Thursday, 24 October 2024
Volume 779
Sitting date: 24 October 2024
THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2024
THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2024
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 5 November. In that week the House will consider the second readings of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2), the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill. There will be extended hours on Wednesday morning for Government business, and the afternoon will be a members’ day.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): To the Leader of the House: are any of the extended sittings that were signalled this week intended to be for members’ business?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Not at this stage, but I’m always open to a discussion.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. Ministers have delivered six papers for presentation.
CLERK:
2023-24 annual reports for the:
Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation
Financial Markets Authority
Retirement Commission
Ministry for Primary Industries
strategic intentions 2024-25 for the Digital Executive Board
Government response to the referral of the petition on Social Justice Aotearoa, requesting a royal commission of inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Alan Hall.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Two select committee papers have been delivered for presentation:
CLERK:
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill
report of the Primary Production Committee on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced.
Personal Explanations
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall—Conflict of Interest
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation in regards to statements I made in the House yesterday.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yesterday, during the general debate, I made a statement that a close relative of Ayesha Verrall has been involved with attending meetings, had access to papers, and has been advising the Minister the Hon Casey Costello on the topic of tobacco reform over the past year without declaring any conflict of interest to the Minister. Comments were subsequently made by the Leader of the Opposition that “The person, I understand, is several steps removed, so a distant relative, and that any conflicts have been declared and managed.”, and that Ayesha Verrall spoke with them and that “She has assured me that there is no issue here.”
The official I mentioned in my general debate is Ayesha Verrall’s sister-in-law, Emily Revell, who attended multiple meetings with the Minister, worked on tobacco reform legislation advice, and who did not declare to the Minister that she was a close relative nor did she declare that there was a massive conflict of interest. The deceit and underhandedness shown by Verrall throughout her constant political attacks and smear campaign against one of my Ministers has now writ large, having simultaneously misled the leader of the Labour Party.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.
SPEAKER: Yeah, just before you do. If I could ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters in what capacity was he making that personal explanation?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s in my capacity as many things, including my present position at this time and as a member of Parliament. I said I seek leave to make a personal explanation. So what could be the ambit or scope of your question?
SPEAKER: Well, today you are Acting Prime Minister.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I didn’t say that. I said I’m making a personal explanation and, Mr Speaker, I thought you’d take it as being read.
SPEAKER: So perhaps I should, but as you know, you are a part of a ministry if you are acting as Prime Minister; it’s not at the moment and not the next one.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, well, that would be—
SPEAKER: It’s all right. No, we’ve got a—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That would be a ministerial statement, and I didn’t ask for that.
SPEAKER: I appreciate that. I just wanted to make it clear. The right honourable—sorry, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I think that’s a horrible thought for everybody!
SPEAKER: What’s that?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The right honourable for my name—no one wants to hear that!
SPEAKER: It certainly terrifies me!
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Ha, ha! I imagine a lot of things do. My point of order is seeking clarification in terms of appropriate use of a personal explanation. Now, I concede that they can be used for many purposes. On the whole, they tend to be used for the correction of a statement. Using a personal explanation not only to reiterate an unsubstantiated accusation but also build on that, to me, seems to be a questionable approach.
SPEAKER: Except that in this case the personal response came as a result of comments made by another member in the House, and that makes it quite a reasonable course of action.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Acting Prime Minister: What commitments, if any, will the Government make to ensuring the 44 recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques continue to be implemented?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): First, we would like to acknowledge that 15 March was one of the darkest days for New Zealand. In light of ongoing work, the coordinated cross-Government response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques has been concluded. As we announced earlier in the year, the Government made decisions on all remaining royal commission of inquiry recommendations as the coordinated cross-Government response concluded, as well. The majority of the recommendations were either implemented fully or were still being progressed. We implemented 36 of the 44 recommendations, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to ensuring the intent of the royal commission of inquiry is still met with the ongoing work that Government agencies are still doing to keep New Zealanders safe.
Tamatha Paul: Will he commit to continue to fund He Whenua Taurikura, the violent extremism research centre, noting the increase in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and royal commission recommendations on improving how we respond to extremism?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, the fact is that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is looking at better options for the best use of that funding. Now, detailed questions should, of course, have been addressed to the responsible Minister.
Tamatha Paul: How is weakening firearms controls consistent with the royal commission’s recommendations to tighten firearms licensing systems?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The question concerns a subject that is a work in progress at this point of time. The Government has committed to a significant programme to reform firearms law over this parliamentary term and work is substantially already under way. In January this year, the responsibility for the Arms Act 1983 was reassigned from police to the justice portfolio and delegated to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms). Reform provides a chance to modernise the regime and simplify the requirements on licensed firearms owners without compromising public safety. And, of course, detailed questions should be addressed to the responsible Minister.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Just noting those statements at the end of both questions, this was a question that was transferred, and I am concerned that after the Government has transferred that question, we just kept getting told that those questions should have been referred to the adequate Minister, when the Government side chose to actually make the Acting Prime Minister answer questions on this topic.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, any experienced parliamentarian will know that generic questions can be answered by the Prime Minister, but when it comes to specific details, if they are seriously being sought, the specificity of the detail should be asked of the responsible Minister.
SPEAKER: I think the problem is that the question was originally asked to the responsible Minister but then got transferred to the Acting Prime Minister. That means that it’s quite inappropriate to then say that the member should ask the appropriate Minister when, in fact, they did, and the Government, somewhere along the line, decided that it would be the Acting Prime Minister who answered it.
Tamatha Paul: Will the Government commit to introducing faith as a protected category, noting the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure Aotearoa has fit for purpose hate crime laws and policies?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker, I didn’t hear the questioner’s question. Could you repeat the question, please?
SPEAKER: Ask it again, and can you just face your mike—sometimes, they don’t pick everything up. Thank you.
Tamatha Paul: Yep. Will the Government commit to introducing faith as a protected category, noting the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure Aotearoa has fit for purpose hate crime laws and policies?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just reply, on behalf of the Government, that we will consider all reasonable requests if they are made for the purpose of ensuring that we’re a safer country.
Tamatha Paul: How will the Government commit to ongoing support for whānau of the shuhada, the bullet-wounded, and the impacted families?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As someone who sat around the Cabinet table preparing all the work in terms of supporting those families—which was immense and highly responsible and was applauded all around the world—I would say that we’ve continued to make that commitment, going forward.
Tamatha Paul: How will the Government address the fact that police data shows that 58 percent of all reported faith-motivated hate crimes target Aotearoa’s Muslim community?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me say that we’re willing to look into all information, but the country that I belong to is a country called New Zealand, and it will be that way until the New Zealand people decide to change its name—not by some elite purpose, but because we believe in referendum and consensus.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Litigating whether my colleague used “Aotearoa” as opposed to “New Zealand” fails completely to address the question on actually quite a serious issue.
SPEAKER: No, it definitely addressed the question; whether it addressed it satisfactorily is another matter. Did the member have another question? No—OK.
Question No. 2—Justice
2. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What changes has she announced to reform the anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism system?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I have listened to businesses across New Zealand, who have told me their current anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism system is too complicated and stifles productivity. Cabinet has agreed to streamline this system, focusing on cutting bureaucratic red tape. A work programme is now under way that will make this system more responsive, agile, and better suited to address the real risks posed by money laundering, while supporting the economy.
Laura Trask: How will changes to the supervisory model cut red tape for New Zealand businesses?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: New Zealand businesses have expressed frustration with the current supervisory model. The current system requires the Department of Internal Affairs, the Financial Markets Authority, and the Reserve Bank to work together and implement a system-wide approach to supervision. As each supervisor is funded differently, resources are not effectively shared, and emerging issues are not always prioritised effectively. To address this, we are moving to a single-supervisor model, with the Department of Internal Affairs taking the lead. This consolidation will simplify compliance, ensure more efficient decision making, and ensure that guidance and support to businesses is provided sooner.
Laura Trask: How will the Government support the long-term delivery of an effective and coordinated anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism system?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: We are introducing a sustainable funding model to ensure the long-term delivery of the anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism system. This model will include an industry levy that is fair and manageable, particularly for small businesses. Alongside this, we will be developing a national strategy and work programme designed to ensure the system delivers regulatory relief and operational efficiencies for businesses across New Zealand.
Laura Trask: Is she working with businesses to ensure that changes to the anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism system will be focused on delivering industry relief?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. The Ministry of Justice is working in partnership with industry to ensure the reforms provide real relief for New Zealand businesses. Reducing the number of supervisors and introducing a sustainable industry levy are key steps in cutting the red tape that’s currently hampering business productivity. These changes are designed with the goal of making compliance simpler and more cost effective without sacrificing the system’s effectiveness.
Question No. 3—Small Business and Manufacturing
3. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: Is the complainant worker who he called a loser correct that the Minister had a total of three interactions with him; if not, how many interactions did he have?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): It is my recollection that there were two interactions with the individual. That doesn’t change the overall picture of events, where I acknowledge that I caused offence. I accept that, and that is why I’ve apologised. However, as I’ve repeatedly said, I did not have any alcohol prior to any interactions with the individual. I did have a small wine tasting at the end of the day.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: If he disputes whether or not he told the worker to “eff off”, that he only interacted with him two times, not three times, and that he did not have any alcohol between those interactions, is he calling that worker a liar?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: No, I’m not calling the worker a liar. What I am saying is I caused offence, and for that reason I apologise unreservedly to the individual.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: What did he say to the worker, given that he informed the House on Tuesday, 22 October that he did not believe he had told to the worker to “eff off”?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The important thing is that I had an interaction which caused offence, and for that reason I have apologised unreservedly.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question. The Minister, in the House on 22 October, said his recollection is that he had not told the worker he called a loser to “eff off”, and that he had a recollection of what that conversation was. I asked a very specific question of what that conversation was. Given the Minister has indicated to the House he does know what was in that conversation, he needs to inform the House what that conversation was.
SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, that is not the way I heard it. If your question was relating to what he had said post the claim from the—well, that’s how it came across, and I listen to these questions very carefully.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Minister has made an explanation, and it is a fact that he, in giving his explanation, should have that explanation accepted, unless, of course, someone has got contrary evidence. For the umpteenth time, over something like six days, we’ve got these questions where no evidence is produced but just the allegation and innuendo that somehow he’s lying. That, sir, is against the rules of this House and she should be told that. She’s, after all, been here for a little time.
SPEAKER: It is, but, as the member would be aware, we consider all these questions carefully before they make their way on to the sheet, and there has been enough other commentary in the House post the explanation for the primary question to be allowed. The Hon Megan Woods, have you got another question?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yes, I have. What did he say to the worker on his visit to the business, given that he told the House on 22 October that he recalled he did not tell him to “eff off”—what were the words he said to the worker?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: As I’ve said before, I had an interaction with an individual, and I have said I have caused offence and that is why I’ve apologised unreservedly—that is a simple matter of the facts—and that I had no alcohol prior to those interactions.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: A point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I think the Minister needs to think about what the question was. We’ll have the question again, with the essence.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What did the Minister say to the worker that he called a loser on his small business visit, given he has told the House on 22 October that he recalled he did not tell him to “eff off”—what did he say?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I’ve said publicly that I have a different recollection and did not believe that I said to the worker to—use the word “eff off”. So I’ve made that clear, but what I do accept, and have accepted from day one, is that I caused offence, and that is why I’ve apologised unreservedly.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: What is his recollection of the words he said to the worker?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With the greatest respect, somebody here or, indeed, the questioner might have an elephantine memory, but to ask a member of Parliament, or dare I say a Minister having a casual chat what exactly he said is one thing, but if a certain Minister who knows he doesn’t use certain words can with conviction say, “I don’t use that word and I wouldn’t have used it then.”, that’s totally different. What you’ve got here is someone asking the same stupid question when she’s had the answer and she’s got no evidence that what she’s got to say is being backed up at all. It’s typical of her style.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: It would be nice to hear you speak to the point of order after I’ve spoken.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you.
SPEAKER: The point that the Rt Hon Winston Peters makes is that that is what the Minister could have said that would have satisfied the answer. But do you have something to say in response to the point of order or just another supplementary?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, I was speaking to the point of order. I think when a member in this House is told they’re asking stupid questions, they do have a right to respond to that. The Minister talked about his recollection of a conversation. I was asking him a supplementary question to follow up on. He has laid out his recollection of the conversation in this House. He now needs to tell this House what was in that conversation.
SPEAKER: That’s right, and the Minister might care to do so—and bearing in mind all of the commentary that he’s just heard.
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Mr Speaker—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: A point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has given his answer. He says he has no recollection of that, and now he’s being asked by a Minister, “So what do you have recollection of?”. Now, he’s given his answer, and how many times do you have the same honest answer given with the conviction—his career, after all, is on the line. And all you see here, sir, is a kind of behaviour which is not provided for in the Standing Orders. She’s had this chance to answer this question countless times, so she’s now just wasting the House’s time. If he says, “I have no recollection.”, then the next minute, he’s been asked, “So what was your recollection?”, he’s already answered the question.
SPEAKER: Well, hang on. He didn’t use those words.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did.
SPEAKER: No, he didn’t.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he has.
SPEAKER: I’m sorry; I’m pretty good at listening to these things. I’ll certainly be the first to stick my hand up and say I’m wrong if the Hansard proves me wrong, but I don’t think it will. I think it’s a simple matter: if he didn’t recall, he says he didn’t recall. Minister, you might like to reply to the question.
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I made it clear that I stated I did not believe I used the word “eff off”, but I do not recall exactly what I said. But what I do know is that I ended up causing offence and that’s why I apologise unreservedly.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Isn’t his apology to the worker he called a “loser” hollow, given he is disputing multiple facts as laid out by the complainant: one, that he interacted with him—
SPEAKER: No—hang on. Stop right there. That’s where we transgress the bounds of the personal explanation that has to be accepted by the House.
Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment
4. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will her money management sanction leave people financially worse off; if so, how is money management a “non-financial sanction”?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Under the current system, if someone does not comply with their obligations they can be subject to a financial sanction with their benefit reduced by either 50 or 100 percent. The Government is introducing non-financial sanctions like money management as an alternative. Someone subject to the money management sanction would retain their full benefit but face restrictions on where they can spend some of it. To spell it out for the member: someone getting their full benefit is financially better off than someone whose benefit has been reduced. Of course, avoiding this or any other sanction is simple. Beneficiaries only need comply with the obligations they agreed to when they applied for assistance, such as to look for or to prepare for work.
Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she call compulsory money management a “non-financial sanction” when people will be prohibited from receiving hardship assistance even if they direly need it, pushing people and their families further into hardship?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If somebody is sanctioned under the current regime—which was in place when the party that member is a part of was in Government—remains unchanged. What this change is allowing for is a non-financial sanction, which would mean they are better off than if their benefit was reduced by either 50 percent or 100 percent.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept the overwhelming evidence presented by her officials that shows that compulsory money management can prevent people from shopping at cheaper alternatives and prevent people from paying their rent, and, if so, are increased living costs an intended outcome of her non-financial sanction?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, I think that member doesn’t really appreciate how it works. Officials provide advice, Ministers make decisions, officials provide more advice, Ministers make decisions, and, in this case, there’ll be legislation that comes to the select committee.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What will happen if a household with children that is subject to compulsory money management has extraordinary circumstances that leaves them needing hardship assistance?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They will have 100 percent of their benefit, whereas under the previous or the existing graduated regime they would have 50 percent of their benefit, so they will be better off with this non-financial sanction.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Will children and households subjected to compulsory money management be able to be offered hardship assistance in case they have an extraordinary event?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s no different than the current graduated sanctions where those grants are not available when someone is sanctioned. I would say it’s very simple: if beneficiaries do not want to have any sanction applied, they just simply have to fulfil the obligations that they signed up to when they applied for that benefit.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she comfortable with the evidence presented by her officials that shows compulsory money management harms child wellbeing, including lowering average birth weights for newborns and reducing school attendance rates, in addition to higher living costs?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, the member doesn’t appreciate how the process works. Officials provide information; Ministers make decisions. That means more information is provided by officials based on decisions that have been subsequently made.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I seek leave to table two documents obtained by the Official Information Act (OIA) dated 9 May 2024, titled “Further design decisions to implement the traffic light system” and, subsequently, “Policy decisions and options to progress the traffic light system”.
SPEAKER: Good. Have they been broadly released by the department?
Ricardo Menéndez March: We’ve obtained them via the OIA and I don’t believe they have been proactively released.
SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but have they been publicly released by the department?
Ricardo Menéndez March: I don’t believe so, no.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 5—Prime Minister
5. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by all my statements and actions on behalf of the Government, especially the actions that the many talented Ministers of the Government are taking to restore law and order, rebuild the economy, and deliver better public services, and the focus on the fundamental principle of equal citizenship.
Jamie Arbuckle: What update can he provide on the Government’s focus to restore law and order and personal responsibility?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The safety and security of New Zealanders is a top priority for this Government, and we have hard-working Ministers focused on doing just that. The coalition is focused on the things that matter most, not cultural identity. Ministers Mark Mitchell and Casey Costello are backing our police in the fight against gangs and criminal activity. After receiving a massive investment in recruitment of $191 million, they are now expanding Police recruitment wings to boost front-line officers to meet our target of 500 new police in 2025. Mr Goldsmith is making sure the laws are fit for purpose, and we’re not going to go around as some silly elitist Māori extremists supporting gangsters.
Jamie Arbuckle: What update can he provide on the Government’s focus on equal citizenship?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There are some that don’t seem to remember what Dame Whina Cooper, the leader of the Māori land march of 1975, in September, when she came to Parliament to face a then Labour Government, said: “We signed the Treaty to be one people.”—we signed the Treaty to be one people, and the principle of equal citizenship is the realisation of that under this Government’s policies. Nicola Willis is ensuring public services are delivered based on need, not racial background and identity—
Hūhana Lyndon: Of course you know—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What would I know? Well, a whole lot more than you, sunshine. I’ve been around—in fact, your tribe is where it is today because of a young lawyer called Winston Peters, who started the case against the Labour Party and the Crown, and he won. And there you sit, a beneficiary, with no appreciation. Start being Māori—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: I think—have you done that?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no—the thing is, it is part of Parliament—
SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on—wait on. We’ll just have—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is part of Parliament. If you want to intervene by way of question time and interject, then you can expect that you’re going to get a response. That, sir, is the magic of this Parliament. I hope we don’t lose it.
SPEAKER: We certainly won’t—[Interruption] Just a minute. Objections are, of course, appropriate at times, but not the barrage that often now accompanies them. If you’ve got a sharp interjection that puts the speaker on the spot, that’s really quite a classy thing to do, but none of what I’ve just seen is at all classy. The honourable Jamie—[Interruption] I thought you’d finished?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no. I was interrupted.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. At no point did you get on your feet. The answer finished when the Minister sat down.
SPEAKER: Yeah, I think we’ll take it as that.
Jamie Arbuckle: Thank you for the “honourable” part! What update can he provide on the Government’s focus on rebuilding the economy and improving productivity?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, borrowing from the excellent example set by the Hon David Parker, Ministers Chris Bishop and Shane Jones are fast-tracking 149 infrastructure projects to boost economic growth, create jobs, and address New Zealand’s housing, energy, and transportation needs. A recent global survey indicated that New Zealand was at the very bottom of the delivery of infrastructure, and we’re going to deal to this country’s critical needs. Minister Louise Upston is announcing positive feedback that the traffic-light system has shown promising results in the first four months, with 98 percent of beneficiaries meeting their obligations, and now aims to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker by 2030—just a snapshot of the many things that we’re doing positively.
Jamie Arbuckle: What update can he provide on the Government’s focus to deliver better public services?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The New Zealand people can be confident that this Government is focused on the delivery of excellent public services. The Hon Erica Stanford is refocusing our education system and removing the indoctrination obsession that has seen our performance slide miserably. She is making sure the focus is on the basics of reading, writing, and maths—structured literacy and numeracy—giving our young generation the tools they need to succeed in life and taking us back to where we should be, at the top of the educational chart. To ensure we can service genuine needs, the Hon David Seymour is doing great work to transform the school lunch programme, which saw so much waste. If you ask any teacher out there, many would confirm that. The previous administration couldn’t run a school tuck shop. We’re showing them how it’s done now.
Question No. 6—Energy
6. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Energy: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when he said offshore wind and seabed mining companies in Taranaki “need to get together and work out how they can co-exist”?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) on behalf of the Minister for Energy: Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister. There are opportunities for New Zealand in both offshore wind and seabed mining, and it’s important we enable both to boost economic growth as we continue to rebuild the economy.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: What international examples or studies are he and the Prime Minister relying on, given seabed mining and offshore wind do not coexist anywhere else in the world?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, both of them, in some senses, are nascent technologies. On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have the background to the international studies the Minister would have read, but I’m sure he has had access to fulsome advice from his officials.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he take responsibility for creating the “key uncertainties”, including both route to market and allocation of seabed, that BlueFloat have pointed out as a reason for pulling their investment from New Zealand today?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, no. What I do take responsibility for is advancing at pace the development of an offshore regulatory regime for wind. We inherited from the last Government no regime, no Cabinet decisions—there was some consultation—but the good news is that the Government will have a bill in the House by the end of the year to introduce an offshore regulatory regime, and that will provide the opportunities for many companies to investigate and get access to our amazing offshore wind regime.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Isn’t it the case that his Government’s policies are driving away the economic opportunities and job potential of the offshore wind industry, which has an estimated—
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Jobs that Taranaki wanted—they supported it.
SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. There is no talking while a question is being asked.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Isn’t it the case that his Government’s policies are driving away the economic opportunities and job creation potential of the offshore wind industry, one of whom has named the uncertainty posed by his Government for withdrawing today, and that has an estimated $50 billion GDP contribution and 12,000 jobs, and they are being driven from New Zealand?
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Shame! Shame on this Government.
SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry. Does the member want to leave the House? Because that’s what will happen if there is continued commentary like that while a question is being asked.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister, what we are doing is creating the conditions for offshore wind to actually operate in New Zealand. There is no legal regulatory regime. We are the Government that is actually introducing the regulatory regime. There is quite a degree of interest offshore in New Zealand’s wind capabilities, particularly off the coast of Taranaki and around that area. That is really exciting. But to actually do that, you need a regulatory regime put in place. We are doing that. Ultimately, the investments that may or may not be made into that wind resource are going to be made by the market and by people looking at things commercially, and we’ll just leave it over to the market to decide whether or not they invest.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: What specific measures will his Government consider or put in place to prevent seabed mining activities from delaying or impeding offshore wind development in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that will depend on where things go. Clearly, we have fast tracked the Trans-Tasman Resources but, as the member will well know, just because it is listed in the bill and it has been fast tracked does not mean consent will be granted. The conditions upon which that development takes place will be carefully worked through as part of the expert panel. But I’ll tell you what we won’t be doing: we won’t be putting in place building blocks for a massive dam in the bottom of the South Island that stymied investment into the renewables sector, otherwise known as Lake Onslow, advanced by that previous Minister.
Question No. 7—Finance
7. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on FamilyBoost?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The FamilyBoost childcare scheme opened for claims on 1 October. As members know, FamilyBoost is a new payment to help parents and caregivers meet the costs of early childhood education.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: 100,000?
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: PaperworkBoost!
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Just wait, the answer’s coming. I’m advised by Inland Revenue that after only three weeks of claims being open, almost 30,000 households have received their first childcare payments.
Sam Uffindell: How much can parents and caregivers receive from FamilyBoost?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Parents and caregivers can receive 25 percent of their early childhood education fees after the 20 hours’ early childhood education and Ministry of Social Development childcare subsidy have been taken into account, up to a maximum fortnightly payment of $150. Payments are made quarterly as a lump sum, so parents and caregivers can receive up to $975 in a three-month period. This is the maximum payment, and people will receive a range of amounts depending on their particular circumstances. To ensure the support is well targeted, the maximum payment reduces for family incomes over $140,000 a year.
Sam Uffindell: How much has been paid out so far?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: So far, $11.5 million has been paid into people’s bank accounts. This is only after three weeks of claims being open, and this amount is going up every day. High housing, food, and childcare costs have made life tough for many families in recent years, but interest rates are now coming down, tax relief was delivered in July, and with schemes like FamilyBoost we are able to relieve more of the pressure on people’s wallets. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the parties on this side of the House are on the side of the working people.
Sam Uffindell: How can people—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a minute.
Sam Uffindell: Thank you. How can people register and claim for FamilyBoost?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: More than 50,000 people have already registered for FamilyBoost, but I encourage everyone else who could qualify for FamilyBoost payments to register and to make a claim when they are ready to do so. They can do this through myIR, which is the online secure system for managing interactions with Inland Revenue. The link to register with myIR and the link to log in are on Inland Revenue’s homepage, www.ird.govt.nz, and I would like to thank the Opposition for drawing attention to this as we have continued to see people registering for their entitlement.
Question No. 8—Māori Development
8. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: Is the Minister committed to a meaningful solution to Ihumātao, and, if not, why not?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Yes, I remain committed to a meaningful solution at Ihumātao.
Hon Willie Jackson: Why did the Minister deny that he never had any discussions regarding whether Te Rōpū Whakahaere was fit for purpose when official documentation shows that it was, in fact, the Minister who raised the idea that “if the Roopu Whakahaere is not working, then dissolve the Roopu Whakahaere and find something that will work.”?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I think the member mischaracterises things again, and that’s not atypical. The idea of potentially dissolving Te Rōpū Whakahaere is one that’s been discussed by various members of Te Rōpū Whakahaere, and we’ve had that kōrero. But this is not an easy solution that we’ve inherited from the previous Minister for Māori Development or the previous Government. I’m committed to supporting Te Rōpū Whakahaere to reach an enduring solution by consensus, especially given the legacy of raupatu; multiple whakapapa connections and interests in this whenua; and the use of nearly $30 million of taxpayer funding, effectively under land for housing, for this project under the previous Government.
Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister aware that Te Rōpū Whakahaere is an independent entity and that the Ministers do not have responsibility for it, and, if so, why is he, then, seeking to undermine the process when there’s still well over a year for the group to come to an agreement?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I think I can correct a factual error: we’re up to three years of five that was curated under the previous Government. I’m very supportive and confident that the members will seek to curate an enduring solution. The role of this Government, and myself as the Minister for Māori Development, is to ensure that there are Crown appointees appointed to Te Rōpū Whakahaere, and, of course, we’ve been involved over the years in providing some budget tautoko. It may come as a surprise to the member who has asked the question that other people do have some inventive and innovative ideas that might be of some service to Te Rōpū Whakahaere.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What reports has he received as Minister, in terms of trying to resolve this matter, that suggest that Willie Jackson did not help when he secretly met with the Ihumātao protesters without telling his coalition partner, and then the mess began?
SPEAKER: It may be as the Minister wants to claim; in fact, it is not something that Minister Potaka has had any—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He might have reports.
SPEAKER: Well, if the question is—and you’re quite right—“Has he had reports?”, well, it better be a brief answer.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am aware that there was not complete consensus across Government previously—
SPEAKER: No, no, the question was “Have you had reports or not?” So that’s not a good way to deal with things.
Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister think that he has undermined Te Rōpū Whakahaere when he was told by his own officials that the Crown should not interfere, so that decision making truly reflects the aspiration of ahi kā; if not, why not?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Te Rōpū Whakahaere members have conveyed to me that they were very appreciative of my attendance at Te Rōpū Whakahaere meetings, given that, in the previous two years, the member, as the Minister for Māori Development, had not attended those meetings.
Hon Willie Jackson: What will he say to the predicted 50,000 people, many of whom will be supporters of Ihumātao, who will march against the Government on 18 November in protest over this Government’s anti-Treaty agenda?
SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question that the Minister can answer—anticipating something. Do you want to ask another one?
Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, no problem, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, sorry. Ask your question.
Hon Willie Jackson: What does the Minister say to Rahui Papa, who has asked for a response to Ihumātao, from this Government, and has also said to get rid of the Māori-bashing, racist bills, policies, and procedures that this Government is rolling out—what’s his response to Rahui Papa?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am very committed to supporting Te Rōpū Whakahaere to come to an enduring solution for Ihumātao. What I’m not supportive of is the member and others inventing stories out of the Brothers Grimm, or fables curated from the Waatea news room.
Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: There’s a point of order being called.
Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, the Minister’s now made an allegation in terms of making up stories in terms of the Waatea news room; I think he’s totally out of order and I ask for an apology from the Minister.
SPEAKER: Well, the way I heard it was that he spoke generally about his disapproval of people that are making up stories. I didn’t hear that he that he specifically said that it was a particular news outlet.
Hon Members: He did.
SPEAKER: If he did, then he may like to consider his position.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I did not attribute the fables to a particular news outlet; what I said is that stories get made up within some news rooms.
SPEAKER: Look, it’s much the same; offence has been taken. I’ll ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just seeking leave to see if I might be able to table papers that clearly show the Minister has attempted to interfere in the process. They were going through the Official Information Act. So am I able to table that? Just seeking leave.
SPEAKER: Well, you know, you might be able to; the question is “could you”, and the need for the House to understand where they came from is part of the leave that could be put. Where’d they come from?
Hon Willie Jackson: They’re aide-memoirs, and they came from Te Puni Kōkiri.
SPEAKER: Is it public information?
Hon Willie Jackson: It hasn’t been released publicly, this information.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has made an accusation that I have interfered with the whakahaeretanga or the operations of Te Rōpū Whakahaere. If that accusation is proved to be inaccurate, then I would expect the member to withdraw and apologise.
Hon Willie Jackson: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: This is getting beyond a joke here. If the member has been offended, then of course that would be the course of action expected by the House.
Hon Willie Jackson: I’d be very happy to apologise if I’m wrong, but I think I’ve clear documentation that shows that the Minister—
SPEAKER: That’s enough. That’s enough. So leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Point of order. Before you put the leave—
SPEAKER: No, hang on. We can’t—hang on. Listen—look, you’re the man who needs to do things right all the time. I’m trying to—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I’ll do it after the vote if you like.
SPEAKER: That’s right. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we all know that if you’re going to seek leave with respect to those documents, you’ve got to state what they are with precision. Just saying where they come from—no date, no time, no nothing—is not adequate, and these standards of the House should not be allowed to slip any longer.
SPEAKER: I quite agree with you. I thought that we were going to get that, but when we didn’t—
Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: —I decided that—hang on a minute. Sit down! I decided that it would be better just to progress and try move on the afternoon.
Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification from the Acting Prime Minister. I thought I was clear, so I’ll be clear again for the Acting Prime Minister’s sake. This is an aide-memoir that has been given from Te Puni Kōkiri and it is dated 4 March 2024—clear?
SPEAKER: Yeah, but it’s also rejected. We’re moving on to question No. 9.
Hon Willie Jackson: You don’t want the truth, eh Winston?
SPEAKER: Sit down! Dr Carlos Cheung—when the House gets quiet, you can ask your question.
Question No. 9—Justice
9. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore stronger consequences for crime?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government is making excellent progress on its plan to restore stronger consequences for crime. We’re achieving this through a number of mechanisms, including legislative change, bolstering resources for the front line, and by setting defined targets. All New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities, homes, and work places, and to have confidence that those who commit crimes face consequences for their actions. And we’re very focused on achieving that.
Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is it important that real consequences for crime are restored?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because New Zealanders are sick and tired of the prevalence of violent and serious crime in our communities, and the majority want to see a stronger response. That’s why the Government is delivering extra powers for the police to tackle gangs and why changes to the Sentencing Act are being made to require tougher sentences.
Dr Carlos Cheung: Is the Government only interested in locking more offenders up?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Of course not. Tougher consequences for offenders are required, but in no way is that our only response. The Government, on behalf of all New Zealanders, commits colossal funds to address some of the drivers of crime, such as addictions, and this Government has committed extra resources to extend access to rehabilitation programmes—for example, to those prisoners awaiting trial or sentencing.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What other actions is the Government taking to restore real consequences for crime?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is bringing back three-strikes legislation. Just this week, my excellent colleague Minister McKee announced the Government will recommend modifications to three strikes to strengthen the regime. This is an important tool to stop a very small number of prolific offenders creating many more victims of their crimes. Next Tuesday, public submissions to the Justice Committee close on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, and the Government’s very interested in hearing views on that to consider if indeed we have gone far enough. Thank you.
Question No. 10—Education
10. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he agree with ACT leader, David Seymour, who said the free school lunches programme was “wasteful” and urged National to abandon the programme, and, if so, are his recent changes setting it up to fail?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Associate Minister of Education, I agree with ACT leader David Seymour. The former school lunch programme implemented by the Labour Government indeed was wasteful. In the recently announced programme, every student receiving a school lunch today will continue to do so from day one of term 1 next year, but we’re leveraging the private sector expertise to achieve better results. If the previous programme had been designed like this, we would have saved over $800 million over the last five years. This is what I call setting up a programme for success.
Hon Jan Tinetti: What was the procurement process for primary schools given they were initially told that the programme would not change for them?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: At the end of the day, I am really proud of the fact that, under this programme, more young people will be receiving food than were receiving it before, and we are actually spending the same amount of money doing what this Government promised to do and bringing back some discipline to our finances.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked quite clearly what the procurement process was and that was not addressed in the answer to that question.
SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately, I was unable to hear it because of the amount of cross-party discussion that appeared to be going on at the time. Ask your next supplementary question.
Hon Jan Tinetti: How much funding, if any, will primary schools receive to heat and distribute these meals, given they were initially told that the programme would not change for them, or are teachers and teacher aides just expected to do that because they’ve been delivered the meals?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Schools are currently in the process of negotiating what that would look like, so I won’t be able to comment on that right now.
Hon Jan Tinetti: What does he say to primary schools and providers who were told in March they were able to continue as is for the next two years, and then unexpectedly found out via media earlier this week the programme had changed for all, resulting in a loss of thousands of local staff in the programme across the country?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would say is that I am proud of the fact that every student that is receiving a meal today will receive a meal on the first day of term 1 next year, plus an extra 10,000 young people who really need that food will be provided with food. The result has meant an improvement in the programme—the same nutritional value, better value for money, and doing what this Government promised to do: being disciplined with our finances.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Who is correct: David Seymour, who has bragged about reducing the cost of meals to $3; or the March Cabinet paper, which highlighted that changes to the school lunch programme would risk achievement, attendance, nutrition, and the wellbeing of children?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: None of what was spoken about in the second part will come to fruition because every student will be getting a meal, and every student who is getting a meal today will get a meal on the first day of the first term of next year, plus an extra 10,000 kids. I’m not sure what the problem is, and I would have thought that Labour would have celebrated 10,000 extra children receiving a meal.
Question No. 11—Housing
11. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent reports has he received regarding the Government’s target to reduce households in emergency housing by 75 percent by 2030?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Good news. The number of households in emergency housing has dropped by 62 percent—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’m quite sure that came as news to the Government’s side of the House. If they could just hold off on those applause points until the question is fully answered.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Blue shoots—our starting point of 3,141 households in December 2023 to the 1,179 households as at 30 September this year. Under the last Government’s watch, we had an emergency housing catastrophe. Tamariki and whānau deserve better than growing up stuck in dank emergency hotels. We promised change, and in Government we are starting to get change and get emergency housing back on track.
Rima Nakhle: How much is the Government spending to deliver emergency housing?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: In the previous four financial years, the cost to taxpayers of emergency housing was approximately $1 million a day. As a result of our progress to meet the target, emergency housing is now costing the taxpayer less than $500,000 a day.
Rima Nakhle: How many whānau and tamariki are benefiting under the Priority One pathway?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Priority One pathway for fast tracks for tamariki who have been in emergency housing for 12 weeks or more has been very, very successful. From there, these tamariki can focus on things like attending school regularly, including kura kaupapa, and taking part in the opportunities that living in this amazing country can provide. In the five months since Priority One started in 2024, there have been a total of 726 households housed in the Priority One category—nearly 1,500 are tamariki. Every single one of those tamariki have been placed into warm, dry, social housing. In December 2023, the starting point for tamariki or children in emergency housing was nearly 3,500. At the end of September, there are less than 1,200, many of whom are tamariki Māori that have gone from emergency housing to warm, safe, dry homes. [Interruption] Thank you for your tautoko.
SPEAKER: Just before we progress, can I just say there is a rule that if a member has moved out of their seat and interjects in the House along the lines that we have just heard, that is disorderly. Can I also say that it doesn’t matter how much the interjection is constantly made, it doesn’t change the answer nor give a greater opportunity for the person interjecting.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is the very point. During the answer by Tama Potaka, there was this constant barracking from the front row of Te Pāti Māori by a member who doesn’t belong there, using their new location to get closer to making objectionable statements, and did it the whole way through. And he doesn’t seem to have learnt that there are rules in this House and he’s going to be told to abide by them or he can get going.
SPEAKER: Well, for once your mark’s right on top of mine.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many of the 726 social houses referred to in his previous answer were paid for or built under this Government?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question. The previous Government contributed to significant building of warm and dry homes, but unfortunately did that in an absurdly unsustainable manner. Minister Bishop and Minister Willis are leading an absolute renaissance of housing in New Zealand that will ensure a more sustainable system and house those in genuine need. Now, we know that many of the children that have left emergency housing have gone into houses that were built under the previous National Government. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I don’t know. It must be the fact that it’s a long weekend or something. That’s just too much noise. The member will now ask her question.
Rima Nakhle: What real-world impact is the Priority One fast track having on whānau and tamariki?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Of course, we’ve announced that more than 2,000 tamariki have moved out of emergency housing into different housing. Many of those have now moved from the catastrophe that was curated by the previous Government into warm, dry homes, out of the dank homes that the previous Government had ensured that they lived in, called emergency housing. Recently I met with a mother and child in Ōtautahi Christchurch who moved out of emergency housing. They engaged with Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora Ministry of Social Development support services via Emerge Aotearoa and are now living in a social home. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: It might be late in the day, but some people are going to be asked to leave the House if they can’t behave themselves in a reasonable manner. Two people having an argument across the other sides of the House is just a little bit too much for me to take. The Hon Tama Potaka will resume his answer, but he will oblige the House with some brevity. Oh, if you’ve finished, that’s good. We’ll go on to question No. 12.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mr Speaker, I didn’t hear the last word that you used. They were talking, so I couldn’t hear you.
SPEAKER: Look, I’ll talk to the member later.
Question No. 12—Mental Health
12. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by his statement that Police changes to 111 calls for mental health crisis situations coming in next week is using a “careful and measured approach … to ensure the transition is planned and managed safely”, and is he satisfied it won’t compromise the safety of first responders and mental health workers?
Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): The difficulty in answering that question is that the member is conflating two different mental health programmes. The Police-led change programme to triple one calls to a multi-agency response is a three- to five-year programme that myself and Mark Mitchell are taking back to Cabinet at the end of this year, because the last Labour Government cancelled that programme when they came into office, so we’ve lost six years. So no changes to that programme are coming in next week.
Ingrid Leary: How will ambulance officers attending dangerous crisis call-outs from 1 November be assured of safety?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, as I’ve said in my primary answer, the triple-one change programme is not happening next week, but if I can help the member, there is a programme called the New Zealand Police Change Programme. It’s not actually happening next week, but it’s happening on 4 November. There are three succinct changes, and one is around the request to transport patients. So the issue the member is raising in the House is not one that will happen next week.
Ingrid Leary: Is he concerned that front-line workers involved in either of those programmes were not consulted by Health New Zealand on the new safety guidelines and that, as at last Friday, they had not been finalised?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, whenever there is a change programme, we need to have a very clear plan in place. That’s why I’ve made it very clear to my officials that we are in this direction of travel, because it is better to have a mental health response than a police response to mental distress, unless, of course, the individual or people around them are at risk. I’ve made it very clear that an agreed action plan needs to be in place that safely allows that change. If that plan is not in place between Police and Health, then that stage will not be activated. On top of that, I’ve made it very clear that any issues need to be escalated to me. No issues have. I asked my officials on Monday, and they say that they are on track and have given me assurance that we can move in that first phase.
Ingrid Leary: Why do parts of the new interim Health New Zealand safety guidelines look just like the ones Police use, when they have completely different roles and training?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I don’t know the specifics of what the member is alluding to, but what I can say is that Police and Health, for a number of months now, have been working towards new standard operating procedures. I’ve made it very clear that unless an agreed action plan is in place that safely allows that change, then that phase will not be activated.
Ingrid Leary: Is the Minister building the plane while flying it when it comes to the safety of front-line mental health workers?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that member can ask that question, but she might like to reflect on how we lost six years in the change programme to responding to police crisis calls because, for all their talk about mental health, the first thing those members did was come in and cancel the mental health call-out programme—the co-response programme. She might like to reflect on those six years of lost activity.
Points of Order
Personal Explanations—Criteria and Process
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I deliberately waited until the end of question time to make this point. I don’t wish to relitigate the issue at the start of question time. So, in order to avoid that, I wonder if you, sir, would be willing to reflect on the personal explanation that was made at the start of question time and how that complies with the criteria and process for personal explanations outlined in McGee, page 275, and report back next sitting week.
SPEAKER: I’ll do that. We’ll take a couple of seconds while people quietly leave the House, without those usual discussions along the way.
OFFICES OF PARLIAMENT
Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Controller and Auditor-General
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 38(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001, the House appoint PKF Goldsmith Fox Audit as the independent auditor to audit the financial statements, accounts, and other information of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General for the financial years ending on 30 June 2025, 30 June 2026, and 30 June 2027.
Motion agreed to.
Appointments
Electoral Commission
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That, under section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Hon Justice Simon John Eisdell Moore KC as chair of the Electoral Commission for a term of five years.
The appointment of Dame Marie Shroff as chair of the Electoral Commission expired on 19 August 2024. Dame Marie is not seeking reappointment, and a new chair needs to be appointed. I want to acknowledge the service of Dame Marie, noting her distinguished career in Public Service leadership roles as Secretary of the Cabinet and then as the Privacy Commissioner, and now most recently as chairperson of the Electoral Commission.
The chairperson’s position is a leadership and governance role that requires a person with excellent leadership and decision-making skills, good strategic planning skills, and an unquestionable personal integrity and independence. Even though there is no statutory requirement for the chairperson to be a judge or former judge, the constitutionally significant nature of the Electoral Commission’s role means having a chair who can provide strong and independent legal leadership is highly desirable. Justice Moore retired from the High Court bench in October 2023 but remains on an acting warrant which runs until 31 December 2024.
Justice Moore began his career in 1982 as a staff solicitor at Meredith Connell. Three years later, he was made a partner of the firm and was chairman of partners from 2003 until his appointment to the High Court bench in 2014. In June 1994, he was appointed Crown solicitor for Auckland, a role which gave him overall responsibility for the prosecution of all indictable crime in the region. In June 1994, he was appointed Crown Solicitor-General for Auckland. In March 2000, he was appointed public prosecutor for Pitcairn Island by the British Government, and in 2004 was responsible for the prosecution of 12 men on the island for historical sexual offending. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2008, becoming Queen’s—now King’s—Counsel when the title was restored in 2012.
The Crown Entities Act 2004 provides that appointments to independent Crown entities may be for a period of up to five years. I am proposing Justice Moore for a five-year term commencing on 18 November 2024.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion would be agreed to.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There’s not a lot more to add, and I think the Minister and I have read the same biography of Simon Moore. Suffice to say, he’s had a distinguished legal career and has a reputation for both fearlessness and impartiality, and I hope that he will bring that to this important role at the Electoral Commission, because, increasingly, it’s a bit of a cauldron. Certainly, the skills he brings—his legal skills and his knowledge of not just criminal law but also prosecution procedure—may well serve him in good stead. The Electoral Commission does come under criticism at times, and it’s important, I think, that the appointment—as this one clearly is—is for someone who can rise above that and make good decisions and direct that organisation in an even-handed manner.
I’m happy to say that this appointment was consulted on and is supported across the House. I think that’s a really, really important thing. He certainly is someone who the Labour Party is confident has the skills but also the independence and integrity for this role, which is so critical to our democracy. Kia ora.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support the appointment, on behalf of the Green Party, of the Hon Justice Simon Moore KC, chair of Te Kaitiaki Take Kōwhiri, the Electoral Commission. It’s an important organisation. It’s a good choice for a challenging role.
Tuatahi, the Electoral Commission safeguards our precious democracy, overseeing every part of parliamentary elections, from registering political parties, running voting booths, processing votes, and being answerable to how general elections are run.
Tuarua, the Hon Justice Simon Moore KC has an impressive career that has been alluded to, from a law clerk in 1980—although he may find his anthropological studies of some use in understanding voter behaviour and non-voter behaviour. He became a High Court judge and has covered a huge breadth of cases, and was appointed by the British Government to prosecute the terrible affairs in the Pitcairn Islands. He’s dealt with a number of high-profile murder cases but he remains humble and he’s passionate about this country, so no wonder he’s happy to accept this role. I’d like to read out a quote from Simon Moore. He says, “It doesn’t matter where you go or how long you have been away for … you always realise what a privilege it is to live in New Zealand.” So that’s a bit of a recommendation.
Tuatoru, the chair of Te Kaitiaki Take Kōwhiri is a challenging role. I’d like to thank Dame Marie Shroff for her mahi in maintaining public confidence in our elections—in contrast to the growing distrust of elections around the world.
During the next five years of this appointment, I look forward to the Hon Justice Simon Moore KC implementing some of the recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review; potentially expanding the role of the Electoral Commission, perhaps to local elections; and responding to the select committee points on the imminent report on the general election 2023. I look forward to the House supporting the Electoral Commission by updating some of the legislation that will support our precious democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to also speak in support of this motion. I do also just want to start by thanking Dame Marie for her service as the chair of the Electoral Commission. It is a very important role, and I want to thank her for undertaking that very important Public Service role.
I’m not going to go through too much of Justice Simon Moore’s CV—that has been well covered. But I do actually remember Justice Moore when he was a Crown solicitor in Auckland. I was, first, a young law student and then a young lawyer at the bar. And he is one of the lawyers I actually remember seeing on TV—obviously, very high-profile cases, including what’s already been referenced about his appointment by the British Government as the public prosecutor for the Pitcairn Islands.
The chair of the Electoral Commission is a very important role, as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb outlined, and it does need someone who has some experience—obviously, a legal background is excellent—but is calm, level-headed, and can work through issues and ensure this important organisation for our democracy is led well and is actually making informed decisions and sensible updates and changes as necessary.
The Electoral Commission does, from time to time, come under public scrutiny, and so having someone of Justice Moore’s stature to be able to lead that organisation and respond to public interest and other recommendations that come forward will be excellent. It will continue to ensure that our democracy is well served and our electoral processes can withstand integrity.
On behalf of ACT, we very much support the appointment for five years of Justice Moore to this important position, and we obviously will be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I present a legislative statement on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.
The Government wants to reduce the harm to children from sexual offending. This bill updates and clarifies the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. That Act established a register to reduce sexual reoffending against child victims and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders. However, it can be improved. This bill will improve the effectiveness of the Child Sex Offender Register and help registry staff assess and manage the risks presented by child sex offenders living in the community.
A number of the amendments will require offenders to provide additional information, in particular about their location and activities as well as their likelihood of contact with children. Other amendments will make it easier for offenders to comply with reporting obligations—for example, by being able to report changes to their information by phone. These changes will support police and the Department of Corrections to keep children safe from harmful sexual offenders.
This will be done by requiring offenders to report additional personal information to help inform risk management approaches, requiring some information to be provided within different time frames to better enable registry staff to manage and monitor risk. Most importantly, it requires offenders to report if a child is going to be living at the same address as them 48 hours before this occurs, rather than 72 hours after, making it easier for registry staff to contact the principal caregiver if it is necessary to make a disclosure about a registrable offender who may pose a risk; also making it easier for offenders to comply with reporting obligations; and, finally, providing registry staff more time to make the necessary international notifications and border alerts.
The new reporting requirements and changes in reporting time frames will create additional obligations on offenders currently on the register. The bill also improves the clarity of the Act and updates it to reflect evolving technology and address gaps. Most notably, the bill adds seven additional qualifying offences to the Act. These are offences that cause an offender to be placed on the register. The seven additional offences are four Prostitution Reform Act 2003 offences which were unintended omissions from the original Act, two Crimes Act offences, and one Customs and Excise Act 2018 offence which closely align with other offences already covered by the Act.
While this bill is largely technical, it continues practical improvements to an important mechanism to protect our children. Taken together, these amendments will keep children safe from harmful sexual behaviour, balance individual rights with additional reporting requirements, and make it easier for offenders to comply.
This bill is another example of the Government’s focus on law and order, and it is a reminder that our focus on reducing crime is about reducing harm—in this instance, preventing harm to children. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.
I’m a little bit disappointed to hear the Minister claim this as an initiative of the current Government. This is a useful piece of work, and it’s a piece of work that’s been in train for quite some time and we don’t need to be claiming it for one side or the other when we’re actually just working together to protect particularly vulnerable young people. Given that it was actually a piece of work that had its first regulatory impact statement in 2022, it indicates that, of course, the underlying policy is something we agree with.
We do agree that the framework needs some modernisation and we absolutely agree that some of those offences which relate to prostitution offences with young people, where young people are involved—including trafficking young people and engaging young people in prostitution—but also offences which are, in fact, trafficking offences when young people are being trafficked for sex. Obviously, they should be captured by a sex offender registry, along with the other offence, which—I don’t think the Minister mentioned—is, essentially, the possession of objectional material involving young people, which, also, we cannot stress enough that that involves child victims and that is a child sex offence. At the same time, I’m glad that this is going to the Justice Committee—although everything seems to go to the Justice Committee at the moment—because there are aspects of it that we do want to make sure that the balance is, essentially, at the right point.
One of the points that’s come out of here is services of notice to people that they are on the sex offender register and that they have to comply with it via email. Sitting alongside that is how you have a register of people’s residence who are homeless. You’ve got, on one side, recognising that some of these offenders are people who dwell on the fringes of the society; and then, in the very same breath, “And we’ll tell them what to do by email.”, and these are people who don’t have access to Wi-Fi. I’m interested to see if the Attorney-General’s got a view on this. Again, it’s really important that we don’t just have something that is administratively convenient for the police to manage but also something that actually works so that the offenders know what their obligations are and are equipped to meet them, because, as the Minister points out, whilst this might impose demands on offenders, it’s not primarily punitive; its purpose is wholly protective and preventative, and that’s how we should be approaching it.
What is the most effective way to make sure that these particular offenders—and it’s not about ostracising them out of their community; it’s actually about making sure that they understand their own risks and that people around them understand the risks that exist. These are, by definition, people who have been convicted and are now back in the community, having served their time and suffered the punishment part of the consequences; now it’s about putting a protective framework to protect those around them so there are no more victims of it.
So, yes, I’m very happy to support it. It came out of work under the last Government. This Government’s moved it along—it’s what Governments should do—but, again, there’s an important role here for the select committee, to work in, hopefully, a very cooperative way, given that it’s not a party political bill, to improve it, make sure that that balance is struck, and that it works as well as it can. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue we are speaking about: child sex abuse is horrific. Experiencing sexual abuse as a child can cause lifetime trauma for survivors, with all aspects of wellbeing in life being affected. Preventing child sex abuse and ensuring the protection and safety of children is necessary and urgent in our work here in Parliament.
In good faith, with the intent of the bill, the Greens will be supporting this bill to the Justice Committee. However, the Greens have serious concerns with how this bill is currently presented, but we believe the select committee is the right place to scrutinise the bill and to gather experts and evidence about the effectiveness of registers in reducing sexual reoffending against child victims.
The purpose of the initial Act, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act; and this bill—I’m going to read this just to make sure that I am really correct with this—is to “reduce sexual reoffending against child victims,” and the evaluation of the Child Sex Offender Register revealed gaps in the Act that hinder its administration. The bill proposes updates and addresses gaps and clarifies reporting requirements for offenders. Some of the key changes include expanding the types of personal information offenders must provide, like email addresses, internet activity, and devices; and tightening reporting time frames for international travel and the presence of children at their residence; and allowing online reporting. New qualifying offences involving minors are added; and technical updates include redefining terms, expanding Government agency roles, and improving data collection for monitoring.
Whilst the Greens support the intent of the bill to reduce sexual violence, and will be supporting it to the select committee to gain greater scrutiny and ensure our debate is led by evidence, we have some major concerns. Firstly, there are several New Zealand Bill of Rights Act inconsistencies attached to the existence of the register which have been deemed unjustifiable by the Office of the Attorney-General. By registering convicted child sex offenders and subjecting them to reporting requirements, there are breaches of the right to benefit from a lesser penalty where penalties change, as well as the right to freedom from double jeopardy. Because the changes to reporting will be applied retrospectively, those already punished for their offences will receive another punishment. Because the proposed changes to reporting will be applied retrospectively and because they constitute additional reporting requirements, registerable offenders will receive an increased penalty.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the right to live free from abuse and violence must always be upheld. At times, differing rights can come into tension with one another. Therefore, it is essential that the process of finding the correct balance in exploring these complex issues be informed by experts and guided by relevant evidence, particularly regarding the effectiveness of this bill in achieving the intent to reduce sexual reoffending against children.
That brings me to another main concern that the Greens have around the lack of substantive evidence for the efficacy of an offender register in a New Zealand context. Statistics show us that less than 10 percent of all sex offending is reported, and that less than half of that results in conviction. They also show us that most child sex offending is perpetuated by people known to the child and who have no prior relevant conviction. We need to be really clear about progressing effective and evidence-based initiatives when it comes to violence prevention. Much of the evidence about registers suggests they do not have harm prevention effects—although we note that much of the research comes from different jurisdictions which have varying levels of difference to the New Zealand context and register.
The Green Party has consistently been a strong advocate for violence prevention, supporting trauma-informed and evidence-based responses to violence and ensuring robust support for survivors. Thank you.
LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the first reading of this bill. The bill updates and clarifies the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. The purpose of this bill is to establish the register to reduce sexual reoffending against child victims and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders. I think it’s mindful to just note that while having this register is extremely important, we still need to remember all the victims and those people that are actually out there that aren’t part of this system, and there are still many, many, many, many people out there and many, many victims. I think we’ve got a long way to go, but having the updates in this bill is really important.
To be honest, I was quite surprised that some of these things didn’t already exist, when I looked at the seven qualifying offences to be added to Schedule 2 of the Act. They include things like intentionally or recklessly making an intimate visual recording of another person if the subject of the visual recording is under the age of 16. This is outrageous. How was this not already included in this legislation? Causing, assisting, facilitating, or encouraging a person under 18 years of age to provide commercial sexual services to any person—section 20 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003—if the victim is under 16 years of age. These are horrific acts and we’re only just putting these in the legislation to enable people that have committed these crimes to be part of this register. I want to say I actually find that quite outrageous.
This bill’s important because the harm that’s caused to children from sexual offending is significant. It’s lifelong, it’s intergenerational, and it’s a really, really big deal. This bill will improve the effectiveness of the Child Sex Offender Register and help the registry staff assess and manage the risk presented by child sex offenders living in our community. This, in turn, will support police and other agencies to make our communities safer. A number of the amendments will require offenders to provide additional information, in particular about their location and activities, as well as their likelihood of contact with children. Other amendments will make it easier for offenders to comply with reporting obligations; for example, being able to report changes to their information via phone. This bill is another example of this Government’s focus on law and order and putting our victims first. Amendments will improve the effectiveness of the child sex offenders register by the range of administrative but none the less important amendments to this bill.
The most substantive amendments require offenders to report if a child is going to be living at the same address as them 48 hours before this occurs, rather than 72 hours after—sometimes I wonder who put this into the legislation in the first place—require offenders to report if they’re attending educational training courses and clarify that voluntary work must be reported; clarify how locality is defined for offenders with no permanent address in New Zealand; enable notices to be served to offenders by electronic means as well as postal; require offenders travelling out of the country to report this information at least seven days in advance rather than the current 48 hours in advance; require offenders to report their return to New Zealand no more than 72 hours after re-entering; clarify that where there is a successful appeal against the registration, that information contained on the register that relates to the offender must be removed; and remove the requirement for an application for review to be made within 28 days of this registration.
The amendments will support police and the Department of Corrections to keep children safe from harmful sexual offenders by requiring our offenders to report additional personal information to help inform risk management approaches. Requiring some information to be provided within different time frames will better enable registry staff to manage it and monitor the risk. It will make it easier for registry staff to contact the principal caregiver if it’s necessary to make a disclosure about the registerable offender who may pose a risk. There are quite a few little amendments—and I’ve just covered off a couple of these within this bill—but the key messages here, guys, is that this Government is actually focused on putting the victims first and keeping our community safe.
I do want to acknowledge that this work started with the previous Government. However, I think it sends a strong signal that the Minister has prioritised it and is bringing this to the table, along with the other things that we’re doing with law and order, like banning gang insignia, giving police the power to issue dispersal notices, the new legislation introducing powers for courts to issue non-consorting orders to stop specified gang offenders from associating or communicating with one another for up to three years. We’ve also introduced the sentencing reforms, amending the principles of the sentencing to take into account any information provided to the court about victims’ interests. This is going to give greater prominence to victims in sentencing decisions. I’m proud to be part of the Government that puts victims first.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. By my count this is the 22nd bill the Justice Committee may well consider this term, and it is welcomed because this is obviously a needed change. It’s another amendment to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act—another amendment to the principal Act.
We’ve seen a few amendments over the lifetime of this Act, and I wanted to point out that, like many of the previous amendments that have gone through this House, there is a retrospective element to this. There often are with these sex offender register amendments because we want the changes to apply to those who are currently on the register, not just to those who may be put on the register in the future. It is important to point out that there is a retrospective element to this bill, and, of course, with that comes a certain amount of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications. The committee will do a good job in analysing and scrutinising the impact on the rights of those individuals who are on the register.
From an initial glance at the bill, I consider those rights to be justifiably limited by this bill. It is an important step to take in terms of the policy objective of keeping children in New Zealand safe. They are justified limits on the rights of those individuals to require them to take additional steps around notification, registering about where they’re going to be residing, reporting attendance. They are limits on the freedoms of those individuals, but they are justified, I think, in order to meet the policy objective, which is to keep our children safe.
We look forward—well, let’s assume it gets its way to the Justice Committee—to considering it alongside a number of other bills, and I know in cases like this and in bills like this that the committee can work very collegially and very constructively together. I commend the bill to the House. I think it’s a good addition to our laws, and I look forward to considering it in due course.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Talofa lava e te Pīka. Ki te katoa, tātou katoa. [To everyone, thank you.]
It’s a strange feeling when you stand to speak on something that ultimately is a terrible thing to have to deal with. But that’s our job, and my previous job in that regard, then, was working in the child protection team some years ago, and working particularly with interviewing that had sustained serious sexual assault by people that were meant to love them. I have a particular connection to this idea of making this better, and to this work. So, Duncan, ki a koe, koutou ngā kaimahi i mahi ēnei mahi i mua i tēnei rā tēnā koe, tēnā tātou e te Whare. [So, Duncan, to you, all who worked on this before today, thank you, thank you dear House.]
I’m going to take this approach, if I may, just to say this. Today, we’ve found ourselves discussing again a matter of the utmost importance, which is the protection of tamariki. Many of us in this House have children of our own, and we all share in loving them for who they are, as they are, for they will always be part of us. For those of us without tamariki, I’ll take a moment to remind us that we were all children once. Perhaps this is one thing that we will all share in common. This is important for us to reflect upon as we develop our debates and perspectives on how to best protect tamariki. We must all ask ourselves what we would do if it was our own tamariki, and perhaps what we would have liked for ourselves in our childhood, when it comes to protection.
I present this opening kōrero to the House to remind us how close we truly are to this bill. We stand here to ensure that our tamariki and those overseas can thrive within their childhood, protected from those who seek to harm our beautiful mokopuna, and this protection is necessary as every child deserves a safe, loving environment so they may grow into the leaders of our tomorrow. The amendments recommended within this bill will help us to safeguard their futures.
The robust measures suggested with these amendments are aimed at the prevention of abuse, yet, as we champion the protection of tamariki in our discourse today, it is my obligation, on behalf of te iwi Māori and of ngā mokopuna Māori, to highlight the inconsistencies in protection of tamariki that exist on our own shores versus our efforts overseas. I have mentioned “prevention” in this kōrero, but it feels, as I just said weeks ago, almost reckless to use such a term in this space. I refer to the use of this word as being reckless, given that although amendments will potentially prevent further harm internationally, they will not prevent what happens to our tamariki here in Aotearoa.
I must ask this House: where was the protection for the thousands of children that endured abuse in State and faith-based care? Who protected them then and who protects them now? It is in this institution and some of us here today, who turn a blind eye to our own, but, on an international scale, strive to maintain what can only be described as a façade—a façade that, underneath, advocates for others and not our own.
This point cannot be debated when you dictate for survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care how you will apologise to them, and then throw the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act in their face. Then it is clear that this Government will only respond to voices loud enough and influential enough. When our tamariki Māori are 70 percent of children in State care and are also 80 percent of those currently experiencing abuse within that very system, how much louder do we need to be? It is absolutely critical to remind ourselves of the realities for our tamariki here on our shores when discussing a bill that seeks to protect children overseas.
I ask that members think of their own children and their own childhoods, and truly consider whether they would stand by their actions to date. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. National supports this bill, which updates and clarifies the principal Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. The bill will improve the effectiveness of the Child Sex Offender Register and help registry staff assess and manage the risks presented by child sex offenders living in the community. This, in turn, will support police and other agencies to make our communities safer. A number of the amendments will require offenders to provide additional information, in particular and importantly about their location and activities as well as their likelihood of contact with children. This bill is another example of this Government’s laser-like focus on law and order. I commend it to the House.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I stand to speak in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill this afternoon. I want to acknowledge those who have made contributions before me. The bill ensures the wellbeing and sexual safety of children and their whānau so that New Zealand Police can protect New Zealanders and ensure registered sex offenders in New Zealand cannot harm people.
I think it’s important for us to understand that the Child Sex Offender Register is a tool that is administrated by the New Zealand Police to help with the protection of children and the prevention of reoffending by known child sex offenders. The registry provides up-to-date personal information about registered child sex offenders living in the community, where New Zealand Police and corrections are able to assess risks and monitor people who have offended in the past, with the aim of preventing reoffending and keeping children safe.
I want to acknowledge that Labour had done some work on these provisions that are in this proposed legislation to add a clarified list of personal information that will be reported, and amendments to the requirements around reporting travel plans, and also adding seven additional new qualifying offences.
Labour supports this bill, but I do want to raise my concerns in terms of other things that the Government are not doing that impact on this. Earlier this year in the House, I asked questions about the proposal of Oranga Tamariki to cut their International Child Protection Unit. We understand that there are cuts to the teams at the Department of Internal Affairs and Customs which work with the exploitation material around young children. The contributions that I’ve heard in the House this afternoon about how the Government is prioritising the safety of children and putting a focus on law and order—it concerns me that at the same time we have seen those very concerning things that I have just raised.
I implore the Government to do all that it can to ensure we have the protection of our most vulnerable, and that is our tamariki. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. The amendments are administrative. The object is to refine and update information held by the registry to maintain that information and to make that information available to Government agencies and the police so that the agencies and police can better prevent and resolve child sex offending cases more quickly.
The child protection amendment bill is part of a raft of legislation that the Government is enabling, including the gangs legislation which has passed, which will be enacted by mid-November. Sentencing reform has also been introduced to prevent unduly lenient sentencing and, of course, support police and corrections in the work that they do. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity—and the House for the opportunity—to say a few words on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.
Several speakers today have talked about the bill being technical and administrative, but within all of the things that it does do there are several things that do need a closer look at. As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to the process of having this bill sent to the Justice Committee and for us to have a really good look at what is quite an extensive list of key amendments to the bill. If I look through that list, whilst some of them seem very administrative—as the previous speaker, Paulo Garcia, has just said—there always is the potential for things to have unintended consequences, so it does require a good close look.
As my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said earlier, it will be interesting to see if the Attorney-General has some views on some of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications in this piece of legislation, but I think the fact that it is protective and is not punitive—it is a bill that seeks to make the most of a situation with a protective factor in mind. Ultimately, that is always the most important case and children, in particular, absolutely deserve, without it even needing to be verbalised, the full attention of everybody in this House and everybody involved in the process to make sure that our legislation is top-notch and is doing its very best to make sure that there are no loopholes, that protections are in place, and that children can feel and are safe.
We’re happy to support this bill. It largely comes from work that was done by the previous Government, so there would be no reason for us not to, but I do share some concerns that have been raised by previous speakers, including the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, that this is a step in the right direction but there’s plenty more to be done. We look forward to this Government, over the rest of its two-year tenure, also putting its shoulder to the wheel and looking at other ways that it can protect children. Having said that, I commend this bill to the House.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to add my contribution to the first reading of this bill, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.
This bill has been sent to the Justice Committee, which I am privileged to be a part of, chaired by my good friend James Meager. In the Justice Committee, yes, we do see bills on an array of different subjects. The subject that we are contributing to today, as my colleagues before me mentioned and actually spoke in depth about in some cases, is a subject which is difficult and is exceptionally moving. It’s quite confronting that in this day and age, as we seemingly progress, we still need to enhance, develop, and work more towards how we protect our children, protect our tamariki, and protect our mokopuna. How do we protect them from the dangerous claws of those people that violate them in a way that affects them for the rest of their lives? It’s our duty, our responsibility as legislators, to, wherever we can, work on laws like this law today, to make sure that the mechanisms are in place so that our children can continue to be protected—because they need that protection.
What this bill seeks to do today is it is going to be amending the principal Act, which is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. That’s the principal Act, and if we were to kōrero about the overall purpose of this bill, in essence—as we’ve heard and I’d like to sum up—we’re improving the safety of children and young people in our communities. We’re going to be doing that with this bill, which will hopefully progress in full through the House, by providing clarity to the principal Act; assisting and enhancing the consistency of the Act, to support the practice of the registry staff, because they need that compliance; assisting registrable offenders to comply with the requirements placed on them under the Act; and updating the Act to reflect the movement in technology that we witness and that just grows exponentially when it comes to technology and how technology is misused in order to target our vulnerable children.
I’m pleased that this bill will be seeking to amend that principal Act. As I’ve mentioned in the House before, crimes of this nature against children, in my opinion, are some of the most abhorrent acts and crimes that we unfortunately have to see because it strips children of their innocence—it steals their innocence from them. For me, I’m glad that this is before the House. I thank everyone that’s contributed so far. I look forward to us discussing in the Justice Committee, in every way that we need to, what we need to do to make sure that this bill transpires to be a part of an Act that is practical; that is feasible; and that makes sure that the objective, that kaupapa, to continuously protect our children from the claws of registered offenders is there and is strengthened. With that, I’d like to commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Special Debates
Constituency and Local Issues
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to the debate about constituency and local issues, arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of constituency and local issues?
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That the House take note of constituency and local issues.
It is my privilege to kick off this debate about local issues. Northcote, on the great side of North Shore, is a fantastic place to live, work, and raise a family. It is my privilege to represent the wonderful community of Northcote and to live in Birkenhead with my wife and my five-month-old son, Noah. But if there is one bugbear that our community has, it is the subject of congestion, and it’s congestion on our local arterial roads that I wish to talk about today—roads like Northcote Road, Lake Road, Queen Street, Glenfield Road, and Onewa Road. And Onewa Road is the subject of today’s speech, because this is an important arterial road for our community.
Last year alone, on an average day, this road got 34,000 vehicles. At its peak in the morning, 2,000 vehicles travel down this road.
Hon Simon Watts: More than Hawke’s Bay.
DAN BIDOIS: Absolutely. Look, Onewa Road is a significant issue for our community, it has been for a number of years, and I want to tell our community today that I’ve been working on some solutions with Auckland Transport to resolve this matter.
Now, one series of solutions certainly is encouraging more buses and ferries and people to get on those, and that is something we’re committed to. Another thing is around encouraging things like flexible working and working from home, which I think is something I’m committed to. Another area is around improving the overall productivity of Onewa Road, and it’s the subject I wish to devote my attention to in today’s debate.
I have been working with Auckland Transport on this matter, and I have been critical in the past of Auckland Transport, but, under the leadership of Birkenhead local Dean Kimpton, and under the leadership and possible changes that are coming our way under Minister Simeon Brown, I’m really confident that AT—Auckland Transport—will be focused on actually delivering and listening to our communities in the future. Recently, AT did a corridor study on Onewa Road, and I want to talk the House through some solutions that the study did, which I think will receive wide support in our community.
The first is no parking 24/7, and this is something that has received wide support, through myself and the local board, and that we’re committed to advancing. The second is redeveloping the top of Onewa Road to make the traffic flow much better. The third is allowing freight trucks and trucks to use the T3 lane, and that’ll be great for businesses like the Chelsea Sugar factory, a fantastic local business in our electorate. The fourth area is around dynamic signage for the T3 lane. I don’t do this; I use it whenever I can, but there are a lot of people that don’t use the T3 lane even when they are allowed to use it. Actually making sure that there is some dynamic signage is something that is favourable.
There are some solutions that weren’t canvassed in the report that I wish to encourage Auckland Transport to progress further. One is, in particular, the constrained capacity from Onewa Road on to State Highway 1. Now, I think this is worth exploring with NZTA, around actually how you get more flow of traffic on to State Highway 1—whether it’s enlarging the on-ramp or whether it’s looking at dynamic signage. I would encourage Auckland Transport to pursue this more.
That is a bit of an update on what is just a bugbear for our community, and we’re working hard, but I want to encourage Auckland Transport to continue to listen to our community, work with us, and take action, because ultimately our community demands action. This is what this Government is committed to—to getting action, to getting our community back on track. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on local issues, of course, regarding the wonderful electorate of Dunedin. I want to talk about the hospital, but before I get into that, I need to acknowledge the flooding that occurred, in both my electorate and my colleague Ingrid Leary’s electorate of Taieri, three weeks ago on the Thursday and the Friday, on 3 and 4 October. In my electorate, whilst there might not be as much flooding as there was in South Dunedin, in Ingrid Leary’s electorate, there have been some slips which are putting houses at risk. It’s obviously a very terrifying time for the people involved in that, so all my best wishes and sympathies to all involved. Thank you, also, to all of the emergency services and volunteers involved in that.
Moving now to the Dunedin Hospital, because, a week or so before, Dunedin was combined in both a sense of optimism in terms of community building, and some real anger at promises that look to be broken by this Government about that hospital. It was an amazing, beautiful, and sunny Saturday on which 35,000 people gathered outside the dental school and outside the physio school—and I name these places because they are part of the University of Otago and where people learn how to be dentists and physios associated with that hospital, because it is a tertiary hospital. It’s very important that there is a tertiary hospital in Dunedin. Now, 35,000 people is a quarter of Dunedin’s population. This protest was organised with about a week’s notice. It was a tremendous show of unity from the people of Dunedin about wanting the tertiary hospital that this Government and that National Party promised at the last election. I know that because I was there when we were told by the National Party—by the leader, by the spokesperson for health, and by the candidates standing in Dunedin and the Otago areas—that they would do exactly what the business case said.
Now, I don’t intend to get into the details of exactly how many beds and how many theatres are needed for this hospital to work, because I need to say how important it is that there is a new tertiary in-patients hospital in Dunedin. The out-patients building is already up—and if you’re driving in Dunedin, you will see a very large building that is for the out-patients—but we need the in-patients building, and the fuss is about the in-patients building, and this needs to be tertiary level. That is so that complicated surgeries and other associated medical events that don’t require surgery are available in Dunedin. And Dunedin is that tertiary hospital for the wider Otago and Southland area. Otago and Southland are both very large regions. With a little bit of roadworks, it will take you four hours to drive between Queenstown and Dunedin if you are not speeding. That is a large distance. There are large distances to Invercargill as well.
Of course, there are many towns in the regions of Otago and Southland that also need better healthcare provision. There’s a lot of growth in Queenstown. There needs to be more primary provision, particularly in Wānaka. There’s more to do in that area, but that does not take away from the need of a new in-patient tertiary hospital in Dunedin. What we saw from Ministers was a pitting of Dunedin against other regions for the health dollar, and that is abhorrent. We also heard exaggerated claims of $3 billion for things that have never been part of this in-patient build, and that is a disgrace as well. The people of Dunedin demand that this Government does what it said it would. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It is my huge privilege and honour to represent the people of Rongotai—that is the southern and eastern suburbs of Pōneke, Wellington; and of course the mighty Chatham Islands, Rēkohu.
I want to talk today about the main issues facing Wellington—particularly the southern and eastern suburbs of Wellington, which have issues to do with transport and housing. Everybody knows transport and housing is such an opportunity to do things better for our city, for our people, for our natural environment, for cleaner air, and for the climate—there are so many opportunities. And yet we have a Government that has put the new Mount Victoria Tunnel—whatever that project might be; it could be three different projects—into the legislation for the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which will completely erode the ability of the communities to have any sort of say on this project, not to mention the fact that it is going to cost an astronomical amount of money to not even solve a problem, which I think is a huge, huge disappointment.
I mean, when it comes to the tunnel, what’s been talked about is potentially a four-kilometre underground tunnel; $6 billion would be a conservative estimate for a tunnel like this. What else could we get for $6 billion? Here we have the party, supposedly, of fiscal responsibility and rationality saying, “Sounds great. Sounds great.”—$6 billion so a few cars can drive from one suburb to another. But, really, the reason they care is because they fly into Wellington Airport and come to the Beehive, and they want to spend money from people right around New Zealand just so they think they can save a few minutes on some peak-hour travel, which is ridiculous because, if there is a place that you would spend billions of dollars on roads, it’s in the rural parts of New Zealand where people need to use trucks and cars to move people and goods around, not in the middle of a city where it is the most expensive and the most counterproductive.
I can see that members on the other side of the House are geometrically challenged—sorry to hear that—but, actually, when it comes to moving people, cars are the most inefficient way and high-cost way to do that in a busy city. Here, let me paint a picture for you: in Wellington’s morning peak—
Hon Simon Watts: I went for a run this morning; I went to the gym.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Shh! Shh! Shh! Shh! Minister, quiet! In Wellington’s morning peak, buses represent only 3 percent of the vehicles on Thorndon Quay. Guess how many of the people they carry? That 3 percent of vehicles carries 60 percent—six, zero—of the people. On Adelaide Road, buses are 1 percent of the vehicles but carry 40 percent of the people. If you look at the census data, vehicle use in Wellington has continued to decline, with driving dropping below 50 percent for the first time, and working from home has increased, but so have public transport patronage and walking and cycling—not a surprise: a huge percentage for the Rongotai electorate.
For $6 billion, we could have light rail from Island Bay, Miramar, and the airport to the city; added bus routes with all electric buses, new bendy buses; a new ferry, electric ferries; and port infrastructure for the eastern suburbs—with money left over to work on our regional rail network, which we know has been under-invested in and needs significant investment, because the regional rail network also moves a huge number of people into and out of Wellington.
So I just—I don’t know. I don’t understand how we could have political disagreement on this. Surely if we care about outcomes, we care about people being able to move around the city efficiently, and we care about people having affordable choices—and another aspect is affordable housing in the city, because that means people don’t have to live outside the city. Unfortunately, this Government has cancelled four Kāinga Ora projects in the Rongotai electorate which would have provided a much-needed increase to the supply of public housing but also improved the quality of the public housing. I talk to constituents all the time who are living in substandard public housing, and those projects, which have been put on hold, would have provided that muchneeded housing.
We have the opportunity for a greener city with more affordable housing and more efficient and affordable transport that would actually work better for those people using cars on the streets if we were able to have higher-quality, better transport options so not everybody had to take a private car from the airport to the centre of the city. It just makes sense. Of course, that is why the people of Rongotai and Pōneke, Wellington City, vote Green.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to talk about a region in New Zealand I don’t live in, but a fantastic region. I want to talk about the rural regions down in Southland: Otautau, Lumsden—real parts of the world. They’ve got hold of me, and they’ve had an absolute guts-ache, as we’ve recently heard, about the weather.
I want to commend Rachel Brooking for bringing it up. It’s an absolute guts-ache what these people have been through, and I want to contextualise what it means to be a rural person in that part of the world—Ōtautau, Lumsden, Dunedin South, all of the above, Gore—trying to reconcile what their future looks like with not tens of millimetres but hundreds of millimetres. Gore got over 200 millimetres—anecdotal evidence I’m sure some have offered. Manapōuri was certainly 260 or more. Reconcile that every day for these people down in that part of the world. I want to talk about these people because I absolutely believe in this part of the world. These are an incredibly tenacious group of Southerners, real Kiwis—absolute legends in my mind.
I want to share a couple of anecdotes about a group of people in particular that had to go through this horrid time. There was one young man—and I want to frame this for this House if I can—that I think just epitomises a Southern person, someone with absolute guts when everything is against them. This young man got up at 3 a.m. in the morning to move his livestock. He did that for himself, and then he did it for his neighbours, feeding livestock at 3 a.m.—notwithstanding that, at this time of the year, it is already exorbitantly wet, and then to add insult to injury, it snowed. Well, we’ve got an old saying in rural New Zealand. Some may be conducive of it; some may have heard it before. It’s a mare’s tail—horse’s tail—in the sky. It basically means as the days get longer, the winds get stronger.
Now, these people knew this stuff was happening. Every day at 3 in the morning, they were putting on wet weather gear that was wet from the night before, going out to move their livestock for fear, if nothing else, that they were going to lose their animals. All these people in this part of the world—and I want to celebrate their willingness against all the critique and all the lectures and all of the stuff from this place, about how damnably good these people are, because I can say, with my experience, that is incredibly difficult. The mental strain, the mental wellbeing, all of which is so damnably difficult when faced with these challenges.
To add insult to injury, when it got cold, it got really cold, and nothing grew. So here are a couple of examples I want to share with the House to try and contextualise just how bad it was for some people. One chap said to me, “I spent $90,000—$90,000 more than I had, just to be criticised by all the people that I wasn’t doing enough; all the officials, all the local council—$90,000 I didn’t have.” Gentleman from Gore: you don’t just materially make that money appear. Notwithstanding, he had an extra 50 lame cows that were walking short. These people are incredibly invested in the people of Gore, Lumsden, Edendale, all of that region. I just want to, again, commend them on their absolutely gutsy endeavour to come out the other side of this.
Another farmer said, “I struggled trying to reconcile,”—he was from Gore and went to take the wool off—“all the commentary from all the exponents, proponents, everyone who had critique or criticism saying you shouldn’t do it.” He followed the market signals like any decent wool grower will do. And by virtue of this event and others, the next day the wind swung to the south-west and he lost 500 lambs in that sitting. Notwithstanding, the hoggets didn’t come to milk.
I just want to tie off. That part of the world has some incredibly tenacious, capable people. I’m immensely proud to be a New Zealander, and whilst I don’t live there, I call it my second home because those kind of people are worth representing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a list MP, I say that our rohe starts at Cape Reinga and ends somewhere south of Stewart Island, so I’m going to reflect on the recent visit I had to the Bay of Plenty and around the East Cape to talk about some of the local issues, innovation, and opportunities from that time.
Look, we all know that the East Cape is one of the poorest parts of our country. It has been repeatedly hammered by storms. When I visited Ben Green and his team at the emergency management centre, which is probably the leading emergency management operation in the country because they’ve had so much practice. They’ve had nine major storms since June 2021—nine major storms since June 2021—of course including Gabrielle. They said that they had had 3,000 roading faults, eight bridges lost, 53 more scoured out, 73 affected by slash, and 250 major dropouts. This is a region which is well used to some serious challenges. They have responded with some really innovative approaches in terms of digital information resource kits that they can get out around their rohe with tents, desalination plants—some really great innovation there—water treatment, water bladders, and solar kits. They are doing a fantastic job.
It was really revealing, travelling around to see the damage, which is still there, of roads, now almost two years on. Part of the coast was cut off by Cyclone Gabrielle for many, many weeks. We also have a challenge there with forestry. Forestry has contributed damage to the roads through slash and, obviously, the heavy vehicles being in the area, but forestry is also an essential industry and a very, very large employer for that area. It’s something that we desperately need to find a solution for. The coast is looking for solutions, and reliable transport is one of the keys.
It was really interesting to go and visit the Te Rimu Trust up in Te Araroa, which is about as remote as you can get, who are looking at a marine facility and the ability to be able to get not only forestry but potentially new horticultural operations out by barge by sea, rather than having to rely on the road. They also raised the issue of distributed energy resilience, because, of course, during storms, you lose a lot of those power lines. They are also building a 500-kilowatt solar farm, which I thought was brilliant.
In the Bay of Plenty, there were exciting waste-to-energy operations. In Ōpōtiki, it was great to be able to visit one of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) projects—it might have been one of the biggest PGF projects—the breakwaters, which have now opened up that port, and to visit Whakatōhea Mussels. They have gone from a business formed in 2014 with nothing—no employees, no infrastructure—to now having a processing factory; a marine farm, and looking to up to about nine more marine farms; three vessels; and 180 staff all learning new skills. That is a huge positive impact for Ōpōtiki and its region, and now they just need a marina to put those boats, rather than having to rely on a silt-prone river.
Really, what I’m saying here is that I want to see us—and New Zealand First has always stood for this—backing our regions, backing the innovations that they bring, and trusting them. If we’re going to get growth in our economy, that is where it’s going to come from. An example: the Wairoa District. I visited the Wairoa District, and they don’t feel supported by either regional or central government in respect, for example, of medical services. They don’t have a dentist there—they’ve only got a dentist there a couple of days a week. The aged-care facility has been closed down. But they are doing some great work in vocational education, and they also want support around forestry and flood management.
I also visited several other education providers. The strong message from many of them is that they want support, not the heavy hand of bureaucracy. In Wairoa, fantastic work is being done by the local polytechnic coordinator in locating tutors and the people who want to learn from those tutors to learn these skills. The problem was that they often found that their proposals were not being supported by head office.
The YMCA in Gisborne runs a great programme for young people—16- to 24-year-olds—and they were telling me the stories of young people who were destined for gangs or for jail, and they were teaching them mechanical engineering, automotive engineering, and joinery, but they were also teaching them self-discipline, timeliness or timekeeping, and money management. They’re audited by the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and what they are doing is transforming lives, which is absolutely fantastic. I was able to look at some of the cars they were working on and some of the motorbikes that they were actually, essentially, building. This is setting those young people up for employment or apprenticeships, rather than for gangs or jail.
One problem—and it’s a problem that I heard from a number of organisations—is if a young person leaves a programme part-way through to get into a job, the Ministry of Education says, “That’s a fail. That’s a fail because you didn’t complete the course.” I think that that is wrong. To me, that’s a fantastic success that should be celebrated and not penalised. I heard exactly the same message from iwi organisations up north just earlier this week. We need the Ministry of Education to back these organisations and to treat those things as a success.
I saw many, many other things which I thought were well worth recording, but my time is running short. All I would say is we need to back and trust our people, because that’s how we are going to get our country going forward.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā e mihi ana ki a koe me tō pire i te taenga ki te wāhanga tuawhā. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed congratulations to you and your bill on its arrival at the fourth stage. Big congratulations to you.]
I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori for Hauraki-Waikato to give my kōrero on local issues. In my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, we are well aware of how geographically huge the Māori seats are. Data also shows that we have the highest amount of young people in my electorate, must I add. My electorate is nearly 11 general seats in one—from Papakura, the whole of Hauraki, Kāwhia, Whāingaroa, Raglan, Huntly, through to the whole of Hamilton, Te Awamutu, and Matamata, so you can only imagine how long our constituent case list is.
I wanted to elaborate on so many things today, from housing to justice to hospital cultural awareness. However, I wanted to use my local issue time to bring attention to the wetland fire in Whangamarino. We have now entered the fourth day of the fire and emergency crews fighting a large vegetation fire near Meremere. The fire has a perimeter of 15 kilometres and now has burned more than 1,000 hectares of land, which includes the Whangamarino wetlands.
I’d like to give my sincere mihi to the fire and emergency services and first responders who have tirelessly done their mahi in response to this fire. I’d also like to use my platform to inform our whānau living near these areas on what to do from the directions from the fire and emergency services.
One, if you see or smell smoke outside, keep your windows and doors shut. Two, if you have roof water supply, disconnect the pipe to your tank if there’s a lot of ash and debris on your roof. Three, do not fly any drones near the fire ground area, as many firefighters have already had to disarm drones from yesterday.
To the extent of my kōrero on the bigger, wider picture of the wetlands’ and rivers’ significance and importance to us Waikato people, I’d like to give a voice to the repo, the wetlands, located in the Waikato, which has suffered unrelentingly the issues and threats to its ecosystems—from invasive species like the freshwater gold clam, compounded further by land use and other legacy issues. The importance of the Whangamarino wetland to the Waikato River, to Ngāti Naho, to Ngāti Hine, and to the Waikato people cannot be overstated.
More recently, devastating fires continue to eat through the Whangamarino wetland, which helped to act as lungs for our Waikato region. The source of the fire remains still unknown as we await further updates by fire and emergency services. While it is pleasing to hear that no homes or papa kāinga have been affected by the fire, with the goal of extinguishing the fire as quickly as possible, the consequences of this event are still largely unknown, and we anxiously await to see what the devastation will mean for the Waikato ecosystems.
Coupled with environmental concerns, the major area has historical significance to Waikato and the people of New Zealand more broadly. I wish to discuss some of these concerns but want to first start with some of the background. The Whangamarino wetland is among the largest freshwater wetlands in the North Island and is one of the three nationally significant wetland sites in the Department of Conservation’s Arawai Kākāriki wetland restoration programme, covering almost 7,000 hectares in 1989.
The Waikato people are river people. Waikato River legislation, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, includes a statement of significance of the Waikato River to Tainui that the Waikato River is a single, indivisible—oh geez! There goes my lisp—being that flows; te tāheke hukahuka ki te pūaha o Waikato [the foamy waterfall to the mouth of Waikato] and includes its waters, banks, and beds, and all minerals under them, and its streams. This is in relation to Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao, Waikato-Tainui environmental management plan, which explains the important connections between the wetlands and rivers.
In conclusion, we cannot allow our histories and the quality of our relationships with whenua and wai go up in flames. The Whangamarino requires aggressive advocacy for its protection. We, the community and its landowners, are the relevant statutory bodies. We need to (1) limit and extinguish this wetland fire, (2) investigate and understand the source of the fire, and (3) recommit and provide further support to allocate—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Aroha mai, kua pau te wā.
[I’m sorry, the time has expired.]
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to highlight two matters of local importance in my electorate, Banks Peninsula: firstly, the Bromley organics processing plant and the putrid stench from it, and also the Akaroa waste and sewage management system. I hear about these issues frequently from constituents, and I share their frustrations with council processes.
In recent weeks, I surveyed the opinions of constituents in Banks Peninsula, and I want to thank the hundreds of people who’ve already responded to my letters. One question I asked is what they enjoy most about living in Banks Peninsula. A large proportion have responded that they love the proximity to the hills and to the harbours. People appreciate the natural environment.
There’s a small corner in Bromley which fits into the Banks Peninsula electorate, and these residents are not loving a feature of their neighbourhood. They’ve suffered from a terrible stench from the facility that composts the Christchurch city green waste. The process has at times resulted in piles of matter decomposing and the smell of that drifting over the local area. The stench has impacted their physical and mental health for years. A recent report highlighted that the Christchurch City Council (CCC) had failed to communicate well with residents and had dismissed their concerns.
Although the council has a plan to fix this now, there are still concerns in the community that the solution that’s been adopted will result in delays and will still take years. This lacklustre response to the residents in the Bromley example reflects the impression that council often lacks the accountability that residents demand. The era of assuming that central government will step in with handouts whenever there are issues is over. There’s no magic money tree to support embarrassing oversight or misguided projects. The days of financial recklessness must fade away while a new chapter of prudent management and responsibility begins. I’ve had conversations with councillors, who feel frustrated with the information that council staff provide them when they’re asked to make savings. They’re offered up with the classic “starving orphans for sacrifice” and asked to make unpalatable choices instead of the staff giving the difficult analysis.
People expect councils to fix the roads, collect the rubbish, and maintain vital infrastructure with diligence and care, and for that they’re willing to pay their rates. However, people in Akaroa are divided over the Christchurch City Council’s decision to implement a costly upgrade to the waste-water management in Akaroa. While the plan sees the welcome removal of the waste treatment facility from the culturally offensive location next to the Takapūneke Reserve and was driven by the need to protect our fragile environment and provide safe sanitation for residents and visitors, the reality is that as we evaluate the progress and the financial implications of this project, we must ask ourselves: was this the best use of our resources? Are we prioritising our immediate infrastructure needs effectively? The option adopted is to literally push you-know-what uphill and discharge it on to land in Robinsons Bay. More than ever, ratepayers in Akaroa and surrounding areas are concerned that about rising costs and disruptions. The scheme has faced many delays and increasing budgets, leading to the question: are we truly getting value for money?
Although there are consents that are pending, the current treatment facility treats the sewage, then discharges the treated water into the harbour. The upgraded water treatment that is proposed for the new scheme would be a superior level of treatment to what is currently performed. However, the option to just move the facility and continue to discharge to sea was not considered because of cultural considerations, so the incursion of stormwater leading to overflow is still going to be a problem because not all of the pipes will be fixed. Water quality could be assessed, such as particulates and bacterial counts, which could be used to ensure that water released to the land or sea could be allowed and the fears of the community about overflow could be allayed, as well as potentially saving millions of dollars.
I enjoy excellent working relationships with city councillors, and I know that they do their best. Banks Peninsula was amalgamated with CCC in 2006, and some call it the gift that keeps on giving—I suspect with a touch of irony. I’m honoured to represent the people of Banks Peninsula, definitely one of the most beautiful electorates in New Zealand, and I invite everyone to come and visit this beautiful jewel of this tourism crown of Canterbury.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’m so thrilled to have an opportunity today to talk about the biggest local issue in the electorate of Taieri and, actually, the electorate of Invercargill, which I have the privilege of being the buddy MP for. The biggest issue that they are telling me they feel is: why does this National Government hate the South Island? It is a really profound feeling.
You’ve heard earlier today from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking about our hospital and about the 35,000 people that marched. But, actually, there’s also the Hillside Workshops, which our Government invested $105 million into so that there would be a thriving economy and opportunities for jobs for the young people of South Dunedin, so that we could have rail happening in the South Island, and so that we could be able to make the carriages and fix the carriages at Hillside. Well, that just ain’t going to happen if we don’t have rail-enabled ferries. In the South Island—I know that the Government like to talk about potholes a lot—the biggest pothole we can see is actually the Cook Strait. We really do need to get the ferries because without them Hillside will not be sustainable and that will be such a waste of money. We’ll be turning back the clock, turning back the tide, to 2012 when the National Government tried to close down Hillside.
Then, in this House, we saw this terrible kamikaze amendment and lawmaking directly aimed at our southern Otago Regional Council, cutting them off at the knees, basically saying, “You don’t know what’s best for you; we know what’s best for you, and we’re not going to let you notify your freshwater plan that you’ve spent $18 million on and many years of consultation and lots and lots of ratepayer money on.”
Then we have the fact that the whole of Dunedin proper is really based economically around health and education, and what we need is to maintain our position as a tertiary education centre of excellence. The Government says, “Yeah, yeah, fine, we love the South Island, but never mind, we’re going to build a new medical school up in Waikato, and we’re not going to give you a hospital, and by the way, while we don’t give you the hospital, it’s costing $110,000 per day to not build that hospital.” That is the cost of a small house every week.
Then we have the Prime Minister, who finally, eventually—after, what, 14 months?—made his first visit. It took some floods and a bit of a civil emergency for him to finally show his face in South Dunedin. He didn’t get briefed, he didn’t bother, and he didn’t know about the South Dunedin Future plan that his Treasury officials had rejected. He couldn’t even answer questions on it, and then, when he did answer questions on it, he had to come back to the House to clarify his answer. He just doesn’t care about what people in the South Island think, which is probably why he didn’t bother to get the right briefing.
Then we look at the roads of national significance. There are two roads of national significance under the National Government in the whole of the South Island. Well, guess what? Neither of them are in my electorate; neither of them is around Invercargill. In fact, if you look at the National Party’s document Accelerate NZ, on page 4 there’s a map of Aotearoa New Zealand, but there’s something missing from it. Can you guess what’s missing, Mr Speaker? The whole of the South Island. More land mass than the North Island—completely forgot to put it on there because we don’t matter.
Then we have Air New Zealand, the national carrier, decide that from next year, people from Invercargill, Queenstown, and Dunedin will have to bunny-hop through the main centres. That’s a big insult to business. It means that it’s going to be much more expensive for people to travel. It’s going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy because once you raise the fares, people don’t travel. The fares get more expensive, and then the airline can say, “Oh, guess what? There’s no demand, so we’re going to make the prices even higher.” We have already been experiencing really significant price hikes in Dunedin. It used to be about 230 bucks for an economy flight; it’s now something like $450 to $500 on many of the routes.
I would just like to say to the National Government and to the members opposite, “Well, guess what? We’ve got news for you; people in the South don’t really like you either.” But all is not lost. If you can come down, build the hospital that you promised, make sure that we have rail-enabled ferries, and make sure that you stop interfering with our local councils, we might be able to kiss and make up, but until then, we’re asking ourselves: why do you hate the South Island?
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is much to speak about with regard to Whanganui, at the southern end of the Whanganui electorate, and today I rise to celebrate our city status milestone.
This weekend, there will be a festival atmosphere in Whanganui, as we celebrate a century of being a city. In 1924, Whanganui was recognised as a city, and it was a significant moment in our growth and recognition of our contribution to New Zealand’s regional development. If members are looking for something to do this weekend and want to enjoy a festival and a weekend in Whanganui, Mayor Andrew Tripe, councillors, and, of course, our great local MP will be there, in our heritage wares, travelling down the main street, with myself on the back of a horse and cart.
Some highlights from our 100 years: Whanganui is New Zealand’s only city of design—our first and only Unesco City of Design. In 2021, Whanganui was recognised for that, and, indeed, in 2022, Stuff had a heading: “that’s a world-class art and design centre”. We are a hub for art and design and innovation here in New Zealand. Indeed, when we talk about innovation, there is a lot said around New Zealand about the Callaghan Institute. Well, of course, Dr Paul Callaghan was born in Whanganui.
We are a manufacturing hub and a hub for export across New Zealand. Whanganui is, of course, a key manufacturing hub in this country, a driver of productivity. We employ the largest number of people in terms of any industry in manufacturing itself, and we are home to notable companies such as Q-West Boatbuilders, who are currently building the boat for the police in Auckland, because, of course, Auckland wouldn’t function without great regional economies like ourselves. We’re also building the Fullers hybrid passenger ferries right now. There are businesses like palaMOUNTAINS, who, of course, are exporters in animal nutrition.
We are a hub for Māori culture and have provided leadership to this nation when it comes to the recognition of things like the Whanganui River. Of course, the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act was created in 2017, under the last National Government, and it recognised the Whanganui River for its contribution of one of New Zealand’s most important taonga. I invite my colleagues to join for a tour on the Whanganui River in the future, and my colleague James Meager, in honour of not speaking in this afternoon’s debate, has said that he will sponsor a member to join me on a tour of the Whanganui River.
We are a regional and agricultural sector, a backbone of New Zealand’s economy. There is a lot spoken about the fruit bowl of New Zealand in this House on a regular occasion, but did members know that, indeed, the kiwifruit first arrived in this great land in Whanganui itself. It was the principal of Wanganui Girls’ College that brought the seed of the Chinese gooseberry, as it was called, to New Zealand, and it was first propagated in Whanganui. When it comes to agriculture and the role of agriculture in New Zealand, New Zealand of course couldn’t do without the city of Whanganui.
Whanganui is a cultural centre. I just want to acknowledge the Sarjeant Gallery, or what will become known as Te Whare o Rehua Sarjeant Gallery when it reopens after a huge redevelopment, on 9 November.
In my final 30 seconds, I have to also talk about the contributions to sport. Peter Snell, one of New Zealand’s greatest athletes, broke the four-minute mile in Whanganui. Gary Anderson, who won New Zealand’s first ever medal in cycling, is from Whanganui. Bill Osborne, All Black and Māori All Black, is from Whanganui. What would this country be without the city of Whanganui?
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a real privilege to stand and take a call, in this special debate on local and electorate issues, to talk not just about the mighty Christchurch East but to also talk about the mighty Aranui—“Ara” meaning “path”, “nui” meaning “great”. If you’re in Christchurch East, or if you’re in Christchurch, or in fact anywhere in New Zealand, you’ll know that Aranui is a straight-up suburb, you’ll know that Aranui has a strong community, and you will also know that people are proud to call Aranui home.
If you live in Aranui, you’ll know that it’s very, very hard to find a bus. Now, There are some great people living in Aranui. There’s the Lallu family who’ve owned the Hampshire Fruit and Dairy for 59 years. They’ve had that business for 59 years—that means there are people who remember a time that Winston Peters was not in this House. They also remember a time when there were buses down Hampshire Street. Just this week, over 500 people came out to Wainoni Park, which is on Hampshire Street, to welcome our Kiwis when they turned up for a fan day, and the Eastern Eagles performed an amazing welcome haka, but none of those people could easily step on to a bus to get home, because if you’re on Hampshire Street, you cannot get to a bus.
Earlier this year, the Minister released the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. This was not about bus stops; this was about stopping buses, because there was so little set aside for public transport. This is about a Government that doesn’t support public transport and that supports roads—and, as we’ve heard from so many other speakers this afternoon, not roads in the South Island; certainly not roads in Aranui.
Some important statistics to know about our community of Aranui: 27 percent of the population of Aranui live in the highest levels of socio-economic deprivation, and the average bus patronage for residents of Aranui is 1 percent higher than the Christchurch average. If you could ever find a community that needs to be better served by buses, you’d be hard pushed to beat Aranui.
Last week, I was very lucky to host a catch-up session at our local Eastgate Mall with one of our local regional councillors, Councillor Joe Davies. We offered ourselves, there, to be available to talk to people about being able to make submissions to the regional council about public transport services in their communities. We were very, very lucky to be joined by Pam Williams from Aranui, her daughter Koha, and her granddaughter Natalia—three generations of Aranui residents—who wanted to raise their concerns about the fact that the bus that used to come down Hampshire Street and take people to the city—to study, to work, to enjoy things outside of Aranui—no longer services that community. It is now, in fact, a two-kilometre walk for residents of Hampshire Street in Aranui to get to their nearest bus stop—a two-kilometre walk. There’s a route 80 bus that runs up Wainoni Road, and there’s a route 5 bus that runs up Pages Road. Whilst that bus claims to run every 10 to 15 minutes up Pages Road, it does not deviate from Pages Road. It does not come down Hampshire Street. It does not serve that community adequately.
We joined Pam, on Monday morning, and her daughter Koha and her granddaughter Natalia and hundreds of locals from Aranui. We had a barbecue in the morning from 7.30. People came along, had a bacon sandwich, and signed the petition to bring buses back to Hampshire Street. We were back that afternoon at 5.30 with a sausage sizzle and a petition, and Pam continued to collect signatures. That day alone, Pam collected 228 signatures of support to bring the bus back to Hampshire Street, back to Aranui, back to serving this community that so needs a bus service. I’m incredibly proud of the work that Pam did with that petition, of the engagement from that community, and of the submission she has sent to the regional council just today. Thank you.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to talk about my home, the place where I choose to raise my teenagers, Christchurch—Ōtautahi. Christchurch is an ever-evolving city. It’s like a phoenix that has risen from the ashes. We have seen so many people, like me, choose to move to Christchurch, to call it their home, because of so many amazing things it has to offer. It is the gateway to so many incredible, natural taonga that Aotearoa has to offer.
Christchurch is becoming an international city, and you cannot come to Christchurch without seeing the public art and the culture and this rich fabric that is being built into the community of Ōtautahi.
We also have a strong Samoan history within the Christchurch community. We have a Samoan community who shows up for our people, as we saw during the Christchurch earthquakes. Our Samoan community has also given so much to our arts and culture. We have Oscar Kightley, Ladi6, Scribe, Tyra Hammond—so many incredible Samoan artists have come out of Christchurch.
On Tuesday this week, we had the hui-ā-motu, where the tangata whenua of the land hosted iwi Māori from around Aotearoa to talk about the future of Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand.
We are a hospitable city, and when we look at our city, we also have to look at the realities that face so many of our brown community in a predominantly Pākehā city. We have solutions to this, which are finding community and finding safe spaces for brown people in Aotearoa and in Ōtautahi.
Now, a group of young takatāpui brown people in Ōtautahi felt isolated. They felt like they couldn’t be their true selves. Some of these community members have had to leave jobs because of discrimination felt and not having the support that they need within their communities and within their work. We also had one of the founders of an incredible group which just launched last night—Brown Town—be accused of being a thief and a gang member when they were just walking into a shop. Now, we want to live in a world where everyone is equal, where everyone can be their most authentic self—to laugh loudly, to enjoy the freedoms of being part of community—but, sadly, these young people feel like Ōtautahi, in some places, is not a safe place for them. So what did these young people do? They came together and they decided to put on events which welcomed the community and became a safe space for so many people who feel isolated and downtrodden. In this space, we have tangata moana coming together. The founders of this space are Devyn Baileh, Grace Colcord, and Shea Wātene.
I want to read some of Devyn’s words from the launch that happened last night in Christchurch Central: “Brown Town is more than just a collective; Brown Town is a space where our people can see themselves represented in ways that uplift, empower and celebrate the most authentic versions of ourselves. Christchurch is notoriously a discriminatory landscape, and our Māori and Pacific communities often bear the brunt of racial prejudice on the daily. Unless you have experienced it for yourself, it’s difficult to comprehend but is something we feel very deeply. We feel it in the stares, in the remarks, in the subtle and in the not-so-subtle ways that make us feel like outsiders in our own city. If you need to be convinced of our necessity any further, I’ve brought receipts. I would like you to all look at a published article from The Star, which says ‘This isn’t the Christchurch I know’ ”. Well, that is for those people to really take on board what these young people are saying—
Katie Nimon: Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member round up the sentence.
KAHURANGI CARTER: —absolutely—and let them shine their lights bright and be their authentic selves. Thank you.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Well, it is a great time for Hawke’s Bay right now, and there are two reasons for that. And I’m going to share them both with you.
Dan Bidois: It’s that great MP!
KATIE NIMON: That’s quite right, Dan Bidois. Around this time, Hawke’s Bay people get a little bit smug. We get smug because we have this wonderful thing called a four-day weekend, and nobody else gets it in New Zealand when we do. Tomorrow is Hawke’s Bay Anniversary Day, a wonderful day to celebrate. Unlike many other provinces, we aren’t grouped in with Auckland anniversary or Wellington anniversary. We have our own anniversary day, and it is a special day. Right now at home, it’s the Hawke’s Bay A & P show, a beautiful day—a cracking 28 degrees in the wonderful Hawke’s Bay province. Tomorrow it’s going to be equally as beautiful, and I really look forward to getting out and about and meeting with so many wonderful people in our fine region, with my colleague Catherine Wedd.
We’ve got a lot to celebrate. Apart from the fact that we’ve got a wonderful four-day weekend, which we enjoy every single year, we also have a brand new road of national significance that is on its way thanks to this wonderful Government. What Catherine Wedd and I had the wonderful privilege of doing the other day was going along and observing the brand new amount of work that is being done on the Kennedy Road off-ramp. And, boy, I tell you, I don’t think there are many people, if any, in Hawke’s Bay that are actually disappointed to see some roadworks for once! It’s fantastic to see diggers and some incredible digger drivers—we’ve already had a few hoots and toots to them—who are clearing vegetation, enabling works to get this road under way, which we have been waiting for since the 1960s. I tell you, when people see work getting done after being talked about and talked about and talked about, finally, after a year of this Government, we have started work.
Let me tell you some pretty cool things about this project. Not only have we committed to doing more of this project than first thought—so we are going to be extending from two lanes to four lanes from Taradale Road to Links Road/Pakowhai Road, which is an incredibly congested area. We are using Cyclone Gabrielle silt to compact and settle the site and widen the corridor and level out the ground to be able to do this work. Now, that’s a pretty cool use of some terrible circumstances for our region. I think back, in the last 18 months, of all the people who have had to travel to work or to school or to the hospital or to the airport using that road—29,000 cars a day, I will tell you.
Using that road, sometimes what should be a 23-minute trip takes two hours—two hours—because of losing a couple of bridges. Even with one bridge being restored as a Bailey bridge after about six months, we are still in incredible congestion, on a road that’s meant to be an expressway—most commonly known as the “Not Very Expressway”. It’s really disappointing that we’ve had to suffer through this, and it’s so exciting for people to start to see progress. This is the first time, like I said, ladies and gentlemen, that people have actually said, “Isn’t it great to see some orange cones on the road?” I tell you, the further extent of this area that we are working on, from Taradale Road to Links Road, is going to make a significant difference.
One thing that’s made this all very good is the foresight of the New Zealand Transport Agency to actually pre-own the corridor, so we don’t have to go through the process of purchasing land. This is one of the many reasons why this is Hawke’s Bay’s first road of national significance and New Zealand’s first road of national significance this term. We are ready to go, and, boy, I tell you, this helps connect mine and Catherine’s electorates—and, actually, Mike Butterick’s as well, and Dana Kirkpatrick’s, because this is a central arterial route between our many fine electorates in the wonderful Hawke’s Bay - East Coast region. So, look, we are so excited. We have been fighting really hard for this, and for us to see this work bring the project 12 to 15 months earlier than planned is just about the most exciting thing. It is like every Christmas coming at once.
This weekend, when members of Hawke’s Bay are celebrating their wonderful anniversary tomorrow and their amazing extra day off on Monday—we have a four-day weekend—everyone that drives over that road and sees the progress, clearing some vegetation, bringing in some silt, compacting it down, we are paving the way to increase productivity, happier people, faster commutes to work, school, and special services that we need. And it’s all done in the first year of a new National-led coalition Government. I am so proud to say I’m the MP for Napier, and I have been campaigning for this from the beginning. Thank you.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I’m proud to be standing here as the MP for Mt Roskill, one of the most hard-working and talented electorates. As a local MP, I’m committed to being available to my constituents, to understand the issues that matter most to my constituents. I have visited every single school in my electorate, every retirement village, and businesses, and met constituents at Wesley Market. Most recently, I’ve sent out 1,000 surveys—and thank you for sending me your feedback. There’s no doubt that the last few years have been difficult for people in Mt Roskill. Escalating crime, the cost of living crisis, and less real work are the real issues in Mt Roskill. For many Mt Roskill residents, the cost of living crisis has meant working a second job just to pay rent and put food on the table.
The good news is we are making progress and people in Mt Roskill can see light at the end of the tunnel, especially with the “blue shoot” of tax relief, FamilyBoost, and official cash rate (OCR) cuts. Even though life is tough, with courage, hard work, resilience, and never-give-up attitudes, the people in Mt Roskill manage to overcome these obstacles and achieve great success. From Lynfield College Robotics’ team winning the nationwide robotic championship and representing New Zealand to compete in the United States; the Chief Justice of New Zealand, the Rt Hon Dame Helen Winkelmann; to award-winning ice cream shops, the Mt Roskill electorate is full of talent.
People in Mt Roskill deserve better. As the local MP, I want to make a difference by creating opportunities and showcasing the talents of our local children and youth. Last weekend, I had the privilege to host Mt Roskill’s first School Students’ Art Showcase, with schools in Mt Roskill across primary, intermediate, and high school contributing pieces of student artwork. The showcase gives Mt Roskill students a platform to showcase their artistic creativities. I brought a few printouts of some of the artwork—aren’t they beautiful? I believe they are full of talent. There is no doubt that Mt Roskill is a home to a generation of creatives who, with the right opportunities, have huge futures ahead of them both in New Zealand and on the international stage.
Talking about opportunities, I got another initiative to become reality yesterday. I have the privilege to co-host a job fair with Auckland Business Chamber for local Mt Roskill Grammar School students looking for Christmas and summer jobs. It is so encouraging to watch students come in with their CVs, ready to learn and engage with the local businesses, showcasing what they can do. It is a chance for our students to gain insight into different industries and meet potential employers, right here in our neighbourhood. This is a fantastic opportunity for our young people, and I’m proud to be part of it.
As I mentioned before, law and order is another issue that matters most to Mt Roskill residents. Business owners, parents, and local constituents are suffering. They are scared. Our Government is focused on restoring law and order and making sure there are real consequences for crime. I hosted a public meeting on community safety with police Minister Mark Mitchell and local police. I also assisted Community Patrols of New Zealand to get three more patrol cars around New Zealand to help with community safety.
Youth vaping is another major issue in Mt Roskill. I’m genuinely concerned about the numbers of youth and young people who are vaping. This is why I hosted Mt Roskill’s first ever youth vaping awareness seminar, in association with Dr Kelly Burrowes and Vape-Free Kids NZ. Parents brought their children to listen to medical experts about the dangers that vaping poses, particularly to young people. I’m looking forward to a day when New Zealand reaches Smokefree 2025 and the numbers of vape shops in Mt Roskill streets reduce.
Katie Nimon: It’ll be a great day for Mt Roskill.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Every day is a great day for Mt Roskill, because we are making progress. Our police are tackling crime, and especially youth crime. Our local cafes are starting to thrive again. New development opportunities are creating opportunities for local residents to get on the property ladder. I am incredibly proud to be the MP for Mt Roskill, and I will continue to fight for my constituency, every day.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. It will be of no surprise to anyone in this House that, as the MP for Nelson, I am taking a call today on the most significant project in my electorate, which is the rebuild of Nelson Hospital. I want to focus today on the most recent issues that have occurred with this Government’s mismanagement of this project.
Prior to the election and the week leading up to the election, the now Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was asked in Blenheim whether National would commit to the rebuild of Nelson Hospital. He said, “We would look at it.” Now, I issued a press release because that concerns me deeply. “They would look at it.” I was then accused of misinformation by Shane Reti, but guess what? The Government has looked at it and they’ve downgraded it.
Glen Bennett: Outrageous!
RACHEL BOYACK: It is outrageous; it is shameful. They have downgraded the rebuild of Nelson Hospital. When our Government did a stock take of all of the hospital buildings across Aotearoa, it was clear that Nelson Hospital had the highest need in terms of a rebuild. We have an ageing and growing population. We regularly have people unable to be admitted to hospital because we do not have enough beds. We desperately need this hospital.
Now, what’s happened recently is that the Minister was going to come to Nelson and release a master-plan. It was in the documents that have been provided to us—release the master-plan. The officials were going to give a briefing to Nelson City Council on the master-plan, but there was no master-plan announced and it mysteriously disappeared off the agenda of the Nelson City Council meeting due to—apparently—a miscommunication. When officials—and I want to acknowledge that officials are doing the work of this Government and we have excellent officials in Nelson—presented to Nelson City Council, they said that there would be a series of buildings worth around $200 million to $300 million. This is off the back of a plan to completely rebuild Nelson Hospital to a cost of $1.1 billion. That is the cost and that is the investment we need in Nelson.
Where is that money going? Where’s it going? Well, actually, this Government has given tax cuts to the wealthy. They’ve given tax cuts to tobacco companies to make health outcomes worse in this country, yet failed to properly invest in health infrastructure in the Budget. The last time I spoke in the House, I used this little graph [holds up graph] which clearly shows which party of Government invests in health infrastructure. The current Government only put $100 million in in this Budget, which will not touch the sides of what is needed for the rebuild of Nelson Hospital.
Now, I accept that we need beds as soon as we can, and if we need to build the shell of one large building and fit it out as quickly as we can—fit out parts of it so that we can get beds on stream—I accept that, but I tell you what will happen: if we build a $200 million to $300 million hospital and get beds in place immediately, we will be having another conversation in 10 to 15 years about the full rebuild that we need. Everybody wants to come and retire in Nelson; we have migrants moving to Nelson. We are one of the fastest-growing regions in this country and our hospital is in the worst condition of any. I am so proud to have been the first MP under a Labour Government—the first Government to actually get money for this project. We got the first $73 million last year, and if we continued on the trajectory of investment under Labour without these irresponsible tax cuts, there wouldn’t have been an issue about funding it over the coming years.
I am putting on record today that I will continue as the local MP to fight for the health services that Nelson so desperately needs. If we kick this can down the road, we will be back in 10 to 15 years and it won’t be $1 billion—it will be $2 billion or it will be $3 billion. We need to invest in Nelson Hospital now. I want to put on record that Nelson is going backwards under this Government, that the South Island is being neglected and going backwards under this Government, and all of New Zealand is going backwards under this Government and its “coalition of cuts”.
SIMON COURT (ACT): I’ve been a proud Westie for over 20 years. There’s a strong independent pioneering spirit in the people of West Auckland. That’s embodied in the immigrants from Dalmatia, who came to New Zealand, settled in West Auckland, dug the kauri gum, cleared land for farming, they built construction businesses, they built homes and factories. They also planted grapevines all over West Auckland, and they started selling our first wine from the cellar door. They did this at a time when there were few legal options to buy things like wine and beer in New Zealand.
Sadly, West Auckland now contains a relic of that prohibition and temperance past. It’s a relic that is completely at odds with the idea of a modern, liberal society. West Auckland is subject to one of New Zealand’s last remaining liquor licensing monopolies. In West Auckland, as well as Invercargill and Mataura, only licensing trusts can operate liquor stores, taverns, and licensed hotels. These monopolies are outdated—many going back to the 1970s. They leave us with little choice and inflated prices.
West Auckland has grown rapidly, but there are only eight venues licensed as taverns or hotels in West Auckland. That’s to serve a population of almost 300,000 people. That’s one tavern or hotel for every 37,000 residents. That compares to Auckland as a whole, where there is one for every 3,200 residents. That’s almost 10 times as many outside West Auckland for the people who live there. The community of West Auckland is being underserved. It means that some locals either go without the services that other Aucklanders expect as part of normal life, or they have to travel and spend their money elsewhere—and they do. They spend around $129 million a year on hospitality services outside West Auckland because they’re simply not available.
The current rules are a confusing mess. In my home patch, you can operate a hotel but you’re not allowed a bar or room service. Supermarkets can’t sell alcohol, but you can get it delivered to your door. One of the arguments for liquor monopolies is that all the profits go back into the community, but 80 percent of the profits that these trusts generate are from pokies, not from selling alcohol. Revenue from gaming machines makes up most of their funding that they give back to the community, not liquor sales.
Another argument is that when monopolies control and limit the sale and supply of alcohol, there’s less harm from alcohol, but there’s simply no evidence that is the case. There’s no evidence there’s less alcohol-related harm in West Auckland because of this monopoly.
It’s time to repeal the monopolies held by Invercargill, Mataura, Portage, and Waitakere licensing trusts. It would break these communities free from silly rules. It would allow entrepreneurs and locals the ability to start businesses, get into hospitality, and sell alcohol under the same rules that apply nationwide—the same rules that apply everywhere else. It’s time to bring back that diversity, that vibrancy, that pioneering spirit and colour to local communities. By allowing more bars, more hotels, and more taverns to emerge, we will offer a wider range of choices for people seeking to eat and dine out, or even people who want their family to come and stay in a hotel that currently doesn’t exist in West Auckland. We have one—one hotel where you can get a bed and get room service for 300,000 people. Let that sink in.
The benefits from removing the trust monopoly will also flow through into the wider economy, as other businesses are attracted to town centres by more people coming and spending time enjoying hospitality with friends and families. These people are currently venturing into more competition-friendly suburbs of Auckland, where they’re not bound by the same antiquated restrictions that control and restrict our development. It’s time to end these outdated and paternalistic monopolies that stop us from growing and reaching our potential in West Auckland. It’s time to treat Westies just like all the other adults in New Zealand who want to get a drink. I’ll have more to say about this soon. Madam Speaker, thank you.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): It is my privilege to take a call in the local issues debate and always good to be able to wax lyrical about the electorate that I represent. From Makatū to Manutuke, from Minginui to Mātāwai, and from Tikitiki to Te Teko, I had so many things I wanted to talk about today: the Kawerau geothermal project, the Tairāwhiti regional growth plan with a lofty goal of increasing regional GDP by 1 percent, and my friends at Waiariki Whānau Mentoring who I am just in awe of the work they do. But they will have to wait for another day because it would be remiss of me to not address the story of the day: Ōpōtiki. One of those small places that has it all: great people, sandy beaches, rivers, a coastline unrivalled in its beauty, history, and a climate that is hard to beat. It has thriving horticulture and dairying sectors and the largest open ocean mussel farms and factory. It is home to the fine people of Whakatōhea, looking after their people across the social sector, and it has a mayor and councillors that work hard for their district every single day.
The work done by police in Ōpōtiki this week has been welcomed across the town, the region, and the country: 30 search warrants, 28 arrests. They’ve seized illegal drugs, firearms, and assets to the value of $800,000. Yesterday, our colleague Rawiri Waititi called that “terrorism” and then earned himself a tinfoil hat for his conspiracy theories—and maybe if he had a tinfoil hat, it would inspire him to come up with an idea to make positive change in towns like Ōpōtiki, instead of labelling excellent police work as “terrorism”. For that member to suggest that a police operation designed to crack down on methamphetamine distribution, criminal activity, and lawlessness as “terrorism” is outrageous and disconnected.
I have previously met with the people of Ōpōtiki—the iwi, police, councillors, and business people. They are tired of this behaviour and want change. For a member of this House to condemn police who executed a fine piece of work yesterday is disgraceful and disrespectful to all the people in that community. It’s believed that there are about 125 gang members in Ōpōtiki—a few less today than there were yesterday—but that leaves more than 9,000 people who deserve better.
Overnight, there was a lot of text activity exclaiming outrage at the ridiculous remarks made yesterday. People have had enough; the community is stepping up. They are grateful for yesterday’s police intervention. One person stated that the real acts of terrorism have been conducted by the gangs actually, who have at times made it unsafe in Ōpōtiki for far too long. “We don’t want meth in our community any longer” is what they told me. A Facebook user who asked—and I summarise—“When the Waioeka Pa was getting shot up every day, who were the terrorists then? When the rangatahi were beaten up at a festival, who were the terrorists then? When people were scheming to shoot someone at a tangi, who were terrorists then?”
One said that what happened yesterday does not compare with the constant gang abuse endured by innocent victims in the community. “I don’t understand”—this person said—“why the Māori Party is branding the police as terrorists when in actual fact they have done the victims of constant gang abuse a huge favour.” There are a lot of relieved people in Ōpōtiki. It is time for Ōpōtiki to claim back its town, to be rid of that gang town perception that we all hate, to stand strong against gangs, and to be safe in the knowledge that this administration cares about people going about their lives in a lawful and responsible way.
Whakatōhea will put people at the centre of their support systems and look after those who need it. And as a final comment on this, I challenge the media to tell the other side of the story for once: to tell the good stories about Ōpōtiki, about this exceptional little rohe, rather than giving gangs relevance by stealth through the media.
Let’s finish on a happy note, shall we? Let’s talk about something good for the Eastern Bay of Plenty community. I just want to give a shout out to Simon and Wini and the wonderful team at Tio Ōhiwa Harbour Cruise and Oyster Experience who I visited with my good friend Tim Costley. Also Nadine and team at the Kohutapu Lodge and Tribal Tours at Lake Āniwaniwa, both finalists in the New Zealand Tourism Awards early next month. Such an honour, and congratulations on leading by example and putting the Eastern Bay of Plenty on the map for all the right reasons.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m hoping that everybody here will have a very happy long weekend—to all of New Zealand, and especially to the good people of Ōpōtiki who will be able to get out and spend some time on their beaches, on the Motu cycle trail, with their whānau and community and know that it’s going to be a great weekend going forward. Thank you.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Now, there’s a lot that I could talk about in this five-minute local debate. I could talk about Judds Road intersection in Masterton, a crucial intersection that the National Party promised to keep open, haven’t fronted up with the money, and now it’s set to close and they’re not talking to the local community. I could talk about our social housing build programme, which has been put on hold and no answers from the Government. I could talk about the shameful toll that this Government is putting on the Manawatū Tararua Highway with no notice, a shoddy consultation document, and two local National MPs who refuse to stand alongside their communities and oppose the toll. But I’m not going to. They’re all worthy of a speech of their own, but there is one that I need to talk about that trumps them all, and that is Wairarapa Hospital.
Since this Government came in, it’s been bad headline after bad headline after bad headline. The rhetoric we hear from the health Minister does not match the reality on the ground. When the health Minister stands up and says there’s no hiring freeze and there’ll be no cuts to front-line services, but the nurses in Masterton say they are 40 nurses short and they’re not allowed to recruit, who are people going to believe? Someone who’s pushing an agenda, or someone who’s actually working in the hospital? I reckon New Zealanders would believe the nurses—and I certainly do. That is a direct result of this Government’s policies and their gaslighting of New Zealanders, looking them in the eye and saying, “No, there’s no impact on front-line services” when there actually is. Two orthopaedic surgeons have resigned, and there’s been no promise to replace them at Wairarapa Hospital. The radiology service is going to be cut in November.
Now, why does this worry us? Because we’ve been here before with a National Government. They tried to close our hospital in 1991. What spurred on the disgust in the community is that that National Government was siphoning money from Wairarapa Hospital back into central funds. Why is that important? I’ll explain. Health New Zealand sued the Masterton District Council for $90 million, and they settled because of defects in the hospital. We have asked, and others like the Wairarapa Times-Age have asked, Ministers and Health New Zealand continuously for information that is quite clearly in the public interest about the settlement, and no one has said anything—they refuse to answer. The only figure we know is that the claim was for $90 million, so that is the only figure that I can use for the rest of this contribution.
They have settled. Where has the money gone? The $90 million that’s been given from the Masterton District Council to Health New Zealand to pay for defects in our hospital—and it’s disappeared.
Glen Bennett: $90 million?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And no one—well, certainly up to; I’d be able to use an accurate figure if they answered our questions, but it’s the only figure we’ve got to use. The $90 million that should have been used to fix our hospital has disappeared and no one is being accountable for it. The only logical conclusion that we can reach is that this Government has put it back into central funds, just like the National Government did back in 1991 when they tried to close our hospital.
Now, Masterton hospital is not big enough. I think that is part of the reason why they’re not hiring nurses—because there isn’t the space to put them in there even though the demand meets 40 more. We need a bigger emergency department and we need two more wards. If Labour were re-elected, we would have got it. What do we hear from the National Government? Silence—silence. Why? Because they flogged our $90 million, that’s why. That money should have been ring-fenced for us; it should have been ring-fenced for our hospital to fix the defects and expand it to meet the demands in our region. Instead, we have people travelling an hour and a half over the hill to get services which they should realistically expect in a hospital like Masterton. Where has the money gone?
It is a genuine scandal, and if the Government had any desire to be transparent, they would answer simple questions. What have they done with the money? If they won’t answer, we’ve only got one conclusion to reach: they have taken our money for our hospital to pay for their tax cuts because their Budget didn’t add up. It’s a disgrace.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One hundred and ten thousand dollars per day—$110,000 every single day—that this Government is wasting as it refuses to honour its promise to deliver the hospital that the people of the South need. Thirty-five thousand people marched to protest the Government’s proposed downgrade of our southern hospital in September. These are the numbers: 26 percent of Dunedin’s population turning out—many of whom had never protested before—on the streets, outraged not only at this Government’s incompetence but also disgusted by the South being royally shafted by this Government. One sign at that protest read, “Don’t piss on us and tell us it’s raining. You lied just to get the votes.” People in the South know how to tell it like it is and we will keep doing so.
Not building the hospital as promised will create clinical risks; people will fall through the cracks. Talking about cracks, now we have a truly crackpot idea from this Government. The Government is now talking about retrofitting the old hospital. The old hospital has issues like concrete cancer, unsuitable column placement, ceilings too low for modern equipment, and it will be unusable after a serious earthquake. During heavy rain events we see water running down the walls and buckets in operating theatres. Cheaper to fix than what is already under instruction? Yeah, right. We’re seeing a pattern here: cancel the inter-island ferry contract; get hit by half a billion dollars of contract break fee; fail to deliver the critical infrastructure we need; no plan forward; a Government all at sea.
Earlier this year, the Government rejected the Dunedin City Council’s plea for partnership and support to help the city cope with the climate impacts that we’ve been affected by in the October floods. The PM even had the gall to claim that he was unaware of any partnership project proposal and that just shows how at sea—how lost at sea—he is. This week the Government has conclusively given the middle finger to our community by introducing a last-minute amendment to stop the Otago Regional Council from doing its job and notifying its land and water regional plan. When will this Government stop attacking the South and start providing for our communities?
The Government promised us a hospital but the only thing they’ve delivered to us is a crisis. We don’t need more empty words; we need hospital beds. Right now, the piles for the in-patient building are in the ground and it’s time to get our southern hospital built—no ifs, buts, or maybes. The Government is still dithering, talking about scrapping the psychogeriatric beds, which will put lives at risk. The sunk costs are rising on this: the sunk cost on the planned infrastructure building, the architecture, the structural engineering, the building engineering, the project management, the project coordination, legal and quantity surveying, as well as the building piling which has just been finished, might all be written off if this Government changes tack at such a late stage. This is showing the deep incompetence and disrespect this Government has even for our precious taxpayer funds—just those things written off are a small $250 million that might be written off.
You can’t just wave a blueprint around and call it progress. You can’t keep on burning dollars and not delivering. Waste, incompetence, and complete disdain for Dunedin and the deep South just seems to be baked into this Government’s DNA—not that anyone can guarantee that the southern hospital will have any laboratory capacity to conduct the tests on this Government. What we can see is that action speaks louder than media releases and press conferences. The South needs follow-through. They need the Government to honour their promise. I’ve been honoured to host many Green MPs in Ōtepoti over the last few months, including our co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. We’ve visited the site; we’ve met the teams; we know it deserves to be completed. Don’t promise us progress when the only thing expanding here is a waiting list.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): It’s a real privilege to take a call on the local issues debate, particularly on behalf of the mighty Bay of Plenty electorate. It would be remiss of me to not first talk about what’s coming up this weekend: the National Provincial Championship final—Bay of Plenty Steamers up against Wellington. We love an underdog story here in New Zealand—we love an underdog story. And wouldn’t it be great? I see my colleague Barbara Edmonds across the House, and she mentioned earlier about the—
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Go the Lions!
TOM RUTHERFORD: “Go the Lions!”, she says. Well, I say to the New Zealand public: you love an underdog story. Get in behind the Bay of Plenty Steamers. They’ve had a fantastic season and they’re going to bring it home on Saturday down here in Wellington, and I’m going to be supporting them all the way. They’re a fantastic team and they’re going to have a fantastic result this weekend.
And so to my community of the Bay of Plenty: Te Puna in the west, the Kaimai Ranges, Ōropi, Ōhauiti to the south; Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Arataki, Ōmanu, Matapihi, Mount Maunganui; and, in the east, Pāpāmoa—we live in absolute paradise. As we saw in the release of the census data yesterday, we’re one of the fastest-growing places in the country. You can understand why: with our beautiful Bay of Plenty beaches in Pāpāmoa and Ōmanu and Mount Maunganui, why wouldn’t you want to live there? For me, it’s an incredible privilege to represent the community I’m so pleased to call home, the place I’ve grown up in. And to be able to represent it in this place in my 20s is an incredible privilege and one I don’t take lightly. Every day when I come here, I know that I’ve got the support of the Bay of Plenty community, who are saying, “Go on Tom, represent us and do your best in Parliament.”
There’s a couple of key organisations I want to talk about—firstly, Community Patrol. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had the Minister of Police, Mark Mitchell, in the Bay of Plenty electorate alongside me, and we had a meeting with our community patrollers from across the Bay of Plenty. I just want to put on record our thanks to them. They do an exceptional amount of work, not just in the Bay but across New Zealand—but particularly in the Bay of Plenty, helping support our local police and keeping them safe. To Debbie and her team and the Pāpāmoa Community Patrol and all of those across the Bay of Plenty, we simply say thank you.
I also went to a very special evening on behalf of a gentleman called Rex Cotter a couple of weeks ago. Now, Rex has served Fire and Emergency New Zealand for 60 years—60 years. The first 30 years was spent at the Tīrau Fire Brigade, and the last 30 years at our Pāpāmoa Volunteer Fire Brigade. Myself having been a volunteer firefighter, I just went along to say to Rex what an incredible amount of service he’s given to our local community to help keep us safe. To Rex, I say: thank you, mate, for all your work and your ongoing support in keeping our local community safe.
Coming up in a couple of weeks’ time, The Sands town centre in Pāpāmoa East is being opened. This is going to be four times the size of Bayfair, if you know the Bayfair shopping mall in Mount Maunganui. It’s going to provide the network we need in our Pāpāmoa East community, it’s going to provide an amazing number of jobs and opportunities, and it’s fantastic for our local community. This major investment in our community future is going to bring new amenities, job opportunities, and, most importantly, economic growth. I couldn’t be happier for it and I’m looking forward to going along.
I’m also looking forward to attending next weekend the Te Puna School Country Fair. And for my sins, I’ve agreed to be dunked. I’m going to be sitting up on the platform, the students are going to be throwing their sponges, hopefully at the target—I’m not the target, but hopefully they will be hitting the target—and I’m going to be falling into the water. It’s going to be a fantastic event at our local Te Puna School Country Fair next weekend. If you’re looking forward to getting me dunked in the water, I’d suggest coming along. I know the principal Neil’s going to be there as well, and the teachers as well have all put their hands up to be dunked into the water. That’s going to be fantastic for our local Te Puna community.
The last couple of points I want to talk about: most recently, last month, we hosted the AIMS Games in the Bay of Plenty. This was its 21st year. I participated in it, not last year, Paulo Garcia, but a few years ago. It’s for students in years 7 and 8 to compete in their sporting codes as either individuals or in teams, with 27 different codes. It brought 390 schools to the Bay of Plenty, and over 12,900 athletes—that’s more than the Paris Olympics had at 10,700 athletes—and to our local economy it brought a million dollars a day and nearly 25,000 people to our region. It is fantastic and we look forward to hosting it year after year. I know there’s other communities around the country that want the Zespri AIMS Games in their patch, but I say to them: good luck, it’s not going anywhere; it’s staying in the beautiful Bay.
Finally, the roads of national significance: State Highway 29 over the Kaimai Ranges, the Takitimu North Link. Our Government knows that we want to support this infrastructure so people can get where they need to, safely and quickly. I’m pleased to be part of this Government.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Taranaki blows. Taranaki blows, but I love it. Taranaki has winds that blow through our beautiful shores and our beautiful region. In fact, Taranaki has the best wind in the country.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Really?
GLEN BENNETT: It does—it has the best wind in the country. Taranaki blows and I love it, and I think it’s fabulous. Taranaki is the energy province and it will continue to be the energy province as we look to our future; as we look to our renewable energy options and what we can be.
Taranaki blows with clean, with renewable, with beautiful wind that we want to harness to ensure that we power New Zealand, but we’ve got our challenges—we really do. One of the challenges is this Government in terms of their settings; in terms of their fast-track legislation, which is creating roadblocks to the future of clean energy.
We’ve got solar and we’ve got beautiful solar farms. In fact, driving to the New Plymouth Airport on Tuesday morning, I saw the new iteration of solar farms by the airport there—14,500 thousand solar panels that are going to help to power more than 2,000 homes. We’ve got the Kapuni solar farm which, alongside wind energy there as well, can power around 12,000 homes along with the Ballance factory, ensuring that we have good clean energy—blowing, the sun shining—ensuring we have that nice, clean energy.
We’ve got green hydrogen and the previous Labour Government invested heavily in green hydrogen and Hiringa Energy—which is based, again, locally in Taranaki, where we’re looking at how do we fuel up our trucking industry? How do we make sure that those big users of energy; that we have infrastructure that can drive our future to a zero-emissions economy? How do we ensure that Taranaki remains the energy province? We do that by ensuring that we lead the way in solar, we lead the way in wind, we lead the way in green hydrogen. Then there’s Ara Ake, another initiative that is New Zealand’s energy centre based in New Plymouth, looking at new initiatives, looking at new opportunities, looking at new innovations that can ensure that we power up to a clean and a green future in terms of what we have.
I want to finish in terms of looking at the different energy sources on wind, and many of us have driven through Taranaki. When we get down the bottom there past Waverley, we see the Waipipi Wind Farm that’s blowing and creating energy for that part of the country and making sure that houses are powered up. Because we have the best wind in the country and because Taranaki blows, we of course want to look at what offshore wind could do, not just for the region but for the country. We have the ability and we have the power, offshore there, to power up more than 700,000 homes. We have consistent wind blowing at 30 to 35 kilometres an hour, which is the kind of wind we need to ensure that we can scale up; we can bring electricity into businesses, into homes, into our communities and schools.
The Labour Government worked hard on this; we worked hard in terms of our regulatory space. How do we actually create a framework so that offshore wind is something that will be possible for the future? How does it power up not only our homes and our businesses, but how does it also help us to innovate? How does it help us in Taranaki to ensure that we are the renewable energy province, that we have jobs, that we have a strong economy, and also that we’re seen around the world for being a leader in terms of green energy?
Over the last four years, I’ve met with many in the offshore wind industry. They’ve been looking hard and they’ve been investing, and we’ve brought international investors over such as BlueFloat Energy, who sadly today have chosen to exit New Zealand because they cannot see that it’s viable. Of course, the uncertainty that the fast-track bill brings; the uncertainty that Trans-Tasman Resources and their sea mining brings; the uncertainty of the fact that nowhere in the world have we seen the ability to do seabed mining and to do offshore wind at the same time. They have left New Zealand and they’re one of the biggest companies that was going to ensure that Taranaki and New Zealand can be the clean, green energy centre of the future.
Taranaki blows and we need to harness that wind. Taranaki blows and we need to build offshore wind. Taranaki blows, and as for this Government: well, they just suck.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): When I moved to New Zealand in February 2005, I lived for a year in Titirangi, right across from the Rudolf Steiner School. This was February 2005, and I stayed there for a year. I was awakened to the New Zealand experience of the bush and the beaches of the west coast, the beautiful walks through the Waitakere Ranges. I did all that; fished in kayaks, did the walks, and then when my family came, in 2006, we did it all over again—and we continue to do that.
Never in my wildest imagination would I have thought that I would be standing here, speaking about the place that I love, as the MP for New Lynn. It is a mind-blowing situation for me. I cannot even begin to be thankful and amazed at it. New Lynn, which includes Titirangi, all the way to Bethells, along the west coast—Laingholm, Bethells, and Pīhā—all the way to Blockhouse Bay and a part of Avondale and New Lynn itself, is a vibrant, multicultural community. Hard-working families live in New Lynn, and many, many cultures converge in New Lynn. We have a strong Indian community, a strong Pākehā community. We have Africans, we have Filipinos, we have Afghanis, and so it is an amazing place to live in.
It has challenges, and I must mention that there are quite a number, one being cyclone recovery. The Waitakere Ranges, and even all through New Lynn itself and Blockhouse Bay, suffered damage, and categorisation has been progressing. Although it has taken a lot of patience from residents, things are moving forward. Roads are being repaired, and categorisation is almost complete, with buyouts currently occurring. There are just a few points in the area where some gaps have left people uncertain about how to deal with their properties and the properties that abut the roads from their properties, but this is being looked at.
I also have been aware of challenges in the Kāinga Ora space and social housing, and particularly a special trust that was created by a donation from a private individual to Auckland Council for property that is meant for the use of pensioner housing. This continues to be a space that needs to be addressed and clarified.
I would like to focus on the positives. The whole New Lynn area has a strong volunteer spirit. Many residents live in support of others, their neighbours. We have residents’ associations. We have community patrols and a voluntary fire brigade. We have associations that deal with social services. In 2017, my wife and I became registered as respite carers for Lifewise, which continues to do a lot of good work. There are amazing schools throughout New Lynn, doing amazing things—Green Bay High, Laingholm Primary, Fruitvale, Saint Dominic’s, Saint Mary’s—with meagre resources, going above and beyond what they are enabled to do.
I end this time by giving a shoutout to New Lynn RSA. They should really be more well attended. I exhort people to come and see and experience the joy of involvement with the RSA. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to arise today—and also after my good friend Paulo Garcia, the excellent local MP for New Lynn. What I’d like to focus mostly on today are our beautiful ethnic communities in Takanini. There’s a lot going on in Takanini and around Aotearoa New Zealand. There’s a lot of positive; there’s a lot of pain and suffering. But if you would allow me, Madam Speaker, and if I can have the House’s indulgence today, I’d like to focus on some of these nuggets of positivity that are flourishing in Takanini, my electorate, South and East Auckland—Takanini.
Takanini has over 50 percent of its residents born overseas, including myself. I was absolutely delighted to attend and celebrate with the Cambodian community as they got together at the Vihara Buddhist Temple—an absolutely breathtaking temple on Porchester Road in Takanini—recently for the festival of Pchum Ben where they honour their ancestors. Indeed, many of our very fast-growing Cambodian community from around the country and around the North Island attended this this event. I’d like to thank Mr Lim and Mr Lee and all the board of trustees for putting together this cultural and spiritual day.
I also recently attended the children’s day weekend at Takanini Gurdwara—that beautiful gurdwara we have right there in the heart of Takanini. That was a weekend of Punjabi cultural activities for our tamariki and rangatahi, including essay writing, public speaking, roti making, and prayer reading. Over a thousand of our young ones participated, and I was honoured to hand over trophies to those that got in the top three of every activity for every group. Thank you, Daljit, and all the teachers that helped put this amazing day together as well.
I’d like to recognise all my neighbours in Takanini celebrating Diwali, whether they be Hindu, from the Tamil community, the Sikh community—thank you for inviting me. I’m absolutely loving the events that we are celebrating together.
This weekend, the Filipino community—I’m going to be taking part of their contagious joy at one of the jewels in the crown of Takanini, the Bruce Pulman Park that’s 62 hectares. We host netball tournaments, touch footy, rugby, cricket, volleyball, gymnastics. This weekend, part of our Filipino community absolute loves is basketball so that’s going to be happening this weekend. Come on down to Bruce Pulman Park in Takanini.
At the end of November and in early December, we’re going to be having, at Bruce Pulman Park as well, the New Zealand Sikh Games. That’s where it’s those traditional—and, in some respects, ancient—games that have continued throughout the centuries that our Sikh community in Takanini, and beyond, are making sure are being kept alive in our beautiful country by events like this, the New Zealand Sikh Games.
We’ve got our Porchester Islamic Centre. We’ve got our beautiful Chinese community; our Middle Eastern communities that congregate regularly at St Elias Melkite Catholic Church in The Gardens. We have our Cook Islands community, the Aitutaki Enua Society on Porchester Road as well. Our Samoan community in Takanini, many of whom were here today in the gallery as we discussed the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill.
Takanini—I like to refer to it as beautifully eclectic, and we have all these ethnic communities that are very unique in their own ways, but there’s one thing that is a common denominator between all the ethnic communities across Takanini, and that’s their family orientation. In talking to my neighbours around Takanini, I’ve known for a long time that one of the biggest issues for them is the lack of law and order that was allowed to run rampant in the last six years under the former Government. They know, and they see, the hard work we’re doing—under the Justice Committee with my colleague James Meager, and our Ministers across the House—to make sure we give police the powers they need to restore law and order and allow my neighbours across Takanini to feel safe. Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. I’m looking forward to the next one.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I would love to just do a shout-out to the Polish community. Paulo Garcia and I were both at a celebration on Sunday. In my electorate, there’s a Polish hall, and there was this most beautiful event. It was because of the Pahīatua children.
Now, it’s 80 years since Peter Fraser brought in 733 children and 105 adults to look after them. They came in because Stalin was going to send those children off to Siberia. It’s just something we can be so proud of as a country. Those children were looked after, and I met some of those children on Sunday. There were people there who have been part of that group of people. It’s just incredibly good, what we did. I hope we’re a country that’s done that more than once. I think about the Tampa refugees and I think about the actual airlifts in Afghanistan recently. I have some of those people who are the families who were airlifted in my community, too. I’m very proud to have a strong relationship with that community.
I want to spend the rest of my time talking about something rather different, and that’s helicopters, because what’s happened in Auckland is that we have had an increasing rise of requests for private helicopter use, which means that it’s people wanting pads in the area. There’s been one of those cases recently in the media, which is in Rawene Ave, which is just, basically, in Westmere—it’s an area that’s coastal. It’s often in coastal areas, so you’ve often got an issue of wildlife and recreational space where the helicopters are coming. This particular helicopter consent application was going to be non-notified; it’s now going to be notified.
What it really highlights is the issue that we need to look at, which is probably our aviation laws. These helicopters were going to land 28 times a week, and it affects the whole community. There are risks about it, in terms of safety, because we don’t really manage them in the same way. We have a low issue with crashes from helicopters, but that’s because they’ve been rurally based. There are real issues in terms of safety when you get into an urban setting. There was actually a crash that occurred in New York a few years ago, where shrapnel landed in, I think, Madison Ave, and killed somebody. We’ve got to be cognisant of that.
It’s also things like noise. I consider that we’ve got a real discussion to have over what I would consider is the commons. These are these issues which have been really not available to anyone—perhaps aeroplanes way above—but that means they have been available to us all. Just simply the noise factor is something that I think we should be considering. This is an issue that’s really bubbling up in my community. I raised it at a community meeting on Sunday in Point Chev, and I got a lot of nods. I know that Quiet Sky have done some really important work in this area and there is a lot of concern about this issue.
I think, while it remains an issue for the local body in some ways, it also has an element of something we need to think about, because helicopters are going to get cheaper; there are going to be drones. These are going to be real issues we need to face. They’ve got safety issues, they’ve got environmental issues, and, really, they’ve got quiet enjoyment issues. We shouldn’t be ashamed of saying that we need our cities to be lovely places to live for everyone, and sometimes it might be important for people to set aside a right that they would like and just go to Mechanics Bay and take the helicopter from there, so it can be more organised.
I finally want to talk a little bit about Eden Park, and I’m running out of time. I’ve done a lot of work in that community surrounding Eden Park and I’ve done a survey in that area. It’s been a really enlightening process. There is a high percentage of people coming in, saying that they would like more concerts in that area, but they have also identified a lot of issues in that area around parking and around traffic management and public transport. By doing that work that I’ve done—and I think I had 1,000 people respond, or just over, to that survey; the majority wanting 12 concerts—I’ve been able to identify ways that I could help that community, by talking to them. I’m thankful to everybody who answered that survey and everybody who gave me feedback. That has informed me in terms of doing my job as the local MP. Thank you.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Only five minutes and, jeez, I could talk a lot longer than this because I just love our region. Horowhenua, Kāpiti, from Foxton to Waitārere, Levin, Ōhau, Manakau, Ōtaki, Te Horo, Waikanae, Paraparaumu—it just gets better and better.
What a great night it was only a couple of weeks ago, when about 400 people jammed in to the Banquet Hall of the Beehive here for the event of A Taste of Horowhenua and Kāpiti. We had 45 of our amazing producers in the food and beverage sector who came down here, showcasing their amazing food and beverages that come from our region.
I think everyone knows that Horowhenua grows a lot of veges. We grow about 30 percent of New Zealand’s leafy greens, but there is so much more than that. I think of chickens, I think of eggs—I don’t know which came first, but they’re both there. There was pesto, olive oil, liquorice, strawberries and kiwifruit, candy, chocolate, artisan breads, gin, vodka, wine, soft drink, Danish crackers, quality baking, sauces, and so much more, and I just think this is a sector that has been underrated and undervalued for far too long. Cheese, charcuterie—it’s all there. In fact, when you go around the supermarket, you will see, and you may not realise they come from—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not “you”. Even though I do go to the supermarket, don’t bring me into the debate.
TIM COSTLEY: Well, Madam Speaker—directly for you—when you are out in the supermarket, going around there, I don’t think people realise just how many of those amazing products come from Horowhenua and Kāpiti. And now, after this event, there will be even more, because at this event we invited in the hospitality sector. We had restaurants and cafes and we had supermarkets and they came in and they picked up some of these products, and I’m so proud to see more of our small businesses doing well as a result of that. That’s exactly what this event was about. It was about celebrating these guys.
It was about cheering them on and championing them, because I have a vision that as National comes in and as our Government builds this new road—it starts construction next year, from Ōtaki to Levin, with four lanes all the way. We’ve been fighting for it for years, and now, under our Government, it’s happening. But that old road—that horrible road now blocked up with heavy traffic and the tractors from the horticulture, just trying to get about their business; that road, with all that heavy traffic removed—I have a vision that it’ll be something like the taste highway, where people tiki tour their way along.
They might start up in Foxton and grab a Foxton Fizz at the windmill, work their way down through some Lewis Farm strawberries, or down through Ōhau, trying the wine there at Manakau Market. They might try the olive oil around Ōtaki, and maybe they’d finish up in Paraparaumu, where we have places like the Imagination Gin, we have the Bond Store, and we have Dark Horse Coffee. What a great way to bring people into our region and to lift the profile. I’m really proud—I’m proud to advocate for it.
I’ll be at the Kāpiti Food Fair, a great event, on 30 November. Come and join me there. I’m actually running a barbecue to raise money for our food bank to help those that need a little extra help this Christmas. So come along and buy a sausage—every single cent goes to the food bank, for a great cause—or come to the strawberry festival, raising money for the Mary Potter Hospice. Like Tom Rutherford, I’ll be getting dunked, just like I did last year—what a great cause.
Now, there are so many other things I could do, but in the last minute and a half, let me just run through a couple of highlights for us. It’s not just the road that’s coming to Ōtaki and Levin. What we’ve got is the new rail, increasing the number of services—that’s going to be fantastic. Fun fact: Foxton had the first railway in New Zealand. It was a wooden railway back in the 1800s.
I want to give a shout-out to the Kāpiti Coast Youth Council. I enjoyed joining them at their meeting on Monday, and I also met with Vape-Free Kids. At every high school in our electorate, I’ve set up a youth advisory panel, and it’s fantastic to hear the young voices.
While we’re talking about schools, I’ll be at the Battle of the Bands next week, supporting our local schools, but I have to give a special shout-out to Side Eye the Skies. I think they’re going to do great, and I want to wish Alice and everyone in Side Eye the Skies all the best for that.
We’ve talked about sporting success this week. We missed one: the CanSurvive Club dragon boat team took out gold at the International Dragon Boat Federation Cup in Italy. This is a team of 14, with three women from Kāpiti. They’re all breast cancer survivors, and they were competing. There was a field of 5,000. They won gold in the 200 metres, the 500 metres, and the 2,000 metres, and I was proud to collect for Pink Ribbon Day, as my bit.
Finally, happy 100th birthday—I saw two of them last Friday—Mrs Zelda Beckett in Levin, and Mr Bert ten Broeke in Paraparaumu. He is a concentration camp survivor, and what a strong and inspiring man he is.
This weekend, I’ll see you at Foxton at the Spring Fling; I’ll see you at Waikanae, at the Mahara Place Labour Day market. Have a great Labour Day, and remember those workers. The National Party are the ones that love them—we support them. Have a great Labour Weekend.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 November 2024. Have a good weekend.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.