real disappointment that the Government hasn’t been more ambitious, and we hope that as the term goes on, things improve a little bit and we can start seeing some bills from the Government that actually achieve something.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It’s both a pleasure and a shame that I have to stand and speak about this bill, in the second reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure in the sense that I’m thinking about how, for many of the people in my patch and also in South Auckland and East Auckland, the implementation of this bill will help them to feel a lot safer. They will feel a lot safer, whether or not it achieves all the goals that the Opposition is trying to say that it should achieve. It will make them feel safer, absolutely—100 percent.
It’s a shame that we have to talk about laws like this and work on laws like this because of the fact that—friendly reminder—as was mentioned by a number of my colleagues, over the past five years, gangs have recruited more than 3,000 members. That’s an increase of 51 percent. We’re not talking about members of a knitting club or members of a poetry club or members of a pot-luck club—no pun intended—we’re talking about, as Dr Duncan Webb said, gangs at their core being organisations that are living outside the law. Absolutely, they’re normal people. Absolutely, my heart goes out to them for what many of them have experienced—absolutely—but they’re normal people that have chosen to live outside the law.
Now, what are we trying to do here? We’re trying to implement changes that are going to ban gang insignia in public, forfeit insignia to the Crown, create dispersal notices that are enforceable for seven days, and create non-consorting orders, and the bill amends the Sentencing Act to make it an aggravating factor to be part of a gang. Why—why—are we doing this? Well, there are a number of reasons why, but it’s not just about crime. Actually, when we talk about them taking off that jacket, it’s about the fact that them wearing that jacket is brandishing their gang insignia to show that they are above the law—not above the law for merely jaywalking; we’re talking about family violence, blatant assaults, and drug dealing. This is part of what we’re trying to do here: we’re trying to say the fact that they are brandishing these patches is glamourising gangs.
The National Party and the Government are not glamourising gangs by passing this Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill; the patches are glamourising gangs. The Harley-Davidsons bought by the proceeds of crime are glamourising gangs. This is what our kaupapa is about, and this is what we’re trying to achieve. We’re trying to say that brandishing and glamourising gangs through the patches is not OK and it’s causing extreme intimidation, and we’re trying to say that absolutely, yes, we are getting tough on crime, but 100 percent we need to address the core problems, as well. The core problems are not going to be addressed with this law alone; it’s with other measures that our Government is taking. But at this stage, yes, I commend this bill to the House. We’re not going to glamourise patches.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second 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 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
I want to start by thanking those who took the time to make submissions on the changes proposed in this bill, and my fellow Education and Workforce Committee members who considered the bill, of which both the Minister of Education and I had the privilege of being a member during that process.
This bill was introduced back in March 2023 and makes technical changes to improve the effectiveness of education regulatory systems. The bill makes changes to two education Acts: the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945 and the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972. There are also minor technical changes to the regulations.
The bill firstly makes two changes to the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945 to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it continues the legacy of the 28th Māori Battalion into the future. The Ngarimu scholarships are an important aspect of our education system, as they commemorate the heroes of the 28th Māori Battalion and recognise the importance of ensuring the continuation and prosperity of te reo Māori and of Māori history, tradition, and culture for future generations.
For some time, there has been legal confusion over who can manage the use of the Māori Battalion’s name and emblems. This was previously a role of the Māori Battalion Association, but that organisation was wound up in 2012. The bill clarifies that the scholarship fund board is the legal successor to the association, and that its functions include administering the use of both the battalion and association’s names and emblems. The bill also creates a new position on the Ngarimu Board, appointed by the Governor-General, which can be held by a person of Māori descent who has served or is currently serving in the New Zealand Armed Forces. Right now, there is one remaining soldier from the 28th Māori Battalion: Tā Robert Gillies. The creation of this new position will preserve the military legacy and provide representation for Māori soldiers who have served or who continue to serve for New Zealand.
The bill also makes several changes to the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972, which supports the functions of the Pacific Education Foundation. The foundation was established to promote and encourage strong education outcomes for Pacific peoples within New Zealand and to provide financial support for that purpose. One of these key changes is to expand the list of Pacific places included in the definition of a Pacific person who can receive some of the supports and grants which are administered by the board of the foundation. These supports and grants include the Pacific Education Foundation scholarships and the Tulī Takes Flight scholarships, which reduce some of the financial barriers towards study or training. This change will better reflect the changing population of Pacific people in New Zealand and it will mean that more Pacific learners living in New Zealand will be eligible for support from the foundation. The bill enables the Governor-General to update the list of Pacific places through an Order in Council and sets out factors that the Minister of Education must take into account when making a recommendation to the Governor-General to make changes to the list.
The bill also updates the Pacific Education Foundation Board’s purpose and membership to enable it to function more effectively. These changes include clarifying the role the foundation has in providing information and advice to the Minister of Education, the Ministry of Education, and other education agencies on matters related to the educational success of Pacific people and increasing community representation on the board.
The bill also amends the Pacific Education Foundation Act to recognise the unique and important relationship the Crown has with the Realm of New Zealand countries, Tokelau, Niue, and the Cook Islands; and with Samoa through the Treaty of Friendship.
Finally, the bill updates the foundation’s authorised expenditure for purposes not specifically identified in the Act from $500 to $10,000 per year, which has not been updated since 1972. This change adjusts the $500 value by inflation to reflect the value in today’s terms.
In addition to these changes, the bill also makes technical amendments to regulations that impact the education sector. The first of these is an amendment to the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016 to require a police vet and a risk assessment to be undertaken for workers at limited-attendance childcare centres before they begin work. This is consistent with other children’s worker requirements. The second is to update the Children’s (Requirements for Safety Checks of Children’s Workers) Regulations 2015 to include a reference to the Kiwi Access Card as an acceptable form of identity, reflecting the name change of the 18+ Card.
I support progressing this bill through the House. It will update and modernise our education regulatory system and make changes that uphold the mana and legacy of the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund and strengthen the Pacific Education Foundation so that it can support great educational outcomes for Pacific learners and families living in New Zealand. Once again, I thank everyone that made submissions on this bill and my fellow Education and Workforce Committee members for their careful consideration of this bill. I commend the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. This is one that our Government brought to the House in the first place. It’s really important. It makes some small changes, but incredibly important changes too, as the Minister has pointed out, particularly to the Ngarimu Act and also around the Pacific Education Foundation. It’s good to see that the Government has come on board with this. In the first reading, they did vote against it because they felt that it was a small bill. They said that it didn’t do enough. I think. Now that they’re in Government, they realise that sometimes when you’re looking at these regulations, actually they may seem small but they make a big difference to the overall legislation, and particularly around the two areas that I just briefly want to talk about.
The Ngarimu Act is an incredibly important Act to ensure that we’ve got the Ngarimu fund there that provides funding for Māori students who are undertaking university study or vocational education and training. This has been an incredibly important fund that has come through since 1945 and is based, as the Minister said, on the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion. That was particularly, after World War II, notably to commemorate the service of Second Lieutenant Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu. The fact is that the bill amends the Ngarimu Act to create this new position for the Ngarimu Board for a person of Māori descent who has served or is currently serving in the armed forces. This means that there is absolutely an assurance that the board can preserve its military legacy and uphold the mana of the battalion in the future. That is incredibly important going forward, and it was something that people that were on that board and serving on that board were worried was not going to happen. This is something that will preserve that into the future.
Also, the definition of “Aotearoa Pacific person” is also another incredibly important part and change that these regulations make. The changes to that definition will ensure that the Pacific Education Foundation Act reflects the diversity of our present day Aotearoa New Zealand society and more reflects the learners with indigenous Pacific culture and language and heritage, to enable them to get assistance from the foundation, which is an incredibly important part for those young people and the changing face of the New Zealand Pacific population. It is important that we are now acknowledging that within this particular Act.
It is does seem small. There are a lot of important parts to this, though. The Minister quite rightly pointed out all the different elements there. As I said, they seem quite small. It’s really good to see that the Government has come on board to understand that, while it might seem small, they are very important to these groups of people. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is an omnibus bill that amends specific technical elements of a number of bills, like the previous two speakers have mentioned in terms of their contribution to this bill. So I want to kind of pick it apart just a little bit in terms of the context. The two areas that this bill predominantly amends are the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945 and also the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972.
In the case of the Ngarimu Act, as the previous speaker has mentioned, the two areas—one of them is a technical amendment around the successor of the 28th Māori Battalion. So, again, this is something that the Hon Jan Tinetti mentioned just before in terms of the naming of this particular bill and the way that it uses the name of Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu, who is the first person of Māori descent to be awarded the Victoria Cross. The other part of this bill is around creating that new national Māori representation position who is also currently serving in the armed forces.
In terms of the second part of this bill—with the Pacific Education Foundation 1972—there are several areas of this, particularly around the updated definition of “Pacific person”, the broadening of the list of Pacific places a person can have indigenous Pacific cultural heritage from, and also a minor update to the purpose and also some level of specificity around the make-up of the Pacific Education Foundation Board.
Now, during the committee stage, one of those bills we actually had reasonable agreement on and no further comments or changes to the bill because it is reasonably straightforward. However, I want to talk about the broader context of this particular bill and also why the Green Party is in support of this bill as a move towards lifting Māori and also Pacific education, and Māori and Pacific students and ākonga.
In terms of Ngarimu Act 1945, it is an Act that is there to “establish a fund … and to make provision for the control and administration of the Fund.” However, the purpose of this is to “assist Māori education, and certain moneys have been subscribed to the fund:”. We see this similar purpose with the Pacific Education Foundation Act, where “The general purpose of the Foundation shall be to promote and encourage the better education of Pacific people and to provide financial assistance for that purpose.”
In terms of both of the bills that are being amended by the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill is around the scholarship that is available for students at a tertiary level. For both of them, they offer both undergraduate scholarships as well as postgraduate scholarships. But I want to look at the broader context here. It is incredibly important that these bills offer a possibility for ākonga Māori and for Pasifika students to be able to go on to this further education without the financial burden—as indicated in the purpose of both those both Acts that are being amended by this.
In terms of the Ngarimu Act, what we see is that the scholarship applicants, for example, will be assessed based on the ability to “describe ngā ahuatanga [characteristics] that they possess similar to … the 28th Māori Battalion soldiers.” It’s something that can be submitted in both English as well te reo.
One of the things that we are seeing here—and what we should be considering—as we are looking at supporting further bills of a similar nature, is around the bigger picture of Māori and Pasifika education. As we see in some of the other things that are going on around Aotearoa at this stage in terms of education, what we’re seeing in terms of some of the cuts to the Ministry of Education’s office, and particularly to the regional offices that support Māori and Pasifika students in order to reach those educational outcomes, what we are seeing in terms of a call for culturally appropriate education during secondary school level that allows those Māori and Pasifika students to thrive, you know, some of the things that we’re seeing in terms of cuts to the creatives in schools which would have meant that some of these students would then be eligible to apply for some of this funding and have the level of self-confidence to actually apply for some of this funding. This is incredibly important in terms of the goals and aims that this bill is trying to achieve.
In 2022 we’re seeing that only 32.9 percent of all Māori school leavers have attained NCEA level 3, which is a decrease of 44 percent from 2021. This is in comparison to the national average of just over 50 percent. Even during pre-pandemic areas, we’re seeing a decrease of 4.2 percent in terms of those students who are leaving, who are obtaining NCEA level 3, who then would be eligible to apply for this funding. We’re seeing only 42.7 percent of Māori school leavers go on, in 2022, to enrol in tertiary education. Only 42.7 percent of Māori school leavers will be eligible for the scholarship that we are talking about at this stage. It is down 7.4 percent from those who left in 2020.
When we’re looking at the Pasifika school leavers, we’re seeing similar stats. We’re only seeing 43.3 percent of all Pasifika school leavers who have attained NCEA level 3 compared to the national average of just over 50 percent; a decrease of 8.1 percent. We’re seeing this is also a decrease of 4.7 percent compared to pre-pandemic levels. We’re also seeing that only 44.5 percent of those school leavers go on to enrol in tertiary in 2022, again highlighting that only 44.5 percent of Pasifika school leavers are eligible for the Pacific Education Foundation Scholarships that is a part of this bill.
I think when we’re looking at the broader context, it’s really, really important that this bill addresses the need for those technical changes for us to look ahead in terms of what we want for ākonga Māori, what we want for Pasifika students, and also in terms of the scholarship that they can be able to obtain in order for them to be confident in their ability at a tertiary level, while at the same time alleviating some of those financial burdens.
At this stage, what are we doing as a Government, as Parliament to inspire these ākonga Māori, to inspire these Pasifika students when it comes to being able to reach their aspiration, be able to reach their full potential so that they thrive in our educational system? The purpose of these bills talks about things that allows for tino rangatiratanga, allows for our obligation under Te Tiriti. So, you know, when we’re talking about whether it’s gang patches, when we’re talking about Māori wards, you know, I would like to see those students as part of this bill—when it talks about recognising the emblem that is associated with the 28th Māori Battalion, I would like to see those students who are able to wear those emblems to be able to wear them proudly down the street without having to be concerned about the fact they might be mistaken for gang patches.
So, you know, these are things that are incredibly important when we’re looking at the broader context of education because education is intergenerational, and this bill looks to perfect some of those things that we are able to offer. So the Green Party is in support of this bill because we believe that we want to lift all ākonga Māori, all Pasifika students, so that they’re able to thrive in the best way they can, and this is why we’re supporting it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. It is the third reading, and there are, obviously, some minor changes, and I think they have been well traversed in the House and we’re all in support. I commend this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I’m just going to say a few quick things. Just in response to Lawrence Xu-Nan, who called this an omnibus bill, these scholarships are really, really important scholarships. They have a proud heritage, but it is nevertheless a small omnibus, and I just think it’s curious that sometimes we have bills on issues of this scale when there are much, much larger things which don’t require legislation at all.
I was also interested, Lawrence, in your comments about the decline in educational performance over the last couple of years. It’s good that you’ve come to that realisation and that we’ve got something to fix on this side of the House.
The final thing I wanted to say is New Zealand First has always been a very, very strong supporter of “first in family” scholarships and both the Pacific and the Ngarimu 28th Māori Battalion trusts do those things: inspire, give opportunities. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tātou, tēnā rā tātou. Tēnā tātou i te āhuatanga o ō tātou hōia, te hunga i tuku i ō rātou tinana kia ngaro mō tātou te iwi te painga. Ngā kaumātua o te rua tekau mā waru i ngaro atu i roto i ngā tau, i haere mō te pakanga mō te iwi, mō ngā mokopuna, mō ngā tamariki, mō ngā whanaunga i mahue mai i te kāinga.
Koia tonu tērā ko te mōrehu e toe tonu ana, ko Tā Rōpata Gillies. E Koro Bom, tēnā koe.
[Thank you, Madam Speaker; indeed all of us, greetings to all of us. Greetings to us all with respect to our soldiers, those who offered their bodies to be lost for the benefit of us all, the people. The elders of the 28th that were lost over the years, that went to war for the people, for the grandchildren, for the children, for the relatives that were left at home.
Indeed one of those is the survivor that remains with us, Sir Rōpata Gillies. Koro Bom, greetings.]
I rise to speak to this third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. Rather than traverse the ground that’s already been covered well, I’ll focus my contribution on the importance of retaining the legacy and history of the 28th Māori Battalion, and not only the 28th Māori Battalion, but the native contingent of World War I—the early Māori and other Pacific Islanders of the time who were sent to World War I to fight for King and country.
Some of the things that come with the story, with this kōrero—and I’m quite sure this’ll be news to many in this House, but our tīpuna, our great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers were sent to World War I to work and to defend our country, but this House couldn’t conscionably send them to be soldiers who were armed with a musket. This House couldn’t, in good conscience, send a brown, Māori man from Aotearoa halfway across the world to fight an enemy who was seeking to destroy them with a gun and let him shoot that Pākehā enemy. That’s the genesis point of this conversation. Our tīpuna went and were logistics runners and trench diggers in World War I. Many of them found their way to the front line of fighting in World War I, and the New Zealand Government, subsequent to World War I, came to the realisation that Māori were, indeed, a force that they could utilise in wars in the future.
The unfortunate thing about World War I was that Māori participation in World War I didn’t come for free. It wasn’t openly gifted. It wasn’t agreed to. There was fierce debate about Māori participation in World War I, primarily because many of the kaumātua alive at the time were alive during the New Zealand Land Wars—had lived through the New Zealand Land Wars—which were only 40, 50 years before. If they were children or young people during the Land Wars, they were alive in World War I, and they were part of the resistance in the debate around World War I. Unfortunately—well, fortunately, I suppose, leading up to the conclusion of World War I, there were many guarantees made by the New Zealand Government about how Māori returned servicemen would be treated. Unfortunately, none of them were upheld, and that left a very sour taste in the mouth of te iwi Māori with regards to participating in wars.
So roll on World War II and the rise of the Māori Battalion. We all know the Māori Battalion were coveted, led by foreign generals as a force that you could only wish to have. They won significant battles that led to significant gains for our country. But, again, there was significant debate around whether or not Māori should participate in World War II. Āpirana, Pōmare, Te Rangi Hīroa, they all had to put their necks on the line when it came to garnering support from te iwi Māori, because there was fierce opposition. The Waikato kuia Te Puea Hērangi led a staunch defence, and many others, that we shouldn’t participate in that war. But, once again, the New Zealand Government came with a long list of guarantees that would be made to Māori, only to have them fail again.
One of the greatest disservices the Government handed out to Māori was exclusion from the land balloting system. By the turn of 1950, nearly 800,000 acres of land had been forwarded on to returned servicemen Pākehā and zero to returned servicemen Māori. Māori were excluded from the rehabilitations post - World War II. They were excluded from the RSA. They didn’t get the returned serviceman pension. All of these things played out and all of these things are the subject of a Waitangi Tribunal case for returned veterans right at this moment.
Māori have sacrificed a lot to give to the country, but we still find ourselves at the end of every negative statistic more than 100 years later. That’s the contribution, and I’d like you to think about that as we move through all of the other things that this House has to consider. On the basis that the bill is good and it provides good opportunities for Māori and our Pacific whanaungas, we support the bill, but we hope and pray that the retention of this history and kōrero remains in our country, remains in our schools, and this is a good thing for it. We commend the bill to the House.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the brightest minds of our future are having to make the choice between paying the rent or attending university, we know we have to do better. I am so grateful and honoured to be speaking on this omnibus bill, the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill, which will support Māori and Pacific New Zealanders to enter tertiary education. This last week, I’ve been talking to some of the worst statistics and outcomes for Māori and Pacific tamariki, but my vision for all tamariki in Aotearoa is to thrive and to use their independent thought and skills to be the best versions of themselves. I want our tamariki and rangatahi to walk like they know they have 3,000 of their ancestors walking behind them.
Kelvin Davis said these scholarships and awards are a tribute to the heroes of the 28th Māori Battalion and were established to commemorate Second Lieutenant Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu, the first Māori to be awarded the Victoria Cross, and remind our Māori and Pacific students that they are not just a statistic but are connected to those who went before them and that their tīpuna can have a present and real influence on the lives that they live today by the way they held themselves, the way they lived their lives, the values that they lived by, and how they fought so hard for the future generations. We see that in the application process, where applicants can show how they possess some of the same characteristics of the Māori Battalion troops. This bill provides the conditions to inspire, reward, and support Māori achievement. Ngarimu scholarships in 2024 included one doctoral, four masters, four undergraduate, and two vocational education and training awards.
The Pacific Education Foundation Act of 1972 will promote and encourage the better education of Pacific people and students and provide financial assistance for that purpose. My sister and I studied at Auckland University, and my sister studied structural engineering. She was asked to talk to Pacific high school students to inspire them to do structural engineering. Now, as a Māori, she was confused as to why she was asked to speak to these students. Well, there were no Pacific students to ask to speak to them, in structural engineering at Auckland Uni. So this bill really is so wonderful because it gives us the opportunity to encourage Pacific students to take up tertiary education.
My father, Piripi Waretini, was the first in our whānau to attend university, and I was lucky because, when I grew up, it was just expected of me that I would go to university, which is an absolute privilege that I was afforded by living in an affluent area and going to one of the best-achieving schools in Aotearoa New Zealand. I want that same vision for all of our students and our Māori and Pacific students in New Zealand, so that they can just expect that they are going to go on and have higher education to nurture and grow their strong minds and to be able to be the best versions of themselves.
If we treated these bright minds like competitive athletes, focusing on the best conditions for their peak performance, New Zealand wins—all of us in New Zealand win. So I am so grateful to be speaking in support of this bill so that more students can live their best lives, use their amazing minds, and just contribute to a legacy for our future generations. Mauri ora.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s great to be here on the third reading of this bill. We have discussed it at great length—the intricate details, the not so intricate details. I have said many times that I had the great pleasure of being up in Gisborne for the most recent Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion awards, and it was a great experience for me to see that firsthand and to see the importance of making sure that we set this up in such a sustainable way that it doesn’t require our constant intervention.
That’s really the premise of all of this, and the moral of the story here is that we’ve got three items in an omnibus bill, regulatory amendments that really are important for us to set up for the future so we don’t have to keep coming back, changing the law, and making adjustments when things change.
As we, hopefully, all know, in 2012, the Māori Battalion Association was wound up for various reasons, but as a result the memorial scholarships have been in an uncertain place, so this bill enables us to make sure that that’s safe, doing its best for the future generations that come through that—and, really, they are impressive—so that that’s set up in a really sustainable way. Likewise, the same thing with the childcare police vetting: I have worked in an environment where I’ve seen how important that is, and so it’s important that we address all of the intricacies of the changing industries and environment. Then, of course, with the Pacific Education Foundation, changing the wording so, again, when something changes, we don’t have to keep going and amending the Act.
These things are really important for us, and it’s great to see that we have almost unanimous support across the House. So, with that, no further words required—I commend this bill to the House.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill, which I have supported since it was first introduced to the House under the previous Government, and how could anyone not support this bill in terms of the stuff that it implements?
It is a relatively simple bill and an omnibus bill. It includes changes to the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund—some scholarships for some Māori students there. It establishes a new regime and a new board there. It establishes and continues the Pacific Education Foundation trust and redefines “Aotearoa Pacific person” to make that clearer. It also re-emphasises the unique relationship that New Zealand has with some other Pacific Island countries—which is, I think, something that we’d all welcome in this House—and further scholarships. Then, finally, it also provides for police vetting for those creches that many of us parents probably think that we’ll use more than we actually do. But at gyms and malls and those types of short-term childcare centres, of course we need to have a police vet for those people who are taking care of our children.
It was with dismay that when this bill was first introduced, those opposite who now have swapped benches with us were opposed to it. In fact, the Minister who introduced the bill to the House was very concerned—she said at the time—about regulatory creep, and she was talking about how there are other more important issues in the education sector.
Now, I don’t want to take away from the mana of these organisations that are involved in this piece of legislation. I think that there was some objection to that in the first reading of this, and I want to acknowledge, as my colleague Kahurangi Carter has, the words of Kelvin Davis, who was very strong at maintaining the mana of, especially, the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund at the time of the first reading—which I think is really important—and the Pacific Education Foundation trust is also important. I don’t think we need a hierarchy of things that are important, but maybe this is a prescient lesson for those who sit around this House to not undermine the importance of some of these smaller pieces of legislation just because they happened to be introduced by a party of which you are not a part. I think that’s an important lesson.
I mean, there are things that I could talk about in education which I would like this Government to address—for example, the terrible charter school legislation that it’s brought in, while, at the same time, creating a whole, entire other bureaucracy of new charter schools. I could talk about the fact that the school builds have all stalled, except perhaps I won’t be the same as those colleagues on the other side and not support what is, I think, universally seen around the House as a good piece of legislation that takes forward a few small but very significant changes.
Also—I think I noted it in the first reading, and I’ll note it here again—it is very unusual to have a part of a bill which actually has a schedule including a picture of a flag or an emblem, which is a very beautiful emblem of the 28th Māori Battalion. So I want to acknowledge the organisations which have participated in this. I want to acknowledge the select committee, which worked hard on this. I want to acknowledge my colleagues from the other side of the House, who have changed their minds and now are supporting this great piece of legislation, introduced by a Labour Government, that makes important changes to people within our society. So I commend this bill to the House.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to members opposite who were involved in bringing this piece of legislation to the House. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Education who is shepherding this through the House, and the significant work and workload that she’s doing—that she’s finding time for this piece of legislation.
I think one particular point I would like to make in relation to this bill is the interesting context that we have with this bill coming through the House today: tomorrow we are seeing a tax relief after 14 long years, and in this bill we’re seeing the inflation adjustment of the expenditure amounts from 1972 to today of $500 to $10,000—important context if you think about the timing when we are shepherding that tax relief through the House tomorrow. I think that that’s a wonderful note to end the evening on this evening, so I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.