Thursday, 21 November 2024

THURSDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2024

THURSDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2024

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/prayers

Karakia/prayers

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.

Urgent Debates Declined

Climate Change Performance Index—Release of Report

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Megan Woods, seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, New Zealand dropping seven places on the global Climate Change Performance Index. While the Government is not responsible for the index itself, it is responsible for the issues raised in the report on it, but it is an ongoing matter. To warrant an urgent debate, there must be a new situation or decision that requires setting aside the business of the House, under Speaker’s ruling 218/3. The release of this report does not reach that threshold; therefore, the application is declined.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 10 December. In that week, it is the Government’s intention to move urgency for the consideration of the third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, as well as the remaining stages of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and a range of other bills.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for the update. In previous parliaments, when a members’ day was scheduled on the likely last week of the sitting calendar, there have been provisions made for an extended sitting so that the House doesn’t lose its members’ day. Would the Leader of the House consider such an arrangement this year?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, I always consider the good ideas, so let’s wait and see. We’ve got a few sitting days left in the year and a lot of Government business to get to, but I’m also conscious that members’ business is important, so let’s see how we go.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Brian Webb requesting that the House ensure that jurors fees are adjusted each year to be the same as the adult minimum hourly wage

petition of Brian Webb requesting that the House allow employees to carry over up to 10 days’ sick leave each year to a maximum of 100 days

petition of Brian Webb requesting that the House stop all future sales or transfer of Crown assets.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 11 papers.

CLERK:

2023-24 annual reports of:

Equal Employments Opportunities Trust

Heritage New Zealand

New Zealand Film Commission

New Zealand Lotteries Commission

Sport New Zealand

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

statements of intent for:

New Zealand Film Commission

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

2024-25 statement of performance expectations for:

Heritage New Zealand

New Zealand Film Commission

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Our audit of the Government’s financial statements and our Controller function. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: KiwiSaver (Guardian Consent) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Infrastructure

1. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made on the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Earlier this month, I welcomed the release of the Infrastructure Commission’s discussion document on the National Infrastructure Plan. It gives everyone an opportunity, including Government agencies, local government, private sector, iwi, and NGOs, to have their say on what the plan should include. It’s got four components: an infrastructure needs assessment, a strengthened national infrastructure pipeline, an infrastructure priorities programme, and recommendations for priority system reforms.

Miles Anderson: What is the role of the needs assessment as part of the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the country broadly agrees that we need to do a better job of long-term planning, particularly over the near- and long-term horizon. So the infrastructure needs assessment is about looking at our needs over the next five to 30 years and looking at demand drivers, including population growth, renewals, inflation, resilience, and increasing living standards. The needs analysis will set a benchmark so that we can look at what we have against that need and then what we need to do to close that infrastructure deficit over the long term.

Miles Anderson: How does the infrastructure priorities programme work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re picking up some ideas that have been used overseas, most notably in parts of Australia where independent agencies take a structured, independent assessment of priority problems and projects. I want the independent experts at the commission to give us their best estimates and assessments of what projects are worth doing. Anyone can submit a proposal through the Infrastructure Commission website into the Infrastructure Priorities Programme—the IPP—and then that will go to the Government, and it will be, ultimately, over to the decision makers to make investment decisions. But we need to be well informed by good data and good evidence around that.

Miles Anderson: So what are the next steps for the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The commission’s been running plan workshops around the country with experts, and after the feedback closes on the discussion document towards the end of this next month, the commission will work on drafting a plan. There will be formal public consultation next year. It is something that I would like to see the whole of Parliament get behind and so I’m encouraging all political parties to meet with the Infrastructure Commission to be briefed on the plan. I know some political parties have taken up that opportunity already and I really welcome that and encourage them to do that. And then it is the Government’s intention to hold a debate in Parliament on the plan once it’s presented to the Government later next year.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, with the usual caveats.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: David Seymour, who thinks Treaty principles should be unilaterally rewritten by the Crown; Winston Peters, who thinks they don’t even exist; or Christopher Luxon, who thinks they are “Partnership, protection, and other things”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a case of what I might call “res ipsa loquitur”—the thing speaks for itself.

Hon Member: Shouldn’t that be “on behalf of”?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary. Did Shane Jones—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, just a moment. Just a clarification: this is on behalf of the Prime Minister, is that—just clarifying the Minister’s position.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I’m certain that Prime Minister Luxon understands a bit of Latin, as well.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did Shane Jones push to allow commercial ring-net fishing in the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, overriding conservation Minister Tama Potaka’s push to protect that area, reflect Potaka’s self-described lowly position in the food chain; if not, why was he overruled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the difference between some political parties and ones on this side of the House is that we treat every member as an equal. We don’t think we’re superior. So to describe Minister Potaka that way I think is so unmeritorious of that usually generous member over there. The second thing is: by a process of consultation, they came to a conclusion together.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Casey Costello that “We know we want to deliver. We need some clear, logical conversations about what we’re trying to achieve, which is smoke-free.”; if so, is he concerned that the number of daily smokers has risen by 16,000 people year on year, the first such jump in recent history?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are so pleased that member asked that question. First of all, the results are a retentive survey looking at the trend, rather than year on year. Over the last five years, the Māori smoking rate has halved, while smoking rates are lowest in our young people, signalling a generational shift away from cigarettes. The smoking rate for 18- to 24-year-olds is now down to 4.2 percent, for 15- and 17-year-olds it is down now to less than 1 percent, and daily smoking rates have declined amongst all people. But here’s the point: we’re in the first three in the world, and we got there with legislation—not Labour’s, but designed by New Zealand First. That’s why it’s a five-year survey. Every change that Labour made between 2020 and 2023 was never coming into effect until 2027, so they can take no credit whatsoever. New Zealand First—with Action on Smoking and Health, I might add—can take all the credit.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he expect Winston Peters to engage with Nicola Willis during the next Budget process, or will the foreign affairs Minister defy convention and go over the finance Minister’s head once again?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that’ll be news to Nicola Willis because no one goes over their head, and everyone on this side of the House knows that. The second thing is that when you are presenting policy and plans that are bespoke wisdom, it usually is quite persuasive.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is he considering non - rail-enabled ferries when the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement says they must “facilitate the development and efficiency of ports and strengthen international supply networks.”, and his Deputy Prime Minister has stated “Rail is vital national infrastructure”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, I’m very grateful for that question, because, first of all, it’s based on some experience in rail, where we turned it around between ’17 and ’20, and we saved rail in this country. The second thing is that there’s decision that’s going to be made by this Government before 11 December—

Shanan Halbert: You keep pushing the dates out.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

Shanan Halbert: You keep pushing the dates out.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: How long have you been here? Yeah, it shows—it shows. It was always—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I guess the member asked for that response. I think we’ll go back to the question, thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It was always on 11 December, or before. So we haven’t pushed any date out at all. Wait and you’ll see a plan emerge. There will be some certainty in time; in time, that member will be proud.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What is the point of Shane Jones’ Regional Infrastructure Fund when communities are crumbling due to the collapse of industries, like timber mills and meat works?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that we inherited a seriously failing economy, much worse than many people thought, and a power system that was the most costly in the world. All these things are staggering. I understand what the member’s saying, but what is the purpose of Shane Jones’ mission? It is to do what so many Governments have not done, and that is to invest seriously in the provinces and return us to where the country once was: in the top three in the world. Mr Jones is quite different from a lot of people in this Parliament; he’s an action man. Some talk and some act. Mr Jones is an action man. If you don’t know that, go down to Ōpōtiki, go down to Hawke’s Bay—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Enough noise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —go down to Invercargill. All over this country, they are seeing a revival of action politics from somebody who knows what he’s doing.

Question No. 3—Regional Development

3. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made about regional summits?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): It is best that this answer is heard in silence. I have announced a series of 15 nationwide summits, where the audiences have applauded the fact that, at long last, after three years of absence, a regional development Minister willing to be bold and make allocative decisions has arrived. Over 150 applications for the Regional Infrastructure Fund have been received, and in those regions, work is already taking place on fixing up the neglected flood management systems as a consequence of the Budget allocation of $100 million initially, up possibly to $200 million. That is what the regional summits reflect.

Tanya Unkovich: What can he report regarding last week’s Southland regional summit?

Hon SHANE JONES: Last Thursday, sadly for the dignity of the House, I was absent. We engaged with Ngāi Tahu and the civic leadership of Southland Murihiku. We shared the occasion with Ngāi Tahu, where the many thousands of hectares of aquaculture space, as a consequence of the historic aquaculture settlement, was announced. We also visited a host of developments, and I can say that in Bluff we saw pāua being grown, and it was a day in Murihiku where I celebrated whitebait. Yet, in other parts of the country, white were being baited.

Tanya Unkovich: What did he plan to discuss at the Taranaki regional summit tomorrow?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m looking forward to going to Taranaki, as we have already allocated a $5.8 million grant at historic site Parihaka. But I am also proud we’re going to Taranaki, because I’m going to extol the virtues of ironsand mining. I’m going to remind the audience that vanadium and other minerals are essential for the climate change journey. Unlike other MPs, we’re prepared to make the hard trade-off decisions. I’m also going to share with the Taranaki audience that soon the oil and gas ban, which destroyed the oil and gas industry, by the last Government will pass through Parliament.

Tanya Unkovich: Why does the Minister think it is important to visit the regions and hold these summits?

Hon SHANE JONES: So much of politics is about hope. Underlying these regional summits and the existence of the pūtea—$1.2 billion—is a demonstration on the part of our Government that we are willing to co-invest. We believe in public-private collaborative efforts, and from time to time, there will be, on the rare occasion, projects that do require a modest level of grant funding. But people have to have confidence that solutions that are discovered in the regions won’t be squashed by Wellington advisers or timid politicians, far too many of whom sit on the other side of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not his bruised shoulders have been fixed after the bumping that he’s got from Labour Party members trying to push him aside as he’s announcing regional projects around New Zealand?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not sure about the ministerial responsibility in that question.

Question No. 4—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

4. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: What are the responsibilities and duties of the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): My responsibilities as the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions include: working with the 11 relevant Ministers across 17 areas to ensure that they are aware of the recommendations relevant to their portfolio; chairing the ministerial group that was established to help drive and coordinate the Crown response; and coordinating, at a high level, advice to Cabinet as to the different aspects of our response, how they fit together, and who the responsible Ministers are. The coordination role is not a specific portfolio. I am not responsible for other Minister’s portfolios, their work programmes, or the decisions that they take. Those are matters for them.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she responsible for ensuring the Government’s actions are consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission; and if she is not, then who is?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As the lead coordination Minister, it is my responsibility to draw Ministers’ attention to the recommendations that are relevant to their portfolios. It is then the relevant Minister’s or Cabinet’s responsibility to take those decisions.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she responsible for meeting the royal commission’s recommendation 131, which states that a response to each recommendation should be published within four months of the royal commission’s report being tabled in Parliament on 24 July 2024; and will she meet this recommendation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That is one of the recommendations that has been considered by the group that I lead, and we will report back in time.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does it say about her coordination and the Government’s response when the Government is doing things contrary to the royal commission’s recommendations, like repealing section 7AA and legislating for failed boot camps?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, Cabinet has taken decisions—sorry, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s OK. You focus on your answer. Don’t worry about me.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Ha, ha! Cabinet has taken decisions on these matters, and I stand by their decisions. I direct the member to the Order Paper where the relevant Ministers for the bills are provided.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can survivors have any faith in a Government that has a lead coordination Minister with no responsibility for making sure other Ministers’ actions are consistent with the royal commission’s findings and recommendations?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, they can have confidence because there are a number of things that this Government has undertaken since the report has been tabled. I’d like to draw that member’s attention to one of those, because this Government had the courage to acknowledge that the torture of young people that took place at Lake Alice was, in fact, torture—a finding that was found by the UN under the previous Government’s watch and that they did nothing about.

Question No. 5—Police

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen about Police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): This morning, I saw reports that in Hastings, only three minutes into the insignia ban coming into effect, police took enforcement action against a gang member for displaying gang insignia on the dashboard of his car. I’ve also seen extensive coverage of the recent announcement of Richard Chambers as the incoming Commissioner of Police. Mr Chambers will be an outstanding leader for our police and I look forward to working closely with him to continue to restore law and order.

Catherine Wedd: Has there been any further examples of the patch ban in effect?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Apart from the enforcement action at 2.03 this morning, I’m advised that there has been a high level of compliance with the ban. I’m told that this morning a gang member was arrested in Wairoa for wearing gang insignia to the supermarket and a patched gang member was arrested standing on the street in Papakura. Both patches have been seized.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has he seen from police officers about the new laws?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Feedback from police officers around the country is that they’re happy to have new powers that enhance their ability to police organised criminal groups.

Catherine Wedd: What has the new commissioner said about enforcing the gang patch ban?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The commissioner said that much has been made of Police’s response, but it is important to acknowledge that the gangs have a question to answer: what choices are they going to make? Because if they comply with the new law, then they will not feel the full force of the law.

Question No. 6—Oceans and Fisheries

6. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What advice did he provide to the Minister of Conservation about the decision to allow specific companies to commercially fish in high protection areas?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Yes, well, obviously, I’m not responsible for the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. However, I am a champion of the fishing industry. Consultation, from time to time, does take place between Ministers, but, of course, decisions are made by Cabinet, and those discussions are tapu.

Lan Pham: Did he advise the Minister of Conservation that one of the largest quota owners of kahawai, trevally, and mullet—the stocks targeted with this decision—is Leigh Fisheries, a wholly owned subsidiary of Foodstuffs (NZ), who sells to supermarkets throughout the whole upper North Island?

Hon SHANE JONES: At no time have I shared the name of that company with that Minister.

Lan Pham: What assurances can the Minister give that the fish caught by commercial operators in these high protection areas will actually be sold at affordable prices to communities in South Auckland, as promised by the Minister of Conservation, and not, for example, at Ponsonby New World?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, the price of fish is slightly beyond my grasp. However, as a consequence of quota allocation decisions, not the least of which is a massive expansion of the catchable amount of snapper in New Zealand, I imagine that the value of fish is going to shrink.

Lan Pham: Is he confident that his Cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister, were fully informed in making the decision to allow commercial fishing in the high protection areas despite official advice based on Fisheries New Zealand data clearly stating that the commercial operators could still catch fish in the over 90 percent of the Gulf outside of the high protection areas with “minimal impact on their businesses”?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, these harmless refinements that were introduced at the point of which the Cabinet discussions process was taking place, as you’ve referred to, are like a beauty spot: they are so small. The vast majority of the Tīkapa Moana reserve areas remain as they were originally introduced. But I would say to the member: that piece of proposed legislation was not something that my party campaigned on.

Lan Pham: Does he think it’s fair for community, hapū, and industry to go through more than a decade-long collaborative process to then have the Minister allow late changes by Seafood New Zealand to trump community and the unanimous select committee recommendations that supported the bill?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I’ve said, the vast majority of the Tīkapa Moana protected areas are going to be made available for those who wish to recreate and not see fishing there. Tiny, beauty, star, little infinitesimal points will enable four or five additional fishers to provide kaimoana during the months of winter, and it will be thoroughly appreciated by working-class families in “Strugglers’ Gully” that they will have access to affordable kaimoana.

Lan Pham: What is his message to New Zealanders who love the Gulf and want to see its health and mauri restored when they hear the official advice that allowing the continuation of commercial fishing in their new marine protected areas is “incompatible with the purpose”, will “undermine biodiversity outcomes”, and “create significant equity issues.”?

Hon SHANE JONES: There is too much hyperbole in that rendition of official advice. I couldn’t imagine officials would use such imaginative and wild language.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in arising from that series of questions, does he know that there’s no New World in Ponsonby?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think the Minister actually has responsibility for that question, but if he wishes to answer it—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. She said it in her question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No evidence whatsoever—there’s no New World in Ponsonby—and she got away with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Minister’s free to answer that question if—[Interruption] Quiet! The Minister’s free to answer that question if he wishes to, but there is no ministerial responsibility in that answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, geographical knowledge in that part of Auckland is enjoyed by my leader—something sadly absent from the intellect of the questions offered by the Green Party.

Question No. 7—Police

7. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, “We’ve seen our police officers having to deal with more and more firearms related incidents, and we’ve got to do something about that. And we can’t be a country that just accepts that’s the way it’s going to be”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes, I do, because the previous Government accepted an increase in gang-related violence, and this Government doesn’t.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he concerned that the Police Association has stated publicly that they are aware of patched gang members using shooting ranges, and that police won’t be able to control that or inspect the ranges under the new arms amendment bill; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police will be able to inspect and have access to gun ranges.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he reconcile telling the House on two separate occasions that gang members were not practising on gun ranges when a police email on 9 September 2024 released under the Official Information Act states, “I’ve included images of those gang members shooting .50 calibre in the South Island, one being overseen by a senior NZ pistol shooter.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because at the time the question was asked, that’s the advice that I had.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Ginny Andersen. But I also just want to make the point that while the member is asking questions and making points of order, I’d ask her team behind her to please do that in silence. Point of order.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I just want your guidance. My information is that that information was available before then. Do I do that through a point of order, or continue questioning?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister—just for my benefit, sorry—just repeat that. What was the Minister’s answer? Could you just repeat that for my benefit? Apologies.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was very clear that at the time of the question I hadn’t seen that information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, that was the Minister’s answer.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why was the information that was captured in briefings to him in both May and June in an email from police on September 9 provided to him before he answered the questions in the House on 18 September, 19 September, and again on 7 November; how does he explain not having that information when it was provided to him in briefings on those occasions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: When the member asks me a question in the House, I’ll respond with the information I’ve had at the time. It’s very simple.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he fail to incorporate police advice into Cabinet decisions about the arms amendment bill, despite police intelligence that included images of gang members shooting .50 calibre in the South Island, overseen by a senior New Zealand pistol shooter?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police did provide advice, and I forwarded my recommendations to Cabinet. Cabinet’s made a decision and that’s the end of it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he seriously expect the House to believe that while police disclose they held intelligence of gangs using gun ranges, that he was not made aware of this at the time when his Government was taking decisions to weaken gun club regulations, and what is the point of banning gang patches when he is turning a blind eye to them practising their shooting skills on gun ranges?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: We’re banning gang patches because for a gang member to have a gang patch, they have to have shown they have a propensity to commit violent crime. So there is a trail of tears and victims sitting behind each one of those gang patches. They’re designed to intimidate the communities that they operate in, and that’s why we ban them.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I seek leave to table a document that demonstrates the Minister of Police received advice from officials, and police were aware of gangs using gun ranges before he answered questions in this House on 18 and 19 September, and again on 7 November.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Question No. 8—Biosecurity

8. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made about preparing for avian influenza?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): The H5N1 strain of avian influenza, or bird flu, has been spreading around the world since 2020. Although we’ve never had a case and our isolation has protected us so far, we won’t be able to rely on that for ever. This particular strain is well adapted to spread into wildlife. The primary risk for New Zealand is from migrating birds; they come from other parts of the world. It is not feasible to protect our border against incursion through this pathway, so we must be prepared. Last week, Minister Potaka and I announced the start of an awareness campaign that encourages New Zealanders to take steps to be ready for bird flu. We are focusing on the thousands of New Zealanders that are owners of backyard chickens and pet birds, as well as lifestyle-block owners and poultry farms.

Mark Cameron: What can poultry farmers do to prepare for avian influenza?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The best way to keep chickens safe is to take steps to reduce the risk of contact with infected birds or contaminated material. Work on that should start now before we get the bird flu in New Zealand. Poultry farmers should be taking steps to enhance on-farm biosecurity such as investing in secure enclosures to keep birds away from wildlife and from open waterways where wild birds tend to gather. Good on-farm biosecurity and animal husbandry practices like good maintenance, security of feed and water supplies, staff hygiene, and wild bird control have the potential to make a big difference in avoiding infection and limiting spread. The message is simple: don’t wait. Make the effort now and it will pay off if we have to respond to a bird flu incursion.

Mark Cameron: How is the Government supporting the poultry industry to prepare for an incursion?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Early detection is the key here. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is working closely with New Zealand’s wildlife hospitals, poultry industry groups, and vets to raise awareness and get people to look for the signs of bird flu. We are carrying out a nationwide surveillance of birds in New Zealand for exotic diseases and working with Fish & Game to conduct annual summer field surveillance programmes. So far this year, we have tested 30 different species of birds. Testing kits have also been provided to people in Antarctica to use when they spot deaths that look like bird flu. To make sure we’re ready when it does arrive, MPI is also working in partnership with the poultry industry on business continuity and resilience planning.

Mark Cameron: How will avian influenza impact New Zealand’s native birds?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The potential impact on New Zealand’s native species is uncertain, but certainly around the world we have seen serious impacts on wild birds, especially those that live closely together in large colonies. The Department of Conservation is undertaking vaccination trials on a targeted number of endangered birds in captivity and is asking the public to keep an eye out so we can detect bird flu early. In particular, we are asking the public to report any time you’re outdoors and see several sick or dead birds in a group.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 5 on 20 November?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What public transport options, if any, are there for kids in rural communities who have had their school bus routes cancelled?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If eligible students are in fact eligible, they will be provided Ministry of Transport assistance. That may be in the form of a bus; it may be in the form of a conveyancing allowance.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her statement, “we pay families a conveyancing allowance to help them get their children to school.”; if so, does she really think this allowance is sufficient for the costs parents face where the routes have been cancelled?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would note that the amount of conveyancing allowance hasn’t changed since the previous Government, so that member should know.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her statement, “I would say to that mother and all parents across the motu that these decisions are operational.”, and, if so, why is she refusing to take responsibility for school bus routes closing under her watch?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I do stand by my statement.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why is she allowing the cancellation of school bus routes when it means parents have no safe option to get their kids to school, given her claims that she is focused on improving attendance?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said, this is an operational matter for the Ministry of Education. I would also like to point out that in 2023, under that member’s Government, 29 routes were cancelled. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Calm down! Calm down—you have expressed what you’re thinking. Quiet, please.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcement has the Government recently made about combatting scams?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): To launch Fraud Awareness Week, we announced that the coalition Government will be taking a much more coordinated approach to tackling online financial scams, which cause so much distress to Kiwis. Scams are a huge problem for New Zealand—reported losses are about $200 million a year, but the estimated cost is well in excess of $1 billion. To put this issue in perspective, worldwide it is estimated that cyber-crime is the third-largest economy, after the US and China. I’ve been appointed as the lead Minister to tackle this problem.

Dan Bidois: What measures will the Minister be taking to combat scams?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: My plan includes three key components: first, better information sharing across Government and its agencies; second, work with telcos, social media platform providers, and banks to develop industry-led solutions; and, third, engage with ministerial counterparts in Australia and Singapore to look at regional solutions.

Dan Bidois: Why is a lead Minister needed?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Great question. [Interruption] Thank you. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let’s listen to the answer.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The fast-evolving nature of digital technology means that scam detection, prevention, and response has largely fallen between the cracks. The focus to date has been on closing down individual scams rather than developing systemic solutions. Further, consumers do not have a good understanding of who they should go to when they’ve been scammed. You should go to netsafe.org.nz if you are unfortunately in this position.

Dan Bidois: What other work is the Minister doing to tackle scams?

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, what a great question!

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Lots. I’ve been explicit with the banks—this is for Mr Willie Jackson. I have been explicit with the banks that they must improve their customer safety. Banks have agreed to implement confirmation of payee, which will be in place by Easter next year, and I’m working with them on a compensation scheme for scam victims. I’m also about to apply similar pressure to telcos and social media platform providers. Tackling online financial scams is part of our plan to rebuild the economy and crack down on crime by supporting Kiwis to safely transact and to do business.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I didn’t want to interrupt that member’s question, but I’m informed that the Hon Erica Stanford, when she resumed her seat, made a quite unparliamentary remark about the member questioning her, and it’s probably appropriate for her to withdraw that comment and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I didn’t hear the comments, so did the member actually make a comment?

Hon Erica Stanford: I withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 11. [Interruption] We’ll have quiet now, please, for a question in the name of Ingrid Leary.

Question No. 11—Seniors

11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Seniors: Does she stand by her commitment to “improving the lives of older New Zealanders”; if so, why?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): Yes. The Government is committing to improve the lives of all New Zealanders through rebuilding the economy, easing the cost of living, restoring law and order, and delivering better public services. These priorities have tangible impacts on the lives of older New Zealanders, and I am committed to delivering on them.

Ingrid Leary: What actions did she take, if any, when the Associate Minister of Housing, Tama Potaka, advised officials in May to progress the long-overdue Retirement Villages Act review that she’d committed to with him, with a “lighter touch”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have engaged strongly with the Retirement Villages Association and the Retirement Villages Residents Association to ensure we achieve positive outcomes. There is a tough issue to deal with, and we have found common ground. So there is work to be done in this space. I’m confident we’ll achieve a positive resolution, and I am meeting with both of the organisations in the next week.

Ingrid Leary: How does she think the time line for actual change for residents of 2029 at the earliest improves the lives of seniors?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think we can agree that legislation is not always the answer to every problem. There is common ground with both parties, and we are working to achieve those positive outcomes without the need for the legislative process. There is opportunity and definitely appetite for the groups to come together and achieve those resolutions.

Ingrid Leary: What does she say to residents who continue to struggle to pay for rest home care while waiting for the licence to occupy to sell their retirement village unit because of unfair rules?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will continue to—and do—meet with the residents’ association to identify those key issues, and when that occurs, I will of course enter into engagement. I am encouraged by the Retirement Villages Association’s commitment to addressing these issues, and, on average, the sale of those occupancy rights has been within the nine-month period.

Ingrid Leary: Why has she allowed the retirement villages review to be kicked into the next parliamentary term when many of those who need it will not live long enough to benefit from the protections?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I have said, there is very good common ground. A lot of the initiatives that we’re hoping will be achieved under this legislation are under way or in action. There is common ground, and I appreciate that there are discussions continuing, and that is why I’m continuing to meet with those groups and addressing those practical issues to get the job done.

Question No. 12—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

12. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: Does she stand by her statement that the Government will ensure the Crown response to the royal commission’s report is “well considered, coherent, and comprehensive”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Yes—the context of which was part of a joint press release on 26 June with the Minister of Internal Affairs when the Governor-General received the final report from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. The full statement is: “Once Ministers have the opportunity to consider the royal commission’s final report and recommendations, we will take the time needed to ensure that the Crown response is well considered, coherent, and comprehensive.”

Kahurangi Carter: Has the Minister raised concerns that the Government’s “coherent” response may be undermined by repealing section 7AA, in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care, specifically recommendations 39, 79, 80, 115, 117, 118, 125, 126, and 127?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve said earlier, as the lead coordination Minister, it is my responsibility to draw Ministers’ attention to those recommendations that are relevant to their portfolio. It is then the Ministers’ or Cabinet’s responsibility to take those decisions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to have quiet while the member is asking this question, because there was a lot of talking during the last question that she asked. Thank you.

Kahurangi Carter: Can she reassure the House that the repealing of section 7AA does not contradict any royal commission of inquiry recommendations?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve outlined many times, if the member wants an answer to that question, she will need to direct it to the Minister responsible.

Kahurangi Carter: Has the Minister raised concerns that the military-style boot camps and the youth serious offender category contradicts key recommendations, such as 14, 16, 27, 28, 71, 73, 79, 80, and 125 of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve said a number of times, it is my responsibility to draw Ministers’ attention to those recommendations, and it is then the relevant Ministers’ or Cabinet’s responsibility to take those decisions.

Kahurangi Carter: What concerns has the Minister raised with the 11 Ministers in the response group to the royal commission of inquiry about recommendations being ignored?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve asked all of the relevant Ministers to write to me with the relevant recommendations that pertain to their portfolios and have asked them to ensure that their work programme reflects those recommendations.

Kahurangi Carter: What is the point of having her in this role when her colleagues keep introducing legislation that directly contradicts the royal commission of inquiry recommendations?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to say, before the Minister answers this question, that the Minister did not appoint herself to this role, so inasmuch as the Minister has responsibility for this question, the Minister is able to answer.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll say it again: it is my responsibility to draw the relevant Ministers’ attention to those recommendations that are relevant to their portfolio. I am not responsible for their work programmes.

Appointments

Deputy Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That under section 164 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of Mr Graeme Ian Speden as the Deputy Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for a further term of three years, commencing on 1 December 2024.

Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION Commission

Membership

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That this House nominate the appointment of the following members to the Representation Commission:

under section 28(2)(e) of the Electoral Act 1993, the Hon Roger Morrison Sowry ONZM of Paraparaumu to represent the Government, and the Hon Andrew James Little of Wellington to represent the Opposition; and

under section 28(3)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, for the purposes of determining the boundaries of the Māori electoral districts, Dr Steven Wayne Elers of Palmerston North to represent the Government, and Professor Meihana Kakatarau Durie of Palmerston North to represent the Opposition.

The Representation Commission is the body charged under the Electoral Act 1993—the Act—with determining the number of electoral districts in New Zealand and fixing their boundaries. Section 28(2)(e) of the Act provides that two persons shall be appointed as members of the commission for the purpose of determining the boundaries of the general electorate districts; one of those members being nominated to represent the Government and one to represent the Opposition.

Section 28(3)(b) of the Act provides that “For the purposes of determining the boundaries of the Maori electoral districts … 2 persons”—again—“shall be appointed … as members of the Commission,”—again—“1 of those members being nominated to represent the Government and 1 to represent the Opposition.” Appointments to the Representation Commission are made by the Governor-General by Order in Council on the nomination of this House of Representatives.

Mr Sowry has been a member of the Representation Commission since 2006. He has worked as a consultant with Saunders Unsworth since 2008, after a 15-year career in Parliament and 2½ years as chief executive of Arthritis New Zealand. As a member of Parliament, he held responsibilities that included Associate Minister for Health 1997-98, Minister of Social Welfare 1996-99, and National Party health spokesperson 2001-03. He currently chairs Whakarongorau Aotearoa—formerly known as Homecare Medical—and is the deputy chair of HealthCare New Zealand. He is a former member of the Electricity Authority and of the Electricity Commission.

I also add that Mr Little has an extensive background in law and public service. He joined the legal consultancy Gibson Sheat Lawyers in March 2024. He was leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition from 2014 to 2017, and a senior member and Minister in the Labour Governments from 2017 to 2023, including as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Minister of Justice, Minister of Defence, and Minister of Health. His political career had followed a career in unionism, which included 11 years as the national secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union—EPMU—New Zealand’s largest union.

Dr Steven Elers is an ordained Anglican minister and was a senior lecturer in the School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing at Massey University from 2015 to 2024. He lectured at Auckland University of Technology—AUT University—from 2013 to 2015, and his early career was as a police officer in Australia. He writes a weekly column for Stuff on social and cultural issues.

Finally, but by no means least, Professor Durie is Deputy Vice-Chancellor Māori at Massey University and is an educator, academic, film maker, and a contributing scholar to the recently released book Ngā Kete Mātauranga—Māori Scholars at the Research Interface. Before he took up his post at Massey University, Professor Durie was kaihautū and academic director at Te Wānanga o Raukawa in Ōtaki. He was also instrumental in establishing Ngā Purapura—the hauora centre—and the Bachelor of Māori Health Promotion Programme.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. There’s not a lot to add now that the Hon Chris Penk has run through the extensive CVs of these appointees. They do have a challenging task ahead of them, and I really just want to recognise the work that’s ahead of them.

Many of us MPs obviously take a very good interest in what’s going on. Electoral boundaries are important, but, at the same time, it is important that there’s a fair degree of distance between those who are directly affected by it and those who make those decisions. Obviously, many of us here will have views and feed that in one way or another to this process, but we absolutely support these appointments. We think there’s a high degree of competence and, also, the right approach of the public service by these appointees, notwithstanding the political backgrounds that exist there as well.

I won’t prolong the debate. We’ve got other important work to get on with as well. I wish them well and obviously it’s an important part of the electoral process. Kia ora.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā anō tātou katoa. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to endorse and support the appointment of these representatives of the Government and the Opposition today. To be fair, it’s an exciting time for us. Let’s review our boundaries, let’s review the names, and let’s have a look at the census data and tell us where we are. Being Māori is pretty cool—we’re nearly 1 million people—so let’s take a look under the hood. May I also comment that I note there’s no wāhine being appointed—just pause on that—but the credentials of those who have been appointed are great. Te Papaioea, the tribes of Palmerston North, have two great sons who will be there on behalf of te iwi Māori to consider these things which are so important for us.

Now, as an education opportunity for those that might be watching, in terms of what the commission represents: the chance for us to look at our boundaries, the chance for us to look at our populations, and to make sure that we’re currently looking like and feeling like New Zealand, is awesome. Every five years or so, we have census come out and it tells us what New Zealand looks like now, but also they get to look at what New Zealand will look like in the next five years. As a part of this process, I celebrate the opportunity for us to look now and into the future at what our electoral boundaries might look like for te iwi Māori—those Māori electorates—but also across our communities, because those who are elected to this House don’t just represent those who are registered to vote but it’s the entire community. On behalf of the Green Party, we endorse and tautoko. Kia ora.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 19 November.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you very, very much. This is a relatively simple bill, so I don’t propose to speak too long on it, and I think it’s really important that it’s recognised that it’s going in tandem with the other work that the Minister is doing in this space. There is a real risk that we defer making tough decisions almost indefinitely and we focus on the real hardships that bringing buildings to a safe standard impose on homeowners and others. At the same time, the risk may be small, but it is far from zero that a very significant earthquake or other seismic event could hit, and the first and most primary job of any building is to keep its occupants safe.

I think we need to face up very clearly to the fact that if, whilst we are sorting things out and helping people make arrangements to make their buildings safe and reviewing the rules around the Building Code, there is a very significant event, there will be catastrophic consequences to pay. I would say to those people who are in buildings which have had their deadlines extended: don’t see the deadline as a target. Absolutely take what steps you can, within the means that you can get together, to make your buildings safe because, by bitter experience, we know that buildings do fall over and bits of them come off and the consequences are tragic and fatal.

Labour had a programme in place and was supporting homeowners, particularly apartment building owners, who faced these issues, helping them financially by a concessionary loan arrangement. That was working; that had some uptake. This Government has taken a different approach. We do want to get the earthquake building standards right, and I accept there’s room for that. That’s why we’re supporting this bill, but, for myself, I do so with a really sincere hope that this delay doesn’t cost us more than time. Kia ora.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it was a really valuable opportunity for us to listen—

Hon Chris Penk: It must be the hardest-working committee.

TOM RUTHERFORD: It is one of the hardest-working select committees, without a doubt. It was a really good opportunity for us to listen to the submissions that were given to the select committee at the time when we were out for consultation on the bill. We did make two changes at the select committee, which the Minister in charge accepted, to the piece of legislation.

There are a couple of reasons why this legislation is really important. It is valuable to have the support from across the House, as well. The current earthquake-prone building system was put in place in 2017 and required buildings that are earthquake-prone to be fixed or remediated before set dates, with nearly 500 deadlines setting to expire in the next four years—500 buildings set to expire within the next four years. The biggest worry about that: number one always has to be the safety component—has to be the safety component. Secondly, think about the major impact that having 500 buildings around New Zealand would have on our local economy. Think about the significant amount of buildings that would just be simply sitting empty, and the devastating impact they would have on places, particularly like Wellington and other provincial towns. My colleague James Meager says, “Plenty in Timaru”. Think about other regional towns that would have similar situations and the devastating impact that having those buildings empty would have.

Also, the feedback that we received from many councils and other building owners told us that many of their buildings won’t meet their deadlines due to the high costs that are particularly involved with getting them up to standard, further complicated by the heritage rules and complicated ownership structures.

This legislation, led by the Minister with other work taking place alongside it at the same time, really comes to a vital piece in the cog. It’s fantastic work by the Minister. He’s done a great job. It’s been great to listen to the really well-written and presented feedback to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call the Hon Phil Twyford.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too will keep my call short on this. I just wanted to make a couple of points. The first is that, for those members of the public who might be watching or listening to this debate, who despair sometimes at the partisan argument that is such a feature of political life in this Parliament, the process and the collaborative work on this bill and the work that has been done at select committee, the engagement by parties across the House, I think is a refreshing case study in the way that colleagues in the House here can from time to time come together and work in a very collegial way.

I think it’s fair to say that, going back to the Christchurch quakes and the aftermath there, this problem has spanned now three different Governments and the best part of a decade, and the Parliament hasn’t really covered itself in glory in dealing effectively and decisively with the problem at hand, about how to transition the building stock in a regulatory regime that gets us to a place of safety without inflicting unnecessary economic and personal damage on the owners of those buildings, or the people who use those buildings, putting them at an unacceptable risk. There have been a number of cracks at it and, as my colleague Arena Williams outlined in her contribution early in this debate, on the question of supporting building owners to meet the new earthquake standards, Labour had a scheme in place that provided concessionary loan finance up to $250,000. We are not dying in the ditch to protect that policy. Having taken feedback from the sector and from building owners, Labour colleagues on the committee have taken an open-minded approach to how we can improve the regulatory framework and come up with something better and something that works.

I would also note that it’s great to read and to hear that the question—the very vexed question—of liability in the building regulatory system, which has been around the tracks a couple of times over the last decade, is on the agenda for the review that the Minister for Building and Construction has undertaken within the four-year extended deadline that is included in this bill. Personally, I welcome that. The problems around the liability system in our building control system in New Zealand have been such a problem for so long. They have created so much hardship for homeowners and building owners and, actually, I think inflicted quite a lot of economic damage on our system. There has to be a better way, and I’m really glad to hear that the issue around joint and several liability will be considered as part of this review, and I thank the Minister for taking that on board. I’ll leave it there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to take the second half of this split call on this important amendment bill, the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

The current earthquake-prone buildings system aims to reduce the safety risk to life and limb by requiring New Zealand’s most vulnerable buildings during a moderate earthquake to be remediated to a safe level within set time frames, and the Government has been told, as a former speaker just said, that about 150 buildings have already missed their deadlines, with approximately another 500 buildings soon to be hitting their deadlines. These non-compliances by building owners necessitate what territorial authorities describe as potentially substantial enforcement burden being placed on them.

What is intended by the enactment of this bill? This bill’s key purpose is to extend the remediation time frames by four years, with a limited power to extend the deadlines by a further two years by Order in Council. The reason is clear: there are many buildings, the length of New Zealand, that would not meet the current deadlines, and they would simply be sitting there empty, much to the disappointment of tenants, of communities, and, indeed, of councils, who all want vibrant-looking towns and cities, not derelict ones portrayed by the sight of empty shops and buildings.

Both councils and building owners have told the Government that there are challenges with the current regime. Some examples given were, as has been expressed earlier, the high costs involved in the remediations that are required. The difficulty that heritage orders place on building alternations, and even sometimes the ownership structures, can also add to the complexity. The extension provided by this bill’s enactment will provide clarity and certainty as to the statutory obligations of building owners and territorial authorities while a review takes place.

The review will cover the management of seismic risk in existing buildings and any subsequent legislative amendments to provide a more practical and acceptable outcome for all. This bill is a pragmatic approach to the current and looming situation, and I commend the bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak this afternoon on the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It has been a concern of mine—and of Labour, of course—the challenges that many vulnerable people and property owners face, which I guess the Minister for Building and Construction, who—I appreciate the work that he’s done on this bill. It is minor, so I don’t intend to speak on this bill for too long today, but it does affect the 808 earthquake-prone buildings that were registered in Wellington on the earthquake-prone buildings register as of 30 April 2024. It is particularly a concern for us, an issue that is live and something that any Government has to work on.

I know that Arena Williams, Labour’s spokesperson in this area, did have some concerns in the first reading. I appreciate the work that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did on this piece of work, and I know that feedback from community owners and, particularly, councils were taken on board. Without further ado, I do offer Labour’s support in the second reading of this bill.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to thank the Minister for bringing some pragmatic legislation to the House that is going to have a big impact on a lot of the small communities, particularly in the Waitaki. Towns like Waimate, Fairlie, and Oamaru are struggling with how are they going to deal with the earthquake regulations in these buildings that are really hard to generate income to pay for it. The community I’ve been talking to are very ecstatic that these changes are being made to give them a bit of time to plan for the future.

I guess the smaller communities are the ones that are impacted the most because those buildings are the ones that have less ability to generate the income. Because they have less ability to generate the income, I guess, a lot of these buildings are falling into disrepair, and because they’re falling into disrepair—well, there’s also the added complication that a lot of these have been listed as heritage buildings and it’s really put those building owners in a difficult position. Thanks to the Minister and, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I move, That the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

In recent years, we have seen an unacceptable spike in youth offending. For a small group of young people, our current responses are not working. There is a clear gap in the youth justice system, and the system does not have the tools to respond adequately. For this small group we need to do more, and this bill closes that gap.

This bill makes fundamental changes to offer a faster, stronger, and more targeted response to young people who repeatedly commit the most serious offences. It is my view that this might be our last chance to try and prevent these young people from entering the adult jurisdiction and becoming persistent adult offenders. I want to do everything we can to break that cycle of offending. The bill introduces a young serious offender declaration and a military-style academy (MSA) order. These changes are going to drive a more immediate, intense, and long-lasting intervention.

I wanted to start by sharing the experience from the military academy pilot, which lays the foundations for this legislation. This year, we had 11 young people begin the 12-month military-style academy pilot, with one young person deciding not to take up the opportunity. Each one of them was showing persistent and serious offending behaviours and was in a cycle of going through the youth courts, spending time in youth justice facilities, and then reoffending and ending up back in youth justice facilities. They were causing harm to our communities and everyday New Zealanders who became victims to their offences.

The pilot was the beginning of an acknowledgment that I wanted to do more and do better to respond to our most serious young offenders. Oranga Tamariki has taken a new approach to youth justice that is tougher on crime but also puts the needs of the young people at the very heart of this programme. For three months, the young people were in Te Au rere a te Tonga, where they learnt new life skills, took part in training, followed a routine, learnt teamwork, and looked for a better future. Several of the boys left the residence with jobs already lined up. Each one has a mentor who is working with them for 30 hours face to face every week, and there is intensive, tailored support for each young person while they reintegrate into the community and put the new skills they have learnt to use.

I’ve seen firsthand the success of the residential stage of the military-style academy pilot. These young people engaged in three months of the programme without incident and without any safety concerns. To me, this is phenomenal. The clinical team observed improvements in their behaviour, and some of them have made progress towards building healthier relationships with their whānau. They’ve been encouraged to set goals for themselves and work towards these, but this hard work is only just beginning, and I want to ensure that every one of these young people is given the chance to be the best that they can be.

That is why today I’m proud to introduce legislation that builds on the success of the pilot and will be a key to achieving the Government’s target of reducing child and youth offending. The bill creates a young serious offender declaration, which will unlock stronger powers for both the Youth Court and New Zealand Police. A young person will be eligible for a young serious offender (YSO) declaration if they are 14 to 17 years old at the time of offending, have committed at least two serious offences, and are likely to go on offending, committing crimes with a sentence of 10 years or more. This is targeted exclusively at young people who have had previous interventions that were unsuccessful.

Before a young person can be declared a YSO, police will first have to inform a family group conference (FGC) that they are likely to meet the criteria for a YSO. The FGC will then have an important opportunity to consider the best response to that young person’s offending and make recommendations to the Youth Court. The YSO declaration will be made at a judge’s discretion and, in making any YSO declaration, the judge will consider a range of factors including the young person’s history, their social circumstances, and the views of the victim.

Once a YSO declaration is made, it will last two years, allowing experts to invest in and get alongside these young people over a longer period of time. After a declaration is made, the Youth Court will have a range of new powers available to it, including the ability to make a military-style academy order, longer Youth Court orders, and to increase the use of electronic monitoring.

Crucially, for every young person declared to be a YSO, it will also trigger a far more intense operational response. Oranga Tamariki will offer wraparound support, including intensive case management and more support from social workers. They will increase work with the young person’s family, offer targeted rehabilitation, and focus every effort on their transition to ensure that every young person is entering a positive environment and given the opportunity to turn their lives around.

The bill also provides new police powers to ensure that when a young person is reoffending, we can respond far quicker, before that offending escalates. The bill also creates a military-style academy order where young people will be based in a youth justice residence between three and 12 months. During that time, they will take part in a bespoke curriculum with daily activities to support their learning, their health, and their wellbeing. It will include military-style activities, and the young people will be part of a group where they progress together throughout the duration of the programme. This is about having consequences for the actions but rehabilitation at the other end.

The MSA order will now be the most restrictive Youth Court sentence available. However, it is underpinned by an intensive case management for each young person. Following the residential component, the young person will be put on a supervision order, which focuses on their transition back to the community. Family and whānau are critical partners and will be engaged for the full duration of the programme, where appropriate.

I want to bring to attention the important matter of the use of force which will be enabled in this legislation. Use of force is already available to Oranga Tamariki staff working in a Youth Justice residence. There are safeguards in place for this, which include strict policies and training for staff, along with reporting and escalation processes. In this bill, it is proposed that qualifying community providers would also have use of force powers. This is to ensure that providers and their staff, whether Oranga Tamariki or another agency or provider, will have the power to use force in the form of physical restraints or physical holds no greater than reasonably necessary to prevent a young person from being harmed, harming themselves, or harming another person. That also prevents a young person from absconding from a residential location or while outside the residential location for other activities or while at another location used as part of an MSA, from time to time.

The intention of these powers is to keep young people safe, keep the people working with them safe, and keep our communities safe. If we’re going to devolve back to community and back to iwi, we need to be able to give them the same powers as Oranga Tamariki so that in the future, they may be able to run these programmes themselves. These powers will have carefully considered safeguards enabled by secondary legislation.

There are existing legislative provisions which provide for restricted use of force powers in order to keep children and young people safe in the community. For example, under the Education and Training Act, which applies to all schools or authorised staff members in teaching positions at registered schools, they are able to physically restrain a student where certain conditions are met, and this will be the same.

This bill is an important step as we get to the root of serious and persistent youth offending. It signals a change in direction that the Government is taking to provide stronger, faster, and tougher responses to young people who continually offend. We want every young person who will be part of this programme to take up every opportunity that is offered to them. Ultimately, what they do with these opportunities will be in their hands.

I wish to acknowledge the work of my colleagues—the Minister of Justice, the Hon Paul Goldsmith; and the Minister of Police, the Hon Mark Mitchell—who have worked closely with me to help me deliver this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was the Minister for Children—the Minister for Children. One week after the Prime Minister delivered an apology to survivors of abuse in State care, the Minister for Children is introducing legislation to respond to serious youth offending that is tougher, more punitive, lacks evidence, goes against the advice of her officials, goes against the recommendations of the royal commission, has no evidence to support that this approach works, and has all the evidence for her for the approaches that do work and is completely ignoring it.

Shanan Halbert: Just cares about the politics.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right. This bill is taking us backwards. This bill is seriously dangerous for our young people.

This pilot hasn’t even finished yet and the Minister is introducing this law today to entrench boot camps. The pilot was a 12-month pilot. We’ve only finished three months of in-residence. It hasn’t even been evaluated. You haven’t been able to take the lessons or learnings from it and include it into the approach. That is because this Government never cared about whether it worked or not.

Hon Chris Bishop: What did you lot do?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The things that you’re extending in here around Circuit Breaker and Fast Track were the things that Labour was doing and that the evidence showed is working, and yet you will carry on doing things that the evidence shows does not work, against officials’ advice, against—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the member carries on, please don’t use the word “you” in your debate.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I am trying very hard not to do that as they heckle me and I am responding to them, but I will try to refrain from bringing the Speaker into the debate.

It goes against officials’ advice, goes against the Children’s Commissioner’s advice, goes against things that the Chief Judge of the Youth Court is saying works and is needed. This Government doesn’t want to listen to any evidence. Officials said “lack of evidence underpinning the military style component … Not able to consider non-legislative responses.” The directive from this Government was: “We want enhanced legislative provisions.” There has been a lack of consultation and they know that this will disproportionately impact on rangatahi Māori. They are extending the use of force—wait for it—to third-party providers. And they have not even put in the safeguards in this legislation—it is an afterthought. It’s going to be probably done—possibly done; who knows?—in secondary legislation.

Have they learnt nothing from the royal commission, where it said that these are the very types of circumstances that give a rise to abuse being able to happen in State care? Rushing it through, not putting safeguards in place—this is unbelievable.

You’re giving police greater powers to allow them to designate somebody a serious young offender—children—and arrest those deemed serious young offenders without a warrant and sentence them to your boot camp experiment. Now, watch this: it is increasing—first it was three months, but now it’s three to 12 months—the in-residence component. We didn’t hear the Minister speak to that. Allowing contractors the use of force, not having the appropriate safeguards in place, leaving it as an afterthought. How can we trust that this Government is going to do the right thing by these young people when we cannot see any evidence of that so far? We do not commend this bill to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I begin this kōrero with the words of Dame Whina Cooper: “Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear. Take care of what they see. Take care of what they feel.”

The punitive approaches we see today reflect a double standard where some hold a set of hopes and aspirations for their own children, but a vastly different one for others. The Government, particularly the Minister for Children, are failing our tamariki. They claim to protect our young people, yet their policies disconnect them from their communities, expose them to harm, and set them on a path to failure. These so-called new boot camps are nothing more than a rehash of past failures—untrained staff, no meaningful oversight, and isolated settings. These were the very conditions that allowed abuse to flourish in the 1970s, leading to the failures of the John Key Government’s boot camps. Have we learnt nothing? Take care of what our children hear. Right now, they’re hearing politicians agreeing to the use of force in care.

Too much of this conversation has been focused around the tough-on-crime narrative—the offending of these rangatahi. Why are we willing to accept a double standard in how we treat these tamariki, accepting things for them that we would never accept for our own children? Let’s shift our focus. Let us not look at their actions but at the soil in which they’ve been planted. Let us understand the environment in which they have grown from and understand to guide the response we offer. Take care of what our children see.

On behalf of the Green Party, I stand here to oppose this bill in the strongest terms. It is time to end the harmful boot camp experiment and put the rights, safety, and wellbeing of tamariki first. Let’s take a moment to consider the age of these rangatahi, from 14 years old. These are children who have endured the worst that New Zealand has to offer. For many of them, no one cared what they saw, no one cared what they felt, and it’s time for us, as elected officials and leaders, to deeply care about these tamariki and put their lives on a trajectory of being able to be the best they can be. An Oranga Tamariki briefing paints a stark picture of the background of these tamariki: 80 percent have a confirmed or suspected mental health - or disability-related diagnosis—80 percent; 20 percent have attempted suicide; 90 percent face significant learning difficulties. Half of the boys and a quarter of the girls have been physically harmed more than three times in the past year, and the overwhelming majority have grown up in poverty.

How does this Government respond? It ignores expert evidence, dismisses official advice, and undermines what we know works. These boot camps will re-traumatise our rangatahi for generations to come. These boot camps are not our future. We know that there are community organisations focused on prevention that are already working. I want to shout out to Ngāpuhi Iwi Social Services, specifically for their Mahuru programme. Mahuru isn’t just another intervention; it’s a vision grounded in the importance of identity and connection. Through Mahuru, tamariki remain in their Whare Tapu o Ngāpuhi, where they can reconnect with their culture and heritage and learn about their identity in a supportive and familiar environment. Mahuru represents an opportunity for something different.

It is time for a shift. We need to focus on what works. We need to care about what our children see, what our children hear, and what our children feel.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak on the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill at its first reading. The youth justice system is working for most children and young people with offending behaviour, but not all. There is a small cohort of young people who are committing most of the serious and persistent offending and continue to offend despite interventions, and I can speak to this having been a youth advocate in the courts, having been a defence lawyer in courts across New Zealand, worked in prisons across New Zealand, worked as a mental health advocate across New Zealand. There are some who continue to come back time and time and time again to the courts. Those interventions aren’t working, and something different needs to be done.

This bill is to do something different. This bill will establish a young serious offender (YSO) declaration and a new military-style academy order in the Oranga Tamariki Act. The YSO declaration, the young serious offender declaration, seeks to increase public safety and accountability for offending and reoffending. That accountability is important, as is the public safety component, which is important.

There are, unfortunately, some young people—and not just young people—in this country who commit some very serious violent offending, the most serious violent offending, in some cases, if their offending is not arrested early enough. I have also seen this both professionally and personally, and there are some—and I heard some comments around the use of force. The use of force is the use of restraint for those who will commit violent offences, potentially, against themselves or against others who they are in a facility with or against staff who they are in a facility with. There is a necessity for restraint of those who would use force, to prevent them from using that force. That is the sole reason those rules will be in place.

The other thing that this bill will do is it aims to achieve a “reduction in [the] seriousness and frequency of offending through access to a timely and enhanced rehabilitative service response.” I’ll say that again: a timely and enhanced rehabilitative service response, which, as the Minister for Children said in her speech, will put the needs of young people at the heart of the programme. It will put the needs of the young person at the heart of the programme. It will have an intensive care management for each young person, recognising that there is a unique component of factors which have led them to the position they’re in.

I’ve heard concerns around its being a military-style academy. I can speak also from personal experience, having been an army reservist: the army isn’t what it used to be. The army is not the place of physical discipline, of overtly aggressive behaviour, and bullying, etc. That is not the modern New Zealand Army. I spent time in Waiōuru, in my initial training, and I came there as someone who thought of myself as an independent thinker. I wasn’t sure how I’d handle that disciplined environment. I can say it is fantastic. There’s the opportunity for three square meals a day, which is something many of these young people will not have experienced; there’s the opportunity to form teams with the people that you are with; and there’s the opportunity to learn about what one is capable of, to learn things that one did not know, capabilities that one did not have.

It takes time to change behaviour. It doesn’t happen in a few weeks, doesn’t even happen in a couple of months. I know this having had many, many, many clients across New Zealand who have had a desire to change, who have had a real desire to change themselves, address the often, you know, acute trauma that sits within them, but they have struggled in rehabilitation programmes to stay focused and to address them, because it is hard, hard work to address the demons, so to speak, that sit within people’s souls that they need to address from their past. It takes time, and this programme will give them that time. It will help give them the interventions, give them that rehabilitation, and help them find that sense of purpose that’ll empower them to live lives that will be good for them and be good for our community. I commend this bill to the House.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First have always consistently championed policies that prioritise public safety, but also with a balance of ensuring that victims are heard and the offenders have the opportunity to rehabilitate, and that is one of the reasons that we are in support of this bill. We see that there is a balance in ensuring that people are held accountable for crimes, but also that victims are heard and those who are committing the crimes have the opportunity to turn their lives around. We feel satisfied that the policies and actions and strategies that are mentioned in this bill will actually do that and enable someone to take the time to make a decision to turn their life around.

Now, we feel that it’s important to protect our communities—to protect our offenders, as well, and, like I said, give them the ability to rehabilitate and then reintegrate back into society. We feel that the time taken here in some of these strategies will give them that opportunity. New Zealand First supports this bill because, as you know, we are very much champions for public safety; to ensure that severe offenders are properly addressed and that the community feels safe knowing that we are taking care of them. This bill we see has a rehabilitation-focused angle, so there are interventions here to ensure there is a healthy balance between safety and community.

We also wanted to ensure that inside this bill there is an effective deterrent so that prior to offending, someone may think, “I don’t think I’ll do this because the pain of doing this is not worth it”, and it may give them the opportunity to think twice as their path goes along in their own personal rehabilitation. We really do want to see a safer community. We want to really see our youth have the opportunity to change their life around—

Shanan Halbert: What about safety for trans communities?

TANYA UNKOVICH: All of our youth. In spite of heckling that often comes from the other side—it seems to be the same narrative—New Zealand First always does listen to all New Zealanders. We have the youth at heart in our decision making. Hence, we commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Absolute nonsense.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Oh, absolutely! Thank you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Kia ora. I stand on behalf of the 80,000 people that came to town the other day. What a great thing, and they weren’t whispering. They were telling us—particularly the opposite side of the House—very clearly, “You are screwing up massively.” But they also bought the solutions. They didn’t just come to tell you off; they came to say, “Hey, we are our own walking, talking, thinking vibes. We have our own minds. We have our own remedies. Quit telling us how to be.” OK, so I just wanted to start with that, Mr Speaker—thank you for the opportunity.

I want this House to hear this: a person who is not embedded within their culture burns it to the ground to feel the warmth. If you don’t understand that, you need to read some stuff. You need to understand deeply what you are supporting. When you stand and go “I commend this to the House.”, what you are commending is the disruption, is the extermination, is the eradication of Māori people, and here we go.

Let me tell you this: when you say, “boot camps”, they’re called “boot” for a reason, right? Don’t just like get soft and go, “Oh, it’s a boot camp.” Don’t do that. Don’t kid yourself, and, by the way, they are boot camps for children. Don’t say “youth” and then you go, “Oh, well, they’re a little bit older so they can handle the boot.” Think about this—understand it. What you won’t understand—[Interruption] I get that you don’t understand it—I accept it; I’ll send you some reading material—but understand me when I tell you that the reason you cannot know is because you are drowning in ignorance. But let’s just move on. I’ll just take you through it and—[Interruption] Yep, there we go—it’s great.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Tērā pea hei āwhina mō te mema mēnā ka kōrero koe ki ahau. Hei aha rā ngā kōrero ki ngā mema.

[Maybe to assist the member, you should speak to me. Never mind speaking directly to the members.]

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. In essence—in the original statement that I opened up—this is what drives the ethos behind this bill. It explains why our own—just take that in—would turn their backs on our own mokopuna.

Those Ministers who cannot boast toto Māori—and you need to read about that to understand it—hide behind their colleagues’ struggles with disconnection to advance their own bigoted, autocratic agendas. So aroha ki ngā minita Māori e kūare ana ki wā tātou toto e kōrero ana ki a koe. Aroha ki a koutou katoa. [So shame on our Māori Ministers who are an embarrassment to our bloodline, I am speaking to you. A shame on all of you.]

These Ministers, just know you have no need to conceal. We see you; we know you. Ka aroha ki tō tātou nei toto Māori. [What a shame on our Māori bloodline.] Do not think that we are blind to your actions, nor think that we will hesitate to defend them, even if it means holding our own to account. You might get a little bit upset about some of the stuff I’m saying that might disturb you, and I hope it does. I want it to disrupt and disturb you. You might find it jarring, but, buckle up, there’s more to come.

Boot camps are a place where we can hobble, bring all our mokopuna together, make them wrong, and call them youth, but they’re, in fact, children. They are our children, and you have absolutely no right to think that you’ll send them back to Oranga Tamariki. The irony of—let me read this—“Oranga Tamariki”, and then the “youth offending”. If you had any understanding of our reo and the sacredness of it, you would know that that is such a contradiction: “Oranga Tamariki” and “youth offending”—“Oranga Tamariki” and “youth offending”. Read some stuff and understand—read some stuff and understand.

This is the reality for our tamariki Māori, who constitute 70 percent of children in State care—70 percent of children in State care. You won’t know that they are 70 percent of State care and 80 percent of those currently experiencing—I was a social worker back in the day. I know what the Minister is rabbiting on about—I know. She’s theorising and, possibly, having her own experiences, but trust me when I say that this is a hopeless, disgusting, and shocking piece of work. The authors are completely lacking in evidence and mindset, and, basically, this must not be commended; this must be burnt down. I’m tempted to rip it up. Kia ora tātou.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand in support of the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill on its first reading.

The title of the bill is very descriptive of its application. The application has to do with youth aged 15 to 17 years old who repetitively seriously offend. The bill raises two points in order to try and mitigate the repetitive serious offending of young people aged 15 to 17 years old, particularly in holding them to account and then also providing them with support to attempt to address the issues that contribute to their continued and repetitive offending.

It is very standard in the world of parenting, of all children. I have been involved in a United Nations consultative body on the welfare of children for many years, for over 20 years, and accountability is a big factor in the structure that helps to form young people—accountability for what they do—and it helps in their understanding of what consequences and what gravity their actions are providing to them, and not only to them but to the people around them. The bill seeks to provide for a young serious offender declaration, and also for a military-style academy order. The idea is for these to be put into the tools of Oranga Tamariki to enable Oranga Tamariki as an organisation to address these two points: accountability and providing a pathway out.

We’re talking about, again, a small cohort of repetitive serious offenders in that age group—15 to 17. A lot of us are parents in this House. A lot of us would have gone through, or are going through, our children going through the 15- to 17-year-old space. It is a difficult space. It requires a lot of control on the side of fathers and mothers, on how they react to their children but also how to provide them with that push towards accountability, and also a structure for them to be able to locate themselves in this world where they live. We are responsible for that, but, at some point in time, when our young people become 15 and 17 and they go out and offend—and repetitively offend—then they may need to be put into spaces where they are strongly held into a structure.

That is exactly what the military-style academy is intended to provide: structure and accountability—structure in the sense that, while in residence under the Oranga Tamariki system, young serious offenders will be monitored closely. They could be required to wear electronic bracelets so that they will be ensured to be identified and made accountable if they were to violate the conditions of their residence. Also, this is intended that they comply with that residence requirement and complete the three-month programme of the military-style academy.

We could stop and pause and think about how our young people who are in this space really need to be given that spark, that moment where they could have a chance to see outside the spaces where they have been repetitively offending. That spark could really provide them with an opportunity for change, and that is what is aimed at in this amendment bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Obviously, we oppose this terrible bill, the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill, but it’s appropriate to bring to the attention of the House that the hīkoi that happened this week was not just about the rotten, filthy Treaty principles bill; it was about what this Government has been trying to do over the last 12 months, in terms of implementing this type of legislation and removing kaupapa Māori initiatives and positivity, like Treaty legislation. It’s incredible that that’s now being removed from legislation like the Māori Health Authority and like te reo Māori—that loss. What did we lose in terms of te reo Māori?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: $30 million.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thirty million dollars. It’s just shocking, the attacks. It’s attack after attack after attack, and this bill—this legislation—is no different. How the Government wants us to buy it is by implementing its stupid, ridiculous boot camps. It’s based on the Limited Service Volunteer (LSV) programme and on what was happening in terms of LSV. They’re using that as an example.

I’m an ambassador for the LSV group. I was one of their ambassadors and I helped a number of people get involved in it. There’s a big difference here: they were all volunteers. They were all volunteers, and it was a terrific course. But this course is quite different, and you’ve got to ask why this Government can’t listen to the voices of the hīkoi. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said that it was 60,000 or 70,000, and I know it was 50,000 to 55,000-plus. New Zealand First and Winston Peters thought it was 22,000, which shows how stupid New Zealand First are—they don’t know how to count. It was 55,000, and then you have this Government trying to ignore it, but all those people who were on that hīkoi—Māori Party, Greens, Labour, National Party; we saw a lot of good National Party members there—said that they’re totally sick of this Government and they want the attacks on Māori to stop. This legislation is an example of that.

This legislation is an example of a breach of Treaty principles—a breach of Treaty principles. I want to break that down simply for the Minister because she and her party have so many problems in understanding Treaty principles. There’s what you call the three Ps, just for the Minister—you need to tell your leader this. It’s called participation, protection, and partnership—all right? Participation-wise, Māori do not want to participate in your rotten, useless boot camps—all right? That’s the participation part. We want to be consulted on it. Protection: we want our kids protected. We don’t want them in your stupid boot camps—right?

Hon Karen Chhour: Go talk to the local iwi, then.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, we talk to all the iwi. Maybe you should start talking to the iwi.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Can I encourage members to not have—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That’s right; talk to me.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —99 percent of these kids are our kids, and this Minister, who decides to ignore the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, is totally in breach of it.

The third part, in terms of Treaty principles, is partnership—something the ACT Party refuses to accept. We don’t want to partner up with this sort of rotten stuff. We want to get involved in what we know works. I’ll tell you what works, Minister: not American-style boot camps. Tikanga Māori works. It’s proven. Talk to Dr Mason Durie. He will tell you to embed our young people in tikanga, te reo, aroha, manaakitanga. We have the answers in terms of these young people; it’s not your stupid, rotten, useless boot camps that are based on American-style principles. That is not the way to go.

Hon Karen Chhour: How did that work for Labour? These kids were in and out. No help, no support—well done, Labour!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You don’t know, Minister, because you yourself and your party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I want members to not talk to each other across the Chamber.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s terrible—yes, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If you want to have a conversation, step outside, and—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Shocking—stand outside, and take Mr Seymour with you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): —Mr Jackson, feel free to talk with me directly. Just speak to the Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m speaking to it—we know the answers in terms of this. Our former Minister Willow-Jean Prime is at the forefront. We know about Māori values—tikanga. I’ve seen it firsthand on my marae. Come to our marae, Minister. We’ll show you the way with our kids. Instead of going to rotten, useless Americans, and putting in your “filthy-style” military—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Kua pau te wā ki te mema. [The member’s time has expired.]

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill. There are 877 fourteen- to 16-year-olds who faced police action in the last year ending June 2023. This was for theft causing injury, and burglary. We know that this is just petty at the start, but, where I come from, I’ve been told on many of an occasion that a life of crime sometimes starts with something as simple as not having a driver’s licence, and then it escalates and it goes terribly bad from there on.

Youth are overrepresented in crime figures, and we have to do something about it. We have to wrap support around these people, as my colleague has alluded to, but we also have to get in front of the issues so that we don’t have to have the youth-offending statistics that we do now. When the Opposition stands and says that it’s not fair and we shouldn’t have consequences for young people, I say, “Rubbish”. Boundaries are one thing; committing crime is another. There have to be consequences. Previous Governments’ soft on crime, softly-softly approach has not worked, which is indicated by the statistics. Evidence is everything. Consequences for crime will bring a drop in youth offending, which has already happened. We’ve seen it. Increased police activity. Ram raids have gone down from 410 in January to September 2023, to 161 between January to September 2024. Note that we used the same months as a comparison. That is a reduction of 61 percent in one year. We did that with police and better processes. Burglaries are also down 10 percent. This is good.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, about a young man from my electorate, from Murupara, a young man called Rhys. His family live in Murupara—I’ve met some of them; I’ve met his mum. She runs the cafe there, and she’s awesome: Melody. Rhys’ sister is Natalie Delamere, who is known for her prowess on the rugby field. Rhys’ story was recently in the New Zealand Herald. He was a bit of a ratbag, in his own words—in fact, he described himself as something much harsher than that, which I won’t use here. He got into trouble, he lost a place on the national basketball squad because of his behaviour, and he was facing a life of crime and going down the wrong track. But his mum sent him to LSV—the Limited Service Volunteer course, which my colleague just alluded to. It is a similar programme to what this bill alludes to.

He took that attitude that he had discovered with him to LSV, but he very soon understood that that wasn’t going to work, and he turned his life around. He graduated from LSV. He won many of the awards at LSV, because of the boundaries and the discipline and what he learnt there at that time. He now runs three businesses, he has a social media following of 40,000 people, and he calls out bad behaviour. What’s more, his other family members have also sent their children and tamariki and rangatahi, whichever age, to LSV. When asked in the New Zealand Herald about the military-style boot camps, Rhys said, “There’s no harm in trying. All these reoffenders need this because they need to get out of their bad habits.” That comes from someone who’s been there.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It’s not the same boot camp.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: No, this is not the same, but it’s better because it has all the support mechanisms that you have talked about needing to be done. This bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act. It provides for a young serious offender declaration and new military-style academy order. It is part of the promise to restore law and order, to protect the rights of victims of crime—because we forget about them all the time—and by addressing serious and persistent offending.

Young people who offend will be held to account because reoffending in a serious nature needs to be dealt with. This will be done through the support around them and through enacting this bill. With that in mind, I think it’s a good bill. I think we need to do something, we need to provide some consequences, and we need to get things back in order. With that in mind, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Deep down, I really believe that Karen Chhour knows that this is a mistake. I think she believes that this is the wrong thing to do for rangatahi and tamariki in New Zealand. The reason I say that is because the programmes that were put in place—like Kotahi te Whakaaro, like Circuit Breaker, like Fast Track—have been working and contributed to a decrease in youth offending. That is why they have continued to be funded and extended under this Government. That is the real work within our community that works with whānau, that works with iwi to actually reduce youth offending, to reduce that hard core of repeat youth offenders that cause so much mamae to themselves, their whānau, and their communities.

My question is: why are we doing this if that is already working? The answer is that it’s the same as with the Treaty principles bill: it ticks a box in their voter base to keep their voters happy, to show that they’re tough, that they’re hard, that they can lock up 14-year-olds, and that they can get a third-party provider to use force against a 14-year-old. This bill enables force and tough measures to be used when every single scrap of evidence from the Children’s Commissioner, from our informed youth providers, from every researcher, even the National Government’s own Chief Science Advisor, Dr Gluckman, has advised that these methods of being punitive to our rangatahi do not work. In fact, the reoffending rate for young people who have been through these military academies is around 80 percent, whereas for the young people who go through programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro, which they continue to support because that’s where the real work is being done, the reoffending rate is the opposite. Around 80-plus percent do not go on to reoffend.

That is the challenge I lay down for these speeches yet to come in the House. Explain to me why these programmes that are doing the real work, that are actually turning young people’s lives around were continued to be funded and extended if you are popping up your shop front of boot camps to look tough and simply harm rangatahi more. That is what they are doing. These actions are harming young people and recreating the cycle of offending that goes against obligations in the Treaty and that goes against good research in this area.

I would like to look at what’s happening for those ones that are under 14, because this legislation talks about 14- to 17-year-olds. We know from research that those ones going through are the police, who are turning up no longer to family violence call outs, no longer to mental health call outs, with no additional services or social services to take up that space. That is where the damage is being done to our rangatahi—young people who grow up with family and sexual violence being normalised as part of their lives—having cuts to front-line Oranga Tamariki social workers, and taking away contracts to providers like North Shore Women’s Centre, who provide counselling and support for whānau to keep the tamariki within the whānau. That is where the money’s been taken from.

Do you know my reckons? It’s that those savings made from cutting front-line social workers working to keep tamariki in their whānau—those savings—are going towards building these boot camps. That is the sad part about this bill. Nicola Willis has capped her Budget, and she’s told her Ministers, “If you want to go do some stuff you’ve promised your voters, go find the money.” The money has been found by Karen Chhour by cutting the very services that will keep these children in their whānau, keep them protected, and keep them supported. That’s where the money has come from, and that’s the real sadness in this.

I actually hope that those programmes that they continue to fund keep doing that real work and keep helping. I really send a prayer out and I feel so sorry for New Zealanders where young people are exposed to the harm and the violence that occurs in these institutions, in the face of having a royal commission of inquiry saying that these camps have caused damage and harm to our young people. They don’t want the research. They don’t want to learn from history. They don’t want to look at the truth. They’re more intent on ticking their voter box to keep their votes coming in. Political power has reigned over doing the right thing for the next generation of New Zealanders, and, for that, Mr Speaker, I weep.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I stand to express my support for this bill. It’s a crucial piece of legislation when we address serious youth offending, and I will use that word “serious”. As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, there are a number of programmes, and our youth justice system does do a good job for the majority of youth offenders. Now, unfortunately, there is a group of serious youth offenders that are repeat offenders. These kids have great potential and I mourn if we don’t do anything to actually get them on the right track. We need to do something different because what we have been doing so far to date hasn’t been working. This is a first step. I had a mother in my electorate office this week in tears because we are not doing enough to help her child get on the straight and narrow.

I also want to acknowledge the victims of crimes of these young offenders. I think of some of the media reports. It doesn’t matter if it’s a 15-year-old driving a car that hits you or someone that is older. There are still the effects sustained, the emotional and physical toll it takes on victims and their families, and I just want to acknowledge the victims of crime.

We’ve seen a whole range of increases in serious offending over the last 10 years. I think in Christchurch we’ve seen it more than double from about 46 serious repeat offenders to about 105 young offenders. The crimes that we are seeing are things like robbery and extortion. We’re seeing things like weapons offences. These are serious crimes that have been committed by young people.

Once again, I do express my hope that these children can reach their full potential. This bill does emphasise a balanced approach, recognises that accountability is essential for people that commit crimes—

Shanan Halbert: Where’s the balance in manhandling our kids?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —but we also provide support and guidance to these young individuals. I hear some heckling from the other side about our boot camps, so what I will say about what the Chief Children’s Commissioner had said on visiting—

Shanan Halbert: About manhandling our kids.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —on handling—when they had visited the pilot—if the member over there would just like to be quiet for a minute, I’d actually read out what the quote was. She said she saw a multidisciplinary team working on a one-on-one basis, focusing on their trauma, wrapping therapeutic and rehabilitative approaches around the individual.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Can I ask members to not have a conversation across the Chamber.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: That is in the media—those quotes—so anybody can go and have a look at it.

We are also introducing a new young serious offenders declaration. This will allow us to identify and respond to young offenders who pose serious risk to themselves and others. By doing so, we can tailor interventions so we can actually accelerate rehabilitation, which I think is very important, and I think most people in the House would agree with that. I think this is a step which can help us address the issues that we’re facing and help these young people in their time of need.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Climate Change: I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to remove significant agricultural activities from the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS), which is a crucial step in our plan to introduce a fit for purpose agricultural emissions pricing system by 2030 without sending jobs and production overseas. The bill signals the repeal and replacement of policy related to the pricing of agricultural emissions. It will repeal the existing requirement of the agriculture sector to join the New Zealand ETS to pave the way for us to replace it with a fair and sustainable pricing system outside of the NZ ETS by 2030 that will not send production or jobs offshore.

The status quo is not fit for purpose. The current legislation requires agricultural processors to pay for fertiliser and livestock emissions from 1 January 2025—not that far away—and for farm-level reporting to commence in 2026, following, by payment for those emissions, in 2027. This would result in additional administrative implementation and compliance costs to our domestic agricultural sector. It would have a negative impact on both farm production and farm revenue, with disproportionate adverse impacts on small farmers.

Processor-level pricing in the New Zealand ETS is likely to be passed down to farmers regardless of the emission-efficiency rates. Farm-level pricing in the New Zealand ETS significantly increases the number of participants in the scheme. We estimate that this could be around 100,000 animal farmers, which is likely to disrupt the operation of the scheme. We need a pricing system that will support our farmers to reduce their emissions. The food and fibre sector is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. The sector is our top export earner, contributing to 10.5 percent of GDP, 13 percent of employment, and close to 82 percent of all goods exported. Food and fibre export revenue is expected to reach $54.6 billion this year and will hit a record $66.6 billion in 2028.

We know that our farmers are world leaders in producing carbon-efficient products. We also know that climate change policies that reduce our agricultural production will not benefit global emissions if this gap is filled by other countries that are less emissions-efficient than our New Zealand farmers. We know we need to reduce agricultural emissions, and we have committed to meeting our net-zero target for 2050. Globally, we are seeing trends and consumer expectations change, and for those customers that want low-emissions products, it’s imperative we deliver.

We need to work with the agriculture sector, and not against it, in reducing our agricultural emissions. That is why we will have a dual focus on ensuring that New Zealand’s agricultural sector is able to meet our climate change goals and is also supported to continue to be among the world’s leaders in producing carbon-efficient agricultural products. We will do this by making sure that the settings are right, working closely with the sector, and find solutions to reduce agricultural emissions, and backing and trusting our farmers to be world leaders in producing carbon-efficient agricultural products.

The coalition Government has a climate strategy. In July this year, the coalition Government launched its climate strategy, a comprehensive and ambitious plan aimed at reducing impacts of climate change and preparing for its future impacts. The climate strategy is built on five core pillars, the fourth pillar being: having world-leading climate innovation that boosts the economy. The fourth pillar means that this coalition Government is taking the tools and technology approach to this issue.

The coalition Government is placing real priority on developing tools and technologies that work for New Zealand pasture-based systems. You will see more on this in the emissions reduction plan two. Technology will play a big part in ensuring that our farmers continue to be most carbon-efficient producers of high-quality food and fibre, and we believe it is critical that mitigations are available ahead of pricing. We do not want to drive production offshore or to undermine productivity. This is why the Government, in partnership with industry, has committed $400 million over the next four years to accelerate the commercialisation of tools and technology to reduce on-farm emissions and to get these tools into farmers’ hands faster.

Our plan also includes establishing fit for purpose regulatory pathways for mitigation technologies and developing measurement of on-farm emissions for use by 2025. Development of standardised farm-level methodology will be key to understanding differences at the farm level. It will provide a consistent foundation to inform farmers’ decisions to invest in emissions-reducing technologies and approaches, and will support consistency and confidence in emissions reporting.

These initiatives will play a big part in ensuring that our farmers continue to be the most carbon-efficient producers of high-quality food and fibre. Delaying the start of the pricing system also provides time for the independent review of the biogenic methane science in New Zealand’s 2050 target. This Government is committed to supporting the farmers to sustainably reduce agricultural emissions, and we will ensure that the agricultural sector’s contribution to the 2050 targets is fair and appropriate compared to other parts of the economy.

There has been some reference in this House that this bill will impact on our ability to understand New Zealand’s agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. The removal of process and reporting obligations—which aren’t sophisticated enough to discern between more or less efficient farmers—will not affect the ability of the Government to report agricultural emissions. New Zealand’s official estimates of agricultural emissions don’t use this data, and instead use input data from several sources—chiefly Statistics New Zealand, but also DairyNZ, Livestock Improvement Corporation, and Beef + Lamb New Zealand.

The processor-reporting obligations that the bill removes, which are over 10 years old, are entirely separate from our inventory reporting. New Zealand will remain on track to meet our emissions targets. While we develop a new, fair, sustainable pricing system and support the development of on-farm emission mitigation options, we will ensure New Zealand remains on track to meet its emission reduction targets.

The second emissions reduction plan, which outlines how New Zealand will meet emission budget two and puts us on track to 2050, accounts for taking agriculture out of the New Zealand ETS. This plan will be published by the end of this year, and future emission reduction plans will outline the policies and strategies New Zealand will take to meet future emission budgets.

In summary, this bill is the first step to ensuring a stable and profitable future for our agricultural sector, which plays a significant economic role for this country. I look forward to working collaboratively with the sector, with iwi Māori, and with New Zealanders on a fair and sustainable pricing system for agricultural emissions for the future. Accordingly, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this proposed bill in the third reading. There is something that I absolutely agree on with the previous speaker, the Hon Andrew Bayly, and that is that our farmers here are the most carbon emissions - efficient in the world. That is something, though, that is—or could be—all at risk. The Minister that just resumed his seat talked about the climate strategy that this Government has put in place, and I just wonder how that climate strategy is going, given that New Zealand has just fallen seven places in the Climate Change Performance Index released overnight—seven places; not one, not two, but seven places based on the climate inaction—

Mike Butterick: He Waka Eke Noa.

Hon JO LUXTON: —of this Government. The member opposite brings up He Waka Eke Noa, and, you know, we completely understand. We get it. He Waka Eke Noa didn’t work, it’s been thrown out, and that’s just the way it is when you have a change of Government. We understand that. Our concern with the change to this bill is that when it was suggested to the Minister that perhaps we could move the date from 1 January, as was in the current legislation, out a few years while another solution was found—I think it has been detrimental that the Government didn’t consider that as an option. Whilst we understand that there was the need by this Government to remove it as part of its coalition agreement and things that it’s campaigned on, the concern is there is nothing else there, nothing ready to go, nothing that gives our farmers the certainty of what they need to be doing.

We acknowledge the amount of money that’s been put into research and development to look at vaccines and all the other great things that are under way and being developed and researched, but that is all going to take time. It is going to take time to scale up and make commercially available and viable to our farmers here in New Zealand. People overseas don’t need our products—they can get products from anywhere else, and whether that’s done more carbon efficiently or not, they don’t need our products. We need overseas countries to want our products, and they want our products because they see us and our farmers as some of the most environmentally efficient producers in the world, and we don’t want to risk that. The risk I see in this bill, without having a plan, is that it puts it all at risk and we might end up being—rather than leaders worldwide, others can overtake us pretty quickly if they are adopting and addressing technology a lot quicker than we are.

My view on this piece of legislation is the concern around this, and the reason why Labour doesn’t support this is because there is no backup plan, there is no other alternative. We’re just crossing our fingers and hoping that something becomes available that can be scaled up and affordable to our farmers before 2030, when the Government has indicated and said that it will look to price agricultural emissions fairly. How do our farmers get there? Where is the certainty for them? What is it going to cost? I understand that, as I said before, He Waka Eke Noa got thrown out, but they threw out the baby with the bathwater. There should have been some parts that could have been kept and built on and worked on, rather than putting a new group in place, waiting on more technology, crossing our fingers, and hoping that it will be ready in time. All the while, our farmers are just sitting in limbo and waiting and hoping for the best. This bill does not provide certainty for farmers going forward, and that is why we cannot support it.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Saying you believe in climate change and then doing all the things that make climate change worse has exactly the same effect as denying climate change exists in the first place. This Government has systematically, over the course of its term, cancelled just about every single climate initiative that there is. When met with the greatest existential challenge that this planet faces—climate change—what do they do? They tell our biggest polluting sector, agriculture, and particularly the dairy industry, “You’re off the hook.”—you are off the hook.

We have not only fallen behind in terms of the Climate Change Performance Index, we as a nation are rapidly racing towards the bottom under this Luxon Government. They’ve brought back the oil and gas industry, they’re going to fast track the coal industry, and they’re telling the dairy industry, “You’re exempt from your emissions pricing.” Everybody else in society has to pay for their emissions. Every other sector has to pay. Oh, not the most polluting sector.

Hon Simeon Brown: You just want to kill the economy.

STEVE ABEL: Actually, to the member opposite: Mr Brown, we want to save the economy from the existential damage caused by the extreme weather events, of which farmers are on the front line. Farmers are on the front line of the extreme effects of climate change.

One of the biggest consequences of climate change globally is that it will impact the ability of the world to produce food because it will cause increased droughts, increased floods, increased wildfires, and those events are an existential threat to the ability of Homo sapiens to produce food to feed people. That is a very real threat to agriculture. It is a global challenge and it requires us all as a global community to be willing to tackle and take on the hard challenges. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, the hard challenge is agriculture, because it’s our biggest emitting sector. We’ve got a great renewable energy system. We’ve got a great opportunity to electrify our energy system, electrify our transport, but, instead of doing that, this Government is doing everything that makes the problem worse.

Let me just outline what the actual Climate Change Performance Index said about New Zealand: “New Zealand has dropped seven places to 41st in the global Climate Change Performance Index, which ranks countries based on their emissions”. Listen to what they said about this Luxon Government: “A new Government was elected in October 2023 and the [Climate Change Performance Index] country experts note that it has taken significant backwards steps in climate policy.” Backwards on track is what this Luxon Government is. “It is unclear how New Zealand will meet its international climate obligations in 2050 emissions reductions target”, the index reported. One of the consequences of us not meeting that emissions reduction target is the potential that we will have to pay a bill between $3 billion and $23 billion to offset the pollution that we’ve increased, our failure to actually cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

This decision to remove agriculture from the emissions trading scheme is part of a longstanding failure of successive Governments to seize the nettle on our most polluting sector. It abandons one of the few current mechanisms for addressing agricultural emissions, the emissions trading scheme. Pricing climate pollution has been signalled for almost 20 years. Cancelling this action shows a disappointing failure of courage. It tells the industry, “It doesn’t matter what you do.”, but worse than that, in terms of a failure of basic principles, of fairness, of responsibility, of polluter-pays, by failing to treat agriculture like every other sector that pays a price on its emissions.

It also moves the incentive from farm-based emissions. I think that’s a good thing. We had a very interesting submission from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that pointed out that, in terms of dealing with water pollution in our agricultural sector, we need to take a catchment-based approach. Well, it is also right that we should take a processor-based approach to dealing with the emissions from the agricultural sector. If there is any price to be put, it should be better put at the processor level. It seems much too difficult, in many ways, to put a farm-level pricing system, but this gets rid of all of it—this gets rid of all of it.

Perhaps even worse than that—well, not worse than that; it’s bad. It’s very bad. It also gets rid of the reporting mechanisms. It basically says, “We’re not going to keep a track of what is even going on, emissions-wise, in the agricultural sector.” That is a major problem, because how are you to monitor who is doing well in terms of the methods of working out how to reduce emissions and who is doing badly if you don’t even keep a track of the reporting and the data? It is an explicit effort to just say, “We’re quitting on this challenge of climate change.” That’s what this Government is doing. It’s saying, “We’re out. We’re not going to do the things that need to be done.” Saying that you believe in it and then doing all the things that make it worse is the same as denying climate change is a problem. I would say that is climate denial, in its fundamental actions.

My former colleague from Greenpeace Amanda Larsson responded to this Climate Change Performance Index and said, “New Zealand is quiet-quitting in the fight to stop the climate crisis by saying they’re committed to climate action while simultaneously rolling back virtually every single initiative that would actually reduce emissions.” It is no secret that this Government’s approach to environmental policy is to let the polluters write the rules, and that’s why New Zealand has dropped in the rankings and that’s why this Government has chosen to take agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme.

One of the most important things that any Government does is it actually represents the interests of all people. It represents the interests of the entire population in protecting the commons from the harm that can be caused by those who would exploit it for profit. Where they would exploit it in a manner that harms that commons, it is the fundamental duty of the regulator and the legislator to protect that commons.

The biggest challenge we face in the climate change struggle globally is that those companies that are least interested in reducing emissions also happen to be the wealthiest and most powerful companies in the world—the likes of the oil industry, for example. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, the courage to stand up to the big, vested interests, who are always going to have mighty lobbying power, is the courage that politicians must have. That is our duty as representatives of the people, as representatives of the greater good, to not be so readily lobbied by the vested interests who would have us do nothing about their pollution.

Of course polluters don’t want us to regulate or legislate against their polluting activities. That is a threat to their bottom line, but that is exactly why we are put in this House: to actually say, “Hang on a minute.” In the interests of the people, in the interests of the commons, in the interests of the future that we bestow to our children and grandchildren, we must be willing to stand up to those vested interests and say, “You need to do your part too.”

This is a collective challenge and that is what this Government is utterly failing to do. It is utterly failing to show the courage to say, “We will meet this challenge and we will stand alongside the agricultural sector and we will stand alongside the farmers who are innovating the ways to reduce emissions.” The likes of the farmer who presented to us from the Waikato, a dairy farmer who has reduced his emissions on a 300-cow dairy farm by 25 percent by cutting fertiliser and lowering stocking rates and doing various things. He is farm-gate profitable and he is cutting his emissions. There are people all over this country, farmers who are doing inspiring things, working out how to do production on the land and land-use change that is profitable, that looks after the land and looks after the water and looks after the climate.

The message of this Government and of this legislation is, “You don’t have to worry about any of that now. You get no credit; you get no acknowledgment for your efforts to meet this existential climate change challenge. We are just going to let you do whatever the heck you like. We don’t care how polluting you are. There will be no price on that pollution.” What message is that to send to that community of farmers who are doing the right thing? It is a terrible message to send. It is an embarrassing day for New Zealand. It is an embarrassing day that we have been recognised across the world for our failure to take part in this climate change challenge. It is an embarrassing day that we are having the third reading of this piece of legislation which says that our most polluting sector is no longer responsible for its emissions.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Embarrassing? Try and reconcile that if you’re a rural New Zealander—the most efficient farmers in the world, and here we are pontificating on the left about how we’ve got to do more. Scientific debate, I would argue, has been lost by my mates on the left. Two parts of a million, Steve Abel and I have discussed, is the percentage of methane in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide—carbon dioxide, Steve Abel. Carbon dioxide—428 parts per million, used to be 390; it’s gone up by 50 parts in 50 years. Admittedly, you are correct, sir, but, equally, it’s been higher in our history, 10 times higher, and here we all are, we’re surviving, and things are going along tickety-boo. The left loves the catastrophisation—end of days, everyone’s burning. I heard it yesterday in the House. Arena Williams: we’re all boiling, literally boiling, she said. God, this is the theatricality that we don’t need. Let’s have a conversation about common sense. We are the most efficient farmers in the world—second to none; I’m not going to apologise for that. Embarrassing? Hardly. It is a celebration.

I just make a couple of notable points. Notwithstanding we all acknowledge the nature of being a New Zealander and we are a part of the export global market reality, we’re also a significant domestic consumer. The number one issue that we hear all across New Zealand is that things are too dear, from a domestic point of view, categorically. In five years, for the members on the left, the socialists that just want to evangelise about climate all the time, food prices—let’s go through food prices for the everyday Kiwi mum and dad trying to make ends meet, notwithstanding we are also an exporter. What goes on inside New Zealand? Milk has gone up 20 percent—20 percent—in five years. Try and reconcile that when you’re a mum and dad trying to make ends meet—20 percent. Red meat has gone up 18 percent. It’s not all inflation, it’s not all competition with the foreign market; it has a lot to do with regulatory burden. I argue, if we get the methodology wrong, your side of the House has to say to your constituency, “You’re going to pay 25 or 30—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Extreme weather events affect food prices. Climate change affects food prices.

MARK CAMERON: —for your red meat.” That’s what you’re not willing to do, because you’re not being honest—because we are all, Julie Anne Genter, literally burning.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Can I ask members not to have a conversation with each other across the Chamber.

MARK CAMERON: Stop the hyperbole. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would argue that we have to have a common-sense conversation where we celebrate rural New Zealand. Let’s go and believe in the people that have innovated their way through our history. Every time we start running short of the bling, the cash, the notes, the green, the folding—whatever you want to call it—where do the left come out? They celebrate rural New Zealand, after they’ve spent an inordinate amount of time beating them up.

I go back to: what are the problems we’re seeking to fix? Keeping the farmers out of the emissions trading scheme was logical. By putting them in it, we were going to find 100,000 extra participants. What on earth was that going to cost? Causality, again—what did it mean for rural New Zealand? It harmed us. I hear it all the time, evangelical sermons that “We’re back here, we care about rural people, we care about the marginal communities.”, which are often in provincial New Zealand. Guys, like Mike Butterick and I, go home—that’s our part of the world. We get it mate, don’t we? They are suffering because of a varying degree of regulatory overburden. Let’s go back to cost-benefit analysis, causality—cause and effect.

I would just ask my mates on the left side of the House: are you willing to get it wrong? I am not, this side of the House is not, and I would say for my constituency, as a tie-off and final remark: stop the wokery. Start protecting everyday mums and dads—

Glen Bennett: You’re the Government; talk about what you’re doing.

MARK CAMERON: —that are already paying too much, Glen Bennett, for their food, and we can hopefully—hopefully—assure an economic future where rural New Zealand is champion of its own future and everyone else’s.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I was gearing up for this Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill. It is my pleasure to lend New Zealand First’s support to this bill.

This is, essentially, despite the pontification previously, a very narrow bill. It simply seeks to take away the obligation of agriculture entering the emissions trading scheme at the start of next year—the sword of Damocles no more hanging over agriculture and rural New Zealand. This was never a good idea. In fact, the previous Government knew it was never a good idea. It was something that they were prepared to park for a while because, ultimately, it wasn’t fit for purpose. The emissions trading scheme is in carbon dioxide equivalents; we are dealing mainly with methane here, which is a short-lived gas. So it was never fit for purpose; it was never a metric—

Steve Abel: Super heating gas.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Ah, now I’m going to come to that, Steve Abel, in a second; I will address the issue.

New Zealand has embarked upon a world-leading strategy that has since been replicated around the world. We’ve led, as we often do, by having a split gas approach that recognises that methane is a short-lived gas: it dissipates after about a decade. It is part of a natural cycle. It is not fossil fuels that have been dug up and added into the atmosphere; it is recycled carbon—essentially, into methane, back into carbon, back being sequestered through photosynthesis. It’s akin to a bathtub—that’s how it’s best explained, I think—where you’re running water into a bath but the plug’s out and the water’s going out at about the same rate as it’s going in. The methane in New Zealand is, essentially, in a steady state. That is how this Government looks at that—and how the previous Government looked at that, actually. That’s why we went to a short-lived gas, because it’s a fundamentally different proposition—

Steve Abel: 85 times more potent over 20 years.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: —than what a carbon dioxide—and that is why we have reviewed the science on this to see what the warming impact is. That does not add to global warming or climate change—that is the metric. You will see very shortly, when that report is released, where we have landed on that, and that will guide our policy decisions going forward.

The status quo, without repealing this, would have been a disaster for agriculture in rural New Zealand. It was just a blunt tax with high compliance that would have not achieved anything. It would have put extra cost on an industry, particularly the red meat sector and the sheep and beef sector, which is already struggling with low profitability and has been for some time. The average sheep and beef farm, in Beef + Lamb New Zealand statistics, last year made about $60,000; that’s before interest tax and drawings. This is not an industry that’s in good shape. Putting a blunt tax on them would have been catastrophic and would have further—further—driven them into the arms of the carbon farmers and pine trees. The impact of that on rural New Zealand is significant.

We have to take this holistic approach. The sheep and beef sector, in particular, has been the conscience of a nation. The rest of the country is prepared to park up its trips in aeroplanes and SUVs to pick up the kids from school by planting trees out in the country, where they’re out of mind, out of sight. We say “Enough” to that, and we’ve got more to say about that soon. This would have turbocharged that trend by just making sheep and beef farming even less economically appealing.

We do take our emissions responsibility seriously, our international obligations seriously. We are not climate change denialists, Steve Abel, but this is actually one of the easiest of our tasks, I believe, as someone that has looked at this seriously and is over all the issues, the serious issues, that we do face in agriculture. I’m looking forward, actually, to the apology that comes from the other side of the House when the figures are released shortly that show agriculture is already meeting its targets. That’s the issue: the Opposition, the people over that side of the House, believe you only have to put a tax on it; unless you’ve got a tax on it, you can’t reduce your emissions. Well, we have reduced our emissions in agriculture, and when those figures come out, I expect some apologies from the other side of the House.

As I said before, we are reviewing the science, but the tragedy of meeting those targets, to date, is we’ve actually culled our way there. We’ve culled our way with a fairly dramatic drop in sheep numbers, a fairly dramatic drop in dairy cow numbers. That is not good for New Zealand. That is not good for our terms of trade. It’s not good for our rural communities and our economy in general. We are going to be much smarter about this. We are going to give farmers the tools. We are investing record amounts into R & D on this very issue, predominantly through AgriZeroNZ. You will see in the coalition agreement a commitment to rolling out low-methane genetics, and I’ve got a bit to do with that and that’s very exciting—particularly in the dairy industry. When I say it’s the easiest of our tasks, the dairy industry is just going to push these down the pipeline. LIC and Ambry virtually produce all the genetics. They are breeding low-methane genetics, so they will be just pushed down the supply chain. The dairy industry is responding.

Of course, the commercial drivers—Fonterra have a target of reducing their scope 3 career emissions by 30 percent by 2030. That is far in excess of what even the Government is suggesting. Things are happening. You don’t necessarily have to put this blunt tax for things to happen. The markets are responding; they are requesting these measures. That’s why we’re investing in a lot of these, like the low-methane genetics, like the vaccines, like the boluses, like the red seaweed.

Farming systems also—I was talking to a sheep and beef farmer the other day at the Christchurch show and he was telling me how frustrated he was that he wasn’t getting rewarded. He can finish his beef cattle at 16 months, but there’s no reward for it. He’s now gone back to a less intensive system that is finishing at 26 months. Now, that’s another 12 months that that animal is producing methane. This tax would have treated both those animals exactly the same—he would have paid exactly the same tax on a per kilo basis, so there was no incentive. The efficiency in his farming system from finishing one year earlier was much more profitable and much more efficient and would have made him more money. It’s actually just farming systems—raising lambing percentages, increasing growth rates; just straight efficiency. Actually, when I say it’s one of the easiest of the challenges, it’s the stuff that farmers try and do all the time. Increasing their efficiency by default is actually dropping greenhouse gas emissions.

At the end of the day, this is something that was long promised by all three parties in the coalition agreement. We have delivered yet another pledge to our farming constituency particularly, who felt particularly aggrieved with the one-size-fits-all and the complexity and compliance that was being foisted on them by the previous administration. We’re busy unwinding this. This is yet another commitment that has been kept. It is a sensible measure. This was never a good idea. This was never the bright tool, and we have put it to bed today. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call, and if one of the parties doesn’t take that split call, that can become available at the end of the last scheduled call.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to oppose the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill—what a mouthful! The previous speaker, the Hon Mark Patterson, rightfully pointed out that this is, in his view, a minor change. The issue is that, in the broader context of the coalition Government’s climate policy, this is yet another slash-and-burn cut to climate policy that they’ve implemented.

The first speaker, the honourable Minister Andrew Bayly—and congratulations on your promotion to anti - cyber-bullying, sir, by the way—said that we were on target, but that’s not actually true. The Government’s own figures from the second emissions reduction plan, the draft consultation document, shows that we’re off track to meet the 2050 target. We were on track in the first emissions reduction plan, and now we’re off track—and we’re off track because of all the things that they’ve done.

They’ve de-hypothecated the Climate Emergency Response Fund, they’ve cut funding for community energy, they’ve cut funding for regional energy transition accelerators, they’ve repealed free and subsidised public transport, they’ve repealed the Clean Car Discount, and now they’re reviewing the methane science target and trying to put in a new consensus over the previous one. They’ve stripped farmers of the ability to actually reduce their agricultural emissions by funding them for agricultural emissions research and also for sequestration payments, which the previous bill, He Waka Eke Noa, would have done—the previous regime which they’ve abolished.

Everything that this Government has said that they’ve done to help climate change were things that were already going to happen anyway—it’s a complete red herring—already done by the previous Government. In the fringe benefit tax debate yesterday, one of the members opposite was bragging about the opening of new wind farms over in, I think, Hawke’s Bay. The issue is that that was approved by the previous Government, most of the work was done by the previous Government; they’ve only just cut the ribbon and taken credit for something that they didn’t even do. Ridiculous.

Now, what does this bill actually do? It’s another thing that’s in line with their programme of cuts. It removes backstop pricing for agricultural emissions, which were a last resort anyway. Members opposite are saying, “Oh, it was too soon to do it next year.”—then push out the date—but instead they’ve scrapped it. It removes the ability to independently monitor progress for agricultural emissions pricing, and it removes measurement requirements under regulations—regulations, by the way, that were passed under the Key Government; the Key Government that actually at least made a show of caring about climate change and climate issues, which this Government isn’t even pretending to do. They’re just putting on this rhetoric but they’re not actually putting any substance behind it. At least the Key Government worked with the Green Party in a cooperation agreement to build cycle trails all over the country. But this lot? This isn’t your fathers’ or your grandfathers’ National Party; these are people who have got into bed with people who fundamentally don’t believe in the science of climate change, who would seek to water down targets through bogus reviews rather than actually dealing with the reality behind us today.

One of the previous speakers on the Government benches suggested, “Oh, things were tickety-boo.” Well, tell that to the millions of people that are being displaced by climate-related disasters. Tell that to the people around the world who are being impacted by the impacts of climate change. Tell that to the people who have been displaced and affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and the events in Otago this year—741 grants from the civil defence payment; it’s not a small number.

In the committee of the whole House, we had substantial engagement with the Minister. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this issue. One of the things that became clear is also systematic of the wider Government policies around climate change. It is the lack of evidence. I asked the Minister repeatedly, during several stages of the debate, for the cost-benefit analysis for the other options other than the status quo option that was modelled. The Minister didn’t even aim to answer that question. Does the evidence not exist or does the evidence exist and they’re hiding it? Thank you.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a farmer and a rural MP from heartland Wairarapa, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill. Unlike the Opposition—wolf dressed in lamb’s clothing—we are delivering on our commitment to keep ag out of the emissions trading scheme (ETS). We understand that agriculture is the backbone of the economy. We back our words, just like we back our farmers. We’re going to make sensible changes to give our farmers the ability to do what they do best, and that is farm.

I have three figures for those on the other side that they may want to think about over the recess: 80-plus percent of export income from the food and fibre sector; that’s how we pay our bills to provide those services that New Zealanders expect and deserve. The number of businesses in the food and fibre sector in all of New Zealand is 70,000—they’re in your towns and your cities—and 360,000 is the number of people that work in it. I’d take this opportunity to thank all of them for what they do.

Another newsflash for the Opposition: Kiwi farmers are the world’s most efficient producers of product per unit when we take into account carbon emissions. It makes no sense to shut them down, to send production overseas. That’s called emissions leakage. That shift of production overseas, to less-efficient producers, means an increase in global emissions. On that basis, all in this House should be backing our farmers, celebrating their hard work and productivity, not wanting to price them out of existence and shutting them down, because that shift of production, emissions leakage, makes no sense—not to our economy, not to our farming communities, and not to overall global emissions.

Inclusion in the ETS wouldn’t have been effective; it would shut down those farms. They don’t have the tools to lower emissions. Many would have no choice but to significantly cull herds. Think of the $50 billion - plus of export income, those 70,000 businesses and the 360,000 people that work in them, and the devastating impact of that on them. Instead, we’ll take a technology-based approach to give our farmers the tools that they need and deserve. We respect and back our farmers. Madam, Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Heoi anō kei te tū mā te Pāti Reipa ki te whakahē i tēnei pire i tēnei ahiahi. [I stand on behalf of the Labour Party to oppose this bill this afternoon.]

First of all, I just want to clarify: did the member for Wairarapa just call me a wolf in lamb’s clothing? I’ve been called worse.

Heoi anō, also picking up on what the member for Wairarapa said, talking about farmers being the backbone of Aotearoa, we don’t dispute that. Here on this side of the House, we absolutely know the amazing contribution farmers make to Aotearoa—

David MacLeod: Support them, then.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Support what? I’m being told from the other side of the House to support it. Support what? Support what, David MacLeod from Tīkapa? Heoi anō, and that’s the issue. Even farmers who don’t want to be included in the emissions trading scheme are not sure what in fact is being proposed here.

Now, furthermore, talking about the backbone, we can talk about industry until, pardon the pun, the cows come home, but at the end of the day what is actually the backbone of Aotearoa is, first of all, our whenua. I’m not putting them in order, because I’ll get to another priority shortly, but let’s start with whenua. Try telling the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti that everything is tickety-boo—tickety-boo when they’re watching erosion to the scale where they’re not building anymore. Farmers have lost so much land through climate change.

Steve Abel: That’s right.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Thank you. We’ve just got to stop being climate deniers. Like I say, though—I repeat—it doesn’t matter what the opposite says, actually, because what is this being replaced with? I have to support my colleague to the left in asking: what does this bill do?

Another priority here is wai Māori—water. In the Primary Production Committee today, we heard about how the next big—well, it’s not new—issue is water: protecting our waterways, particularly in te ao Māori, where we identify with our water. You know, we’ve given personhood to bodies of water. Heoi anō, that brings up the issue of nitrates, and we know, while it cannot be specifically attributed to this bill today, just yet, that 100 out of 245 rural schools who were recently tested had nitrate levels above 1 milligram per litre. What I am saying is that we are forewarned, whānau. We are having too much of our tūtae, etc., leeching into our waterways, and now we are risking the health of not only our tamariki but Aotearoa whānui.

The final point I want to make is to talk about some of our Māori and iwi farm interests, who see the absolute big picture of agriculture in Aotearoa, including the value of whenua and wai, and our international reputation. Heoi anō, international reputation aside, and the value of our “clean, green” reputation, keeping it closer to home, kei te hārapa haere tēnei Kāwanatanga—this Government is just galloping away—with this legislation. What’s the hurry, and why was the consultation period so short? This has absolutely been raised by iwi and—

Dr Hamish Campbell: First reading.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Actually, I’m going to give the member opposite a chance to yell that out again. What was that?

Dr Hamish Campbell: Skipped the first reading.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: So what? First reading, he says. Clearly, no understanding of the intricacies that some Māori farms, Māori landholdings, and ahu whenua trusts have to go to.

It’s very much my privilege to bring those perspectives today—that, actually, all industry aside, without a healthy environment, we are nothing. Also, the consultation process: we have to have stronger consideration for the—I’m glad the member for Taranaki is giving me the thumbs up. Tēnā koe e te whanaunga nō Tīkapa. Kei te whakaae koe i āku kōrero i tēnei ahiahi. [Thank you, my relation from Tīkapa. You agree with my comments this afternoon.] Heoi anō ra, I do not commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koe.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act to remove agriculture, animal products, and fertiliser companies from entering the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2025. This bill aligns with National’s election manifesto commitment to keep agriculture out of the ETS, and to implement a fair and sustainable pricing system for on-farm agricultural emissions by 2030, a system that reduces emissions without sending production overseas.

Hon Jo Luxton: Speak from the heart, Suze.

SUZE REDMAYNE: I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: agriculture is the backbone of the New Zealand economy, and it has been for 100 years. The export receipts we earn from our food and fibre industries were $56.4 billion last year. Agriculture pays the bills. You know this, Jo. You know it—80 percent of all of our exports, 10.5 percent of GDP, 12.8 percent of jobs across this country. Madam Speaker, just like you, I am a proud farmer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.

SUZE REDMAYNE: Sorry. Oh, I was trying to give you a shout-out. Well, none of them are. In the mighty Rangitīkei, that’s what we do. Let’s not forget, New Zealand farmers are amongst the most carbon-efficient in the world. This Government is committed to meeting our climate change obligations without shutting down New Zealand farms. This Government is committed to supporting farmers and the agriculture sector to reduce emissions in a way that doesn’t put farmers out of business, that doesn’t decimate our rural communities or shift production overseas, because it’s critical our domestic efforts to cut emissions don’t harm the ag sector.

I think I might have said it earlier: agriculture is the backbone of our economy. It’s pivotal to boosting our GDP, to raising the standard of living, and to providing the first-class education, health, and public services that we all expect and deserve. It’s why as a Government we’re focused on doubling our export receipts in the next 10 years. This bill is about backing our farmers to succeed. It’s good for farming, it’s good for agribusiness, it’s good for New Zealand, and it’s good for all New Zealanders. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): I’m so glad the previous MP, Suze Redmayne, is so passionate about farmers and the agriculture sector. It was a very well read speech, obviously from the heart, and I know she knows the sector well. I don’t know if this House is aware, but I come from a long line of proud farmers from the Waikato. No. 7 Road was the place that I spent a lot of time in my early years, and, actually, we lived with our grandparents after Dad had left to do other mahi—not left the family; left for a visit and to do other stuff. Sorry, Dad! Anyway, focus—focus on this.

I think this side of the House—I’ll speak on behalf of the Labour Party: we could consider supporting this legislation if it actually did anything. I think this is the challenge. I was really interested in reading the bill that was on the Table here, and the policy statement talks about this aligning with the Government’s action plan. This is action 12 of their action plan from the April to June quarter. Now, an action plan normally is about doing things, and I just feel like this action plan is around, “We won’t do anything; we’ll just stop doing it and see what happens.”

I hope that all of us can agree that things have to change. We can’t do what we’ve always done. We can’t live in the 20th century any more because—well, to be fair, today you see that New Zealand has gone backwards in terms of our standing around the Climate Change Performance Index. We’ve gone back seven places; we now sit 44 out of 63 countries that are measured. That’s why we need to seriously consider what we are doing to ensure that we don’t kick this can down the road. And, to me, I feel like, yet again, it’s this Government kicking the can down the road, saying, “We don’t know what we’re going to do. We’ll just wait and see and, hopefully, maybe technology, maybe the market, maybe something will figure it out.”

When you look at things like our ferries, you look at things like Resource Management Act reforms that are just thrown out, when you look at things like the water reforms, look at things like trying to get fair pay for workers, look at things—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill.

GLEN BENNETT: It’s very relevant, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s relevant, but it can’t go on for too long.

GLEN BENNETT: One more?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One more.

GLEN BENNETT: We heard at question time today about the Retirement Villages Act that was, again, kicked down the road. The reason I say that was—to come back to the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill—it feels like this Government just does nothing. It just repeals stuff and then doesn’t think it through.

As I’ve listened carefully to the debate today, which feels more like an episode of the Muppet Show, it feels to me like this Government is just spending their time talking about this side of the House. I often think the reason you talk about other people is because you’ve got nothing to talk about yourselves. You don’t know what you’re actually doing.

We can’t support this legislation. We think, and know, that we need to take responsibility. We need to find solutions. We need to invest in our future, which takes making hard decisions today for our future, because kicking this down the road does nothing to support and to fix our climate crisis.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I will bring us back to the bill because, unlike that speaker who just spoke, Glen Bennett, on this side of the House, we have real farmers—real farmers—from the Rangitīkei, real farmers from the Wairarapa. I grew up in the King Country.

Glen Bennett: Point of Order, Madam Speaker.

CATHERINE WEDD: We’ve got farmers from Northland who are real gumboot-wearing farmers—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a point of order from Glen Bennett.

Glen Bennett: I take personal offence to the fact that that member is accusing this side of the House—or particularly, I assume, myself—of not being real farmers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, she didn’t say that; she said this side of the House has real farmers. She had no comment on your side of the House as yet. Thank you.

CATHERINE WEDD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was referring to this side of the House, which has farmers, real farmers, who know how hard farmers work in New Zealand and know how farmers are very committed to reducing our emissions.

This is what this bill is about. It is a momentous day for our rural sector in New Zealand, where we are taking agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme (ETS). It’s what we campaigned on, and now we are delivering for New Zealanders, because it is senseless to send production to less-efficient countries. We need to back our farmers. We need to be aspirational again and pump confidence back into our rural sector.

We do have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world, as we have heard on many occasions here tonight. It is what drives our economy, as we’ve heard; it’s the backbone of our economy. Speaking for the hard-working Tukituki electorate, where Tukituki is a rural electorate, everything thrives off our primary industries, off our meat sector. There, in Tukituki, we do produce the best, most premium meat in the world, and a lot of our businesses rely on our primary industry, on our farmers, our Ravensdown, our meatworks. Our farmers are doing a wonderful, wonderful job out there, but they’re doing it tough at the moment. As we heard from one of our wonderful Ministers of Agriculture, stock numbers are going down at the moment. We are naturally reducing those emissions, and on this side of the House, we do have a plan.

I’d just like to acknowledge, actually—I was just out opening the second-largest wind farm in New Zealand yesterday with our wonderful energy Minister here, because we have a commitment to electrify New Zealand and double the renewable energy in New Zealand by 2050, using our sun, our water, and our wind. I must say it was very, very windy up there yesterday. What was really interesting is that, when speaking to the landowners, they said it had taken 20 years to get the switch on on this wind farm—20 years. That is just absolutely senseless. That’s why the Fast-track Approvals Bill is going to be so good for this country, and it’s going to make sure that we reach our climate change targets and we reduce our emissions, because remember that it’s not just the agriculture emissions; it’s also our transport emissions. If we are going to electrify New Zealand and move towards electrical vehicles, we need the renewable energy to do so. That was a really momentous moment.

Coming back to this bill, taking agriculture out of the ETS is going to ensure that we are working together with our farmers, working together with our rural sector, which is what the previous Government did not do. They vilified our farmers, they went to war with our farmers, and we are saying no. We back provincial New Zealand. We back our hard-working farmers, who are the backbone of this economy, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the earlier guidance. I’ve been reflecting on that, and I think it’s true to say that this side of the House has honest MPs. Thank you for that guidance; I look forward to applying it further in future. The debate has not been a debate. Aside from Mark Patterson—whose I actually think was a considered contribution—who addressed the details of this legislation and explained why, in his view, this was necessary, all we’ve actually heard from the Government side is platitudes.

Now, if you put that to one side and look at it in isolation, I actually don’t think anyone in this House would disagree, certainly not from the Labour Party. Because—

Tim Costley: No, I disagree.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: You disagree?

Tim Costley: I disagree.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: You disagree with the fact that farmers are the backbone of the country, and you disagree that they are vital to our communities and that we rely on them in areas like where I live—that’s very interesting to know, Tim Costley, MP for the Ōtaki electorate. Very interesting to know, indeed.

The thing is, if you actually look at the contributions from particularly the National Party MPs, they’ve used this debate as an opportunity to praise farmers but haven’t actually touched on the actual issue at hand. The honest response is that I don’t want to see agriculture in the emissions trading scheme (ETS) either, but is completely removing them out of it right now, when the Government hasn’t got a plan in place to address it, the right response? Well, my honest answer to that would have to be no. If this was delaying this—

Tim Costley: Point of order. Madam Speaker, thank you. I just wonder if, in the spirit of the honesty of that side of the House that’s being reinforced, perhaps the member could be given the chance to correct for the Hansard what he said earlier about my reflection, which was that, as I think he probably heard, I didn’t agree with his assessment of the debate, but I certainly would agree with farmers being the backbone of our economy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the member made an interjection which was, I guess, read by the member making a speech, and I don’t believe that the comment was misinterpreted at the time. I’d invite the Hon Kieran McAnulty to carry on.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Now, if this bill was proposing that the deadline, so to speak, was to be pushed out, say, three years, as an example, I think there’s a very good chance that there’d be a lot more support in this House than what there is tonight. This is because, actually, there’s a long history of that being the approach.

If we think back to when the ETS was first brought in, there was a time by which agriculture could consider alternative options. That was pushed back. Then, of course, we all know that, through the He Waka Eke Noa process, an alternative to the ETS was trying to be found, because at the heart of that—admittedly, it’s now been sacked by this Government—was a recognition that if there is to be an alternative approach for agriculture, we as a Parliament should support it. That’s certainly the view of the Labour Party. This is because, essentially, our reputation and our contribution to the world determines the price that we can get for our products overseas. That’s what we tried to do with He Waka Eke Noa.

I recognise the potential downfalls with that—there’s the accuracy of the technology on recognising sequestration on farms, etc. That was a sticking point. But there was an opportunity there to get that right. I’m not sure that the overseas consumers that we as a country rely on, and our primary producers rely on, will be convinced by a promise that one day there might be technology. If this was pushed back, for example, for three years, it might demonstrate that, yep, we’re still taking this seriously but we’re just giving the sector a little bit longer. It’s not actually just the sector; it’s the Government. The investment in technology—there’s been some claims tonight it’s nowhere near as much as would have been if He Waka Eke Noa was in place. But that’s not really the point of this.

The point is that, if you look at the free-trade agreements this country has recently signed, in particular the European Union—hugely, hugely beneficial to this country; however, only if we live up to our obligations on climate change. Now, they take that incredibly seriously, the European Union. They have set this as a priority for them. We know in many ways that, where the EU is heading, other countries will follow, and free-trade agreements will be updated and be reflected in that respect. What is concerning is that today of all days, where we’re debating this, New Zealand has dropped seven points in the climate index. That should be a worry for all of us, because our reputation determines the prices that our primary sector gets.

I would put towards the debate that if this, the date on which agriculture enters the ETS, was simply to be pushed out instead of scrapped altogether, we might be able to make those claims to those consumers, and I’m concerned we can’t now. Now, that, ultimately, could have an impact on the price that farms get. That will impact regions like where I live. That will be a major worry. There’s two sides to this debate, and so often it’s a lazy, politically driven debate, where fingers are pointed and labels are thrown and names are thrown that aren’t accurate. This is too important for this country to simply have a debate that says, “We love farmers; they hate farmers.”, “They hate farmers; we love farmers.” It’s too important for that, because it’s not honest and it’s also not accurate.

Hon Simeon Brown: Well, it’s what you did for six years.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I don’t know why Simeon Brown’s chirping up. This is a man who has been on fewer farms than Erica Stanford has called Jan Tinetti names. He has come from the heart of Auckland. He might be a member of the National Party, and I recognise that they have farmers, but Simeon Brown is not one of those. Remember that time he stood on the side of the road with a shovel and pretended he would dig a hole? His shovel wasn’t even dirty and his boots weren’t even dirty. Look, I will take contributions from the likes of Mike Butterick, who I respect, and the other farmers in that, but I will not stand here and be chirped at by a bloke who’s never even visited a farm.

This bill is actually a missed opportunity for the large opportunities that are around, and I think that’s a shame. It’s on that basis that we don’t support this—not because of all the ridiculous and untrue statements that the other side have said; just because I think we’re not looking at the bigger picture.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. At this, the third reading, I’m conscious I stand between the New Zealand rural community and the certainty that they need once this legislation is passed into force, so I’m going to avoid being derailed too far. I would just note, for the area that is known as Kaipara ki Mahurangi, good rural farming stock up that north part of Auckland—just as my colleague and friend represents the old Franklin district, equivalent but on the side to the Rodney District, as my other colleague and friend Simon Court points out.

Nevertheless, more importantly, and supporting the comments made from those who are genuinely of a rural background, on this side of the House, this is important for “New Zealand Inc.” It’s important for the world as well, for all the reasons that have been canvassed. We allow our farmers to have some breathing space, to take stock, almost literally, as my colleague and friend Catherine Wedd pointed out in her speech about this momentous day that we’re about to have. Certainly, from a Land Information point of view, with the Crown pastoral estates being an important element to that, we know that there are many people doing great things out there on the land, including that which is actually owned by the Crown. We need to partner with these people, we need to give them the breathing space, and we need to enable and encourage the work that they’re already doing.

When the other side of the House asks what it is that must be done, actually, more importantly, the question must be: how can we, as a Government, support the work that is already being done? How can the Government form a partnership, not necessarily in the form of a rinky-dink scheme like He Waka Eke Noa, but actually genuinely to partner, to understand what’s going on, to support that, to invest, to enable the investment, including the technology? This is an important day for this country, our rural folk, and, therefore, all of New Zealand. We are so dependent on them—the backbone of our country. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

We have an important opportunity here to do something really good and positive in regard to turning our conversation around, to delivering some practical solutions. New Zealand was too slow to effectively regulate vaping, and youth vaping rates are too high. We have collectively agreed that, we have recognised that, and we know that we can do better. We have to stop young people from taking it up as a habit. That’s about making vaping as unfashionable as smoking is for young people now, and it’s about controls. Encouragingly, we have seen some indications of the levelling off of vaping rates, but we do not want to be complacent.

This bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to ban disposable vapes and have much tougher penalties for selling vapes to under-18-year-olds. It means we will have far stronger legislative settings and policy levers in place to protect our young people. We have talked at length about how far we can go and how much more we can do, but this is a step in the right direction, providing some clarity and certainty about how this country feels about vaping.

We cannot ignore, however, that vaping has been a contributor as a lower-harm product that has allowed people to exit from smoking. It is important, as we have these conversations, that we have some balance, that we have some clarity around what we’re trying to achieve, and, in that balance, ensuring that those who have successfully transitioned from smoking will still have the access to the products that enable them to break the habit of, sometimes, a lifetime.

This bill introduces a number of measures. It includes a ban on disposable vapes, the disposable vape that is the most common device used among our young people. In addition, it significantly increases penalties and fines for people who sell vapes to minors. That is an important factor: ensuring that we send a clear message that we do not accept that there is any excuse for supplying these products to young people, who should not be using vapes. Finally, it puts some restrictions in place around the visibility of the vaping stores, to not allow them to be an attractive honeypot to young people—that we make sure we have some concealment around how these products are displayed.

These changes will be supported by an increased focus on compliance and greater enforcement capability. That work is under way, and I look forward to announcing the smoke-free action plan next week, which will answer a lot of questions about our work moving forward.

The changes take place six months after this bill comes into law. We believe it’s important to give time for all those involved to prepare and get their implementation right, to ensure that we’re sending some clear messages, that there is clear guidance around displays, that the businesses affected will know exactly what is happening.

While we want to control and reduce youth vaping, the Government is determined to ensure that New Zealanders quit smoking. This is an important priority and an important distinction as we discuss vaping. I’m pleased that the changes to this bill ensure that it won’t have unintended consequences by taking the vaping devices that are useful for those who’ve quit smoking. We know that many people who have become smoke-free by switching to vaping are reliant on these devices. We want and expect this to continue to drive us towards our smoke-free goal. The passage of this bill ensures that we achieve better balance and safeguarding our young people from vaping, while supporting people to stop smoking.

There has been a lot of noise in this space, and I appreciate that this is a passionate topic. We have had success in this country in helping people to quit smoking, but, as we went through this process, we recognised that we allowed this habit to become an infliction on our young people and there is much we need to know about how vaping impacts young lives.

I want to thank everyone involved in getting this bill to its third reading; to the Health Committee for your consideration, for your process of implementing some practical suggestions and amendments that made this bill workable and better, for the work that you contributed.

This bill is a major step to protecting our children and young people from vaping. It has been a pleasure to work with those front-line workers who really deliver the hard yards in helping people to quit smoking. Their input and their understanding of the mahi that they do every day has been informative, and I would like to commend those individuals for their work.

I would also like to take a moment to recognise those people who have done the hard work to quit smoking, but also those people who have called on their whānau, their friends, and their colleagues to quit smoking. I hope, because of all the discussion in this space, that, over the next few months, we are reinvigorated, we are reminded that we can achieve something unprecedented in the world and get below that 5 percent threshold.

It is the individuals out there who are telling their family and their whānau to just give it another go. Don’t be whakamā because it didn’t work last time; give it another crack. I really look forward to having those discussions over the next few weeks as we launch the smoke-free action plan.

This is an important step forward. We do not want our young people vaping. We do not want them taking up this habit. We do not want them to be nicotine addicted. We also don’t want anybody taking up tobacco and smoking. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I note that the Minister has talked about this as being an important opportunity—and indeed it’s a very important opportunity to address a really significant problem that our youth face currently—but from my perspective, it’s an absolutely wasted opportunity.

I don’t apologise for being underwhelmed, because this comes in a week where we have seen, for the first time in decades, daily smokers increase—from 284,000 to 300,000. That is relevant because we have been sold a line consistently that vaping and vaping products are there to support people come off cigarette smoking. We have been sold a line by this Government that they are committed to reducing smoking and reducing the harm of vaping to our young people, and we end up with a bill that really has more questions about what it doesn’t do than what it does do. While Labour is supporting it, this is indeed a wasted opportunity.

If I think about the extent of the problem—and I’ve said it a few times now in the House—let us not forget that New Zealand’s vaping issue with young people is amongst the worst in the world. If we look at graphs that show the US, the UK, and New Zealand, the US is hovering around 6 percent or 7 percent, the UK around 10 percent, and New Zealand is way up there at around 17 percent of young people who have daily vaped over the last year. That is the nature of the problem that we’re talking about, and we have heard in the Health Committee from Vape-Free Kids and from other young people who have described the terrible addiction to nicotine and the terrible mental health issues and concerns that they feel, and the trauma they feel, from being addicted to vapes.

These are young people who have not necessarily ever smoked. We’ve let them down, and now there’s an opportunity to do something about it, and my concern is that we have wasted that opportunity, that we have real questions over the implementation of this bill and what it doesn’t do, and that we may not ever get around to doing it properly. All we have is the word of the Minister about an action plan coming into place next week after the first part of the legislation, which seems really incomplete. Let us not forget that this is a Minister who did support tax cuts to big tobacco companies. That is how I want to contextualise my comments about this wasted opportunity.

If we look at what select committee submitters told us in the very short time frame that they had to be able to submit, they talked about their concern about the prevalence and about their communities, particularly low socio-economic communities, where a Canterbury University study has shown that there are up to seven times as many vape stores that those young people have to contend with in their neighbourhood. That’s walking past, seeing the signage, seeing the visibility, having the peer pressure, and being exposed to accessibility of vapes. Now, this bill may go some way in terms of reducing that visibility, but it doesn’t do anything about the big neon signs that advertise specialist vape stores. We didn’t have an opportunity to really explore whether that was possible because, like we heard so many times on the select committee and so many times, in fact, in the committee of the whole House, that was out of scope.

What could have been done? What could have been done, we heard, was there could have been a sinking lid for communities where there was a particularly high prevalence of vape stores; where, instead of just outlawing them, allow them to continue; and when they would naturally have natural attrition and close, make sure no more vape stores came up in that area. That seems like a really good argument. We heard from a number of submitters on that. But no—out of scope, waiting for the next bill.

What about the flavours? Flavours like sweet menthol and sweet tobacco. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence from the young people that I have met with in my mental health spokesperson capacity who have talked about the cynical targeting of young people with some of the flavours on vapes. That would have been so easy to clean up in this bill. It’s not that complicated if there’s political will.

We’ve also heard about the plain packaging. If it applies to cigarettes, why could it not easily be adopted for vapes? Yet that’s something that, once again, we were told was out of scope. One of the ones that I really found the most frustrating was the failure to address the levels of nicotine in vapes. Young people told us how addictive nicotine was and what a difference it would make if there was a tapering of the nicotine levels. Again, that is not rocket science to do. We have plenty of support available if there is political will and if there is enough time for a proper legislative process and enough time for proper consultation, but, sadly, that didn’t happen.

Then we had submissions saying that perhaps the industry could be regulated so that at least we could rely on data coming from our own sector, rather than the desktop-style research that informed the policies which looked at Australia, the UK, the US—countries that don’t have the same level of vaping problems, that don’t have the same social make-up that we do—and I think there was even a reference to Hungary in that desktop research. Now, if we had been able to explore regulation and been able to have proper data, we would have been able to consider things like when we look at the limitations on where vape shops can be situated, rather than just focusing on schools or just focusing on early childhood education centres. What about churches? We know that many young people are exposed to vape shops around churches, and we know that some of our highest vaping levels are amongst our young Māori and Pacific women. We didn’t have any analysis of how to have a more nuanced approach that would serve those young people. Instead, we relied on overseas research and pretty bold assumptions about what was going to reduce the visibility and accessibility of vapes.

Now, when I questioned how that happened, I was told that it’s to do with the process. Not only did we have dropped on us at the eleventh hour an edict from the Minister that this was to be a shortened committee process, and that we would have to sit at odd times to be able to hear all the submitters, but we also heard that many things were out of scope, and we also did not have the research available because the officials had not had time to do their work properly.

There were two regulatory impact statements. Both of them mentioned very explicitly the caveats around the quality of advice that they were able to give. They did pass the threshold, but there were caveats about the quality through lack of time and through lack of scope, and one of them, the latter—the August regulatory impact statement (RIS)—actually explicitly mentioned that because the decisions had already been made at a ministerial level, there were many things from a policy perspective that could have been addressed and looked at that weren’t.

When we looked at the cost-benefit analysis in the committee stage, there were assumptions made based on incomplete evidence where there were no costings. We were expected to rely on a cost-benefit analysis that suggested a course of action where there were no numbers underpinning the analysis, because officials simply didn’t have the information. The evidence base for this bill is a little bit of a house of cards. We will support it because we strongly believe that it’s really important to come in to bat for our young people to make sure that no further young people take up this addictive and worrying and concerning habit that they themselves have said they don’t want to do. Without even touching a cigarette, we want to make sure that that doesn’t happen, and so we are cautiously supporting the bill.

The questions are overwhelming. What is in the next tranche of legislation? How will enforcement occur? The Minister has said that the enforcement will come in the next bill. Well, I find that bizarre to have a bill that is trying to regulate and restrict something that says, “Oh, we’ll deal with enforcement later.” The only additional enforcement powers of those who are the directors that were going around to look at prosecutions and to look at compliance—they had one extra power, which was to ask people for their date of birth. There’s no analysis about whether that is sufficient to be able to make this bill work, and we heard in the committee that there’d only been a couple of prosecutions in the previous year because the thresholds were not such that prosecutions could be taken. The legislative fix for that is in this bill, although the Minister herself gave a different reason for the legislative fix, which makes me wonder if she was really across the RIS.

These are all questions that will come up, surely, in January, when we expect the next bill before the House. If it doesn’t come before the House then, then there are real questions as to what this bill is aiming to achieve. With those notes of strong caution, we will support the bill.

Debate interrupted.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, we will now have a maiden statement from Benjamin Doyle. Following the maiden statement, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 December 2024. I call on Benjamin Doyle to make a maiden statement.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. E te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

Mana whakapapa, mana tuakiri, mana takatāpui e.

Ahuahu mai, ahuahu atu kia tau ai te mauri i roto i a koe.

Ko Hinetītama koe, ko Hine-nui-te-pō koe.

Koia rā ko te whakaahuatanga.

Mana māreikura, mana whatukura, mana takatāpui e.

Rere mai nuku, rere mai rangi, ka tau, whakatau hā e.

Uhi, wero, tau mai te mahana. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.

[The power of heritage, of identity, and of diversity of gender, sexuality, and sex characteristics.

Take shape as you will so that the power of life infuses you.

You are Hinetītama, you are Hine-nui-te-pō.

This is the creation of form.

The power of the divine feminine, the divine masculine, and of sexual and gender diversity.

Soar over earth and heaven, and settle, a calming breath.

Let the warmth be present.

It coalesces, it gathers, it is done.]

Ko te tuatahi e rere ana te mihi, ka tika, ki te whaea o te ao. Ko Papatūānuku te māreikura, tēnā koe.

Ko Ranginui kei runga, tēnā hoki koe. Ki te Whare e tū nei, ki te ātea e takoto nei, tēnā kōrua.

E ngā mana whenua o tēnei rohe, ko Te Ūpoko-o-te-ika-a-Māui, ngā kaitiaki pono o te taiao, o te moana, o te whenua, ko Te Ātiawa, ko Taranaki Whānui, ko Ngāti Toa Rangatira, rātou ko Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga. Karanga mai, karanga mai, karanga mai.

Kia whakahōnoretia tō tātou Ariki Nui, te Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, rātou ko te whānau whānui o te kāhui ariki. Rire rire hau, pai mārire.

Tēnā koutou e ō tātou tini mate, koutou kua whetūrangitia i te korowai o Ranginui, koutou kua wehe atu ki te pō, ki tua o te ārai, ki te okiokinga o ō tātou tūpuna, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

Te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora.

E ngā paepae o te Whare, e te tī, e te tā, e ngā hau e whā, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ko taku kōrero nei he kupu arataki, he whakautu ki ngā pātai “Ko wai au? Nō wai au?” Ki tōku taha Pākehā, ko Lugnaquilla te maunga, ko Avoca te awa, ko Wicklow te rohe, ko Arklow te pā. Nō Airani, Kōtirana me Piritānia ōku tūpuna.

Ki tōku taha Māori, ko Kapowai, ko Ahuahu, ko Whakarongorua ngā maunga. Ko Waikare, ko Waitangi, ko Utakura ngā awa. Ko Ngātokimatawhaorua tōku waka. He uri ahau nō te whare tapu o Ngāpuhi.

I tipu ake ki Whangaparaoa, engari e noho ana au ki Kirikiriroa. Nā reira ka mihi ki te maunga, ko Taupiri, me te awa, ko Waikato.

He uri ahau, he mokopuna ahau, he pāpā ahau. He takatāpui ahau, he whaikaha ahau, he ira tangata ahau. Ko they/them ōku tūkapi. Ko Benjamin Doyle tōku nei ingoa.

E te Kāwanatanga, e te Whare, whakarongo mai ki te kōrero i ō tātou tūpuna. Ka pō, ka ao, ka awatea.

Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, otirā tēnā tātou katoa.

[Firstly, it is appropriate that the acknowledgments flow to the mother of the earth. Papatūānuku the divine feminine, I greet you.

Ranginui above, I acknowledge you too. To the House that stands here, to the forecourt that lies here, greetings to you both.

To the traditional authorities of this region, the greater Wellington area, the true custodians of the environment, of the ocean, of the land, Te Ātiawa, Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga. Thank you for your call of welcome.

Let us honour our monarch, Queen Nga wai hono i te po, and the wider family of the royal household. Holy Spirit be with us, peace and goodwill to all.

Greetings to you, our dearly departed, you who have become stars on the cloak of Ranginui, you who have departed into the darkness, beyond the veil, to the resting place of our ancestors, rest in peace.

As those who have passed on congregate together, so do we the living.

To the benches of the House, those from all different backgrounds, the four winds, the many leaders, greetings and thanks to you all.

My speech here is to offer words of guidance, and to answer the questions, “Who am I? Who do I belong to?” On my Pākehā side, Lugnaquilla is my mountain, Avoca is my river, Wicklow is my home region, Arklow is my hometown. My ancestors are from Ireland, Scotland, and Britain.

On my Māori side, Kapowai, Ahuahu, and Whakarongorua are my mountains. Waikare, Waitangi, and Utakura are my rivers. Ngātokimatawhaorua is my waka. I am a descendant of the sacred house of Ngāpuhi.

I grew up in Whangaparāoa, but I now reside in Hamilton. And so I acknowledge the sacred mountain, Taupiri, and the ancestral river, Waikato.

I am a descendant, I am a grandchild, and I am a father. I am gender diverse, I am disabled, and I am human. My pronouns are they/them. My name is Benjamin Doyle.

To the Government, to the House, take heed of the words of our ancestors. The darkness turns to light, dawn has broken.

And so my greetings and thanks to you all, indeed to all of us.]

Yesterday was International Trans Day of Remembrance; a day to celebrate the gift that is our trans whānau. Let it be known in this House that trans lives are taonga, that iawhiti rights are a Te Tiriti issue. It is a day to reflect on the tireless work of our trans leaders and elders; the icons who have fought, who have organised, who have existed in the face of enormous vitriolic hate. A hate, I might add, that was imported to Aotearoa by colonisation. International Trans Day of Remembrance is a day to recall the countless trans lives stolen by acts of violence, the lives lost to inadequate healthcare, to educational discrimination, to systemic exclusion, to police brutality, to prisons, to State and faith-based care.

We remember yesterday, today, and every day those who came before us like Whaea Georgina Beyer, the world’s first trans member of Parliament—an auntie, a leader, a guide who has laid this path so that I and others may walk upon it on International Trans Day of Remembrance. Every day, we will remember you.

I am not here for any one part of my identity, any singular community to which I belong; I am here for all the many interwoven and textured strands that constitute me and which constitute you—our collective selves past, present, and future. Onamata, anamata. [Past, future.]

I am a descendant of the earth, a mokopuna of Te Tai Tokerau, an uri of Ngāpuhi. I am a parent, a lover, a friend, a comrade. I am a teacher and, more importantly, I am a learner. I am a gardener, a writer, a devotee of adequately funded arts, and a dedicated advocate for tangata me te whenua.

I am proud to be takatāpui—queer; non-binary, which means that my gender is expansive and fluid, not muzzled by the strict confines of a suffocating binary. If my pronouns confuse you, here’s a tip: just use my name. If the way I dress causes you concern, I say to you: be more concerned by the contents of my mind than that of my wardrobe.

I live with a chronic illness, and although it may not be something you can see, 20,000 New Zealanders have to manage this condition every day—one of the highest prevalences in the world. I want to remind you that a disability does not need to be seen to be real, and it does not require your comprehension to deserve equitable and adequate healthcare, employment, housing, or respect.

This institution we represent, and its successive neo-liberal Governments, have put profit before people and planet, time and time again. This relentless, insatiable hunger for growth; this glutton for endlessly more—more wealth, more natural resources, more power—is a fruitless endeavour. The earth is finite. It cannot be extracted from and pillaged without end.

When we dump pollution into our oceans and scrape its precious life from the bed, when we carve open our lands and fill them with waste, when we explode and extract from our ancestral mountains, poison our rivers, decimate our forests, we are not just killing the Earth, we are not just devastating our living systems, our primordial mother, Papatūānuku; we are destroying ourselves, our children—our pasts, presents, and futures. Whatu ngarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua—humanity will fade, but the land will remain.

We have a choice to live in harmony with te taiao, as kaitiaki and as tēina. We do not need to dominate the land; we must love and respect her. The Earth is a great teacher. It is not too late to learn from her, to humble ourselves to her wisdom, that like the river we must flow and adapt, that like the birds we must rise, we must sing, that like the forest we must breathe.

Indigenous people have known this mai rā anō—since the beginning. Tangata whenua have continuously offered knowledge and wisdom, mātauranga, opportunities to work and live in partnership alongside rather than in opposition to one another. Yet those in power continuously fail to listen and to act accordingly.

This week, the Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti arrived on the grounds of Parliament—tens of thousands of people, tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti from all across Aotearoa, echoing in the reverberating steps of those that have come before: the land march of 1975, the foreshore and seabed hīkoi of 2004. The people will not allow the divisive and incendiary rhetoric of the obnoxiously loud and ill-informed few to recklessly hack away at the foundations we have worked for so long to build. Toitū Te Tiriti.

In the resounding words of Matua James Hēnare, a whanaunga to many of us sitting in this Whare, “Kua tawhiti kē tō haerenga mai kia kore e haere tonu. He nui rawa ō mahi kia kore e mahi tonu.”—“We have come too far not to go further. We have done too much not to do more.”

Don’t get me wrong: our relationships are not perfect, and the systems this generation has inherited are ill-equipped at best and catastrophically disastrous at worst, but we must not lose sight of what could be. We can choose to end poverty. We can choose to transform the tax system. We can choose to adequately fund healthcare and child- and whānau-centric education. We can choose to stop killing the environment, the very thing we require to exist. It is a matter of political will, of community strength, of collective dreaming, of radical love for one another and for the world.

On love, bell hooks said, “The moment we choose to love we begin to move against domination, against oppression. The moment we choose to love we … move towards freedom, to act in ways that liberate ourselves and others.” Radical love does not look like prisons or military boot camps for children. It does not look like people sleeping on the streets or being kicked out of emergency housing. Love does not look like drilling for gas and oil in the habitats of critically endangered species or mining conservation lands or upon wāhi tapu. It does not look like animals being raced to death for profit and pleasure of bets, or like banks investing in the illegal settlement of stolen lands. Love does not look like sitting idly by while people in slavery are mining for cobalt in the Congo, or innocent people being murdered in a genocide in Palestine and Lebanon. To love is to move against domination and oppression. To love is to move towards freedom, to act in ways that liberate ourselves and others.

Before I conclude my maiden speech, I am going to recite a poem by Refaat Alareer, who was murdered in December last year by an Israeli Occupying Forces air strike in northern Gaza during Israel’s ongoing genocide in Palestine. Let this poem be a reminder of the grave injustices being committed and the lives violently stolen, not only in Palestine but around the world in Lebanon, Sudan, the Congo, Kanaky, West Papua. The struggle for liberation and justice is interconnected. We must recognise the insidious tendrils of colonisation and capitalism, which in the reckless pursuit of power and wealth justify the grotesque disposal of human lives and the evisceration of our environment. Nobody is free until everybody is free. E kore tātou e wareware. [We will never forget.]

If I must die,

you must live

to tell my story

to sell my things

to buy a piece of cloth

and some strings,

(make it white with a long tail)

so that a child, somewhere in Gaza

while looking heaven in the eye

awaiting his dad who left in a blaze—

and bid no one farewell

not even to his flesh

not even to himself—

sees the kite, my kite you made, flying up above

and thinks for a moment an angel is there

bringing back love

If I must die

let it bring hope

let it be a tale.

Mana atua, mana tipua, mana takatāpui e. Ka rongo te pō, ka rongo te ao. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.

[Divine power, supernatural power, the power of diversity of gender and sexuality. It is felt by the darkness and by the light. It coalesces, it gathers, it is done.]

Waiata—“Tai Aroha”

The House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.