Wednesday, 20 March 2024 - Volume 774 Sitting date: 20 Mar 2024 WEDNESDAY, 20 MARCH 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS MAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Te Pāti Māori requesting that the House remove GST from all food sales in Aotearoa, and note that 19,864 people have signed a petition to this effect. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: 2022-23 annual report for the New Zealand Productivity Commission. SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of the Public Service Commission. SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on the New Zealand economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. The IMF has recently been in New Zealand to conduct its annual review of the economy. It released a concluding statement today that describes its preliminary findings. Consistent with other forecasters, the IMF expects growth to remain slow in 2024, before picking up in 2025. It's the lagged impact: the legacy of the last Government of monetary policy tightening, suppressing domestic demand. As a result of this slowing in demand, the IMF expects inflation to come back into the Reserve Bank's 1 percent to 3 percent target range in the third quarter of 2024. SPEAKER: Joseph Mooney. Joseph Mooney: [Looks at phone] My apologies, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] SPEAKER: What's that, sorry? Joseph Mooney: What other—[Interruption] Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Hang on a moment. Joseph Mooney: What other reports has the Minister seen? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, thank you to the member. He's allowed to ask me any question he likes about the IMF report because I have a lot of comments to make about it. One of the things the IMF report comments on is New Zealand's fiscal position, saying that the Government is running a structural fiscal deficit with a spending-to-GDP ratio higher this year following Budget 2023's sizeable operating and capital allowances. The IMF also says that in recent years, debt has increased more rapidly in New Zealand than in many other advanced economies, and that New Zealand's debt will continue its upward trajectory if there is no decisive consolidation. Members will recall that I have consistently been saying the same thing about New Zealand's deficit and debt in this House. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I understand there's a little bit of a pantomime that goes on when it comes to Government questions. But a member getting out of their seat to go and ask a Minister what question they're allowed to ask in the middle of trying to ask a question somewhat makes a mockery of the Parliament's process. SPEAKER: Firstly, you've probably lost the point of order on the opening statement with regards to "pantomime"—sympathetic as one might be to that suggestion. But it's also not possible, even with your considerable amount of skill, to have lip-read what was actually being said when someone had their back to you. So a point is made. Hon David Seymour: How do these levels of debt fit within wider time frames over several decades or even as long as the Deputy Prime Minister's lifetime? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I outlined to this House yesterday, New Zealand's debt levels are now at a level that we haven't seen since the late 80s, mid-1990s. Joseph Mooney: What are the IMF's policy prescriptions that she's seen? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF says that the Government's fiscal strategy should signal a strong commitment to consolidation, and it says that Budget 2024 should adopt a tight fiscal stance to help reduce inflation. More broadly, the IMF's statement says the policies to boost housing supply are urgently needed and that changes in zoning can be effective. I'm sure my colleague the Minister of Housing clearly agrees wholeheartedly. The IMF also goes on to say that reforms are needed to revive New Zealand's slow productivity growth. Joseph Mooney: How is the Government planning on addressing New Zealand's productivity challenges? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last Friday, I set out the Government's growth strategy in a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber. The strategy has five pillars: building infrastructure for growth and resilience; lifting educational achievement and skills; strengthening trade and investment; promoting innovation, science, and technology; and improving regulation. The Government cannot do this alone. It requires businesses to pitch in as well, and feedback is that business welcomes the chance to work with a Government intent on removing obstacles rather than tying them up in regulation and red tape. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and in particular I stand by this Government's action to restore responsibilities by Kāinga Ora tenants to respect their home and their neighbours if they want to remain in their State house. The status quo is not fair on neighbours faced with disruptive or abusive behaviour and nor is it fair on taxpayers, who foot the bill for that house, to fail to uphold the standards expected of that rent. And I have to say, I agree with that member when he said that he didn't do enough on unruly tenants in six years, and that's quite obvious, because there are 335 serious complaints every month over the last three months and, in particular, there are three evicted tenants in the last year. So I make no apologies for being tough on making sure we make sure Kāinga Ora tenants are meeting their obligations. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to change the criteria for access to disability support entitlements, and was the Cabinet consulted on that decision? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd say on that is that there has been no change to the disability services support budget from the budget that was set in your last Government. What there has been is a tightening up of the criteria of the modifications and equipment budget to make sure that disabled people are getting the direct support that they need. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was actually, "Who made the decision?" The Prime Minister has just indicated that there has been a decision made to change the criteria. I asked him who made that and whether Cabinet was consulted on it. SPEAKER: OK, well, ask it again. We'll pretend it hasn't happened, and you can get another answer. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to change the criteria for access to disability support entitlements, and was the Cabinet consulted? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The ministry made the decision to tighten up the criteria for modifications and equipment, which is a piece of the total disability services budget. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Minister for Disability Issues seek additional funding to meet the shortfall in disability support funding before reducing the entitlement criteria? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I want to be clear with that member about is that this Government is maintaining the total budget that the member's Government signed off in May last year. The total budget for disability services has remained unchanged. That is an area of pressure, and that is something that we're considering for our Budget with respect to how we can better support front-line services. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn't the question that was asked. It was actually a very straight question. You indicated yesterday that, if I ask straight questions, you'll have more sympathy. The question was very straight and simple: did the Minister for Disability Issues seek additional funding to meet the shortfall in disability support funding before reducing the entitlement criteria? SPEAKER: Yes, but the answer that came—I did listen to your question, and I listened to the answer—was that the Government is working a different process, I suppose you might say, with regards to a more comprehensive, I think the term was, full budget approach, which I think does answer the question. It certainly addresses the question, which, as you know, is all that has to happen. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It cannot possibly address the question, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, it cannot possibly be addressing the question. The Prime Minister has indicated that the overall budget hasn't changed. The question of whether the Minister had asked for more money hasn't been addressed at all. SPEAKER: Well, look—OK. The Prime Minister can have another crack at it. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, the total budget for disability support services remained unchanged from that member's previous Government commitment in the Budget last year—one. Number two: what I'd say to you is we've got a Budget process going between now and when the Budget is delayed, and there's an understanding that yes, we need better support for some front-line services. That will be considered as part of a normal Budget process, which the member will well understand. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Minister for Disability Issues ask for more funding to meet the shortfall? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And as I've explained to that member, we're in the middle of a Budget process where we are working through the needs of the Budget for May. That is part of that process. We are cognisant of the need for better front-line services support in a number of areas, and we're working hard to deliver that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What's the estimated funding shortfall for disability support entitlements in the current financial year? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that is a discussion for the Budget process, which is up and running right now. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What's the estimated annual cost of reinstating interest deductibility for landlords once that policy is fully implemented? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'm very proud about that policy is making sure that it delivers for renters of New Zealand. The Labour Party used to care about renters in New Zealand, but they lifted rents up $170 per week— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister doesn't know, he can say he doesn't know, but to simply not answer the question and then attack the Opposition, when the question is a very straight one—there was no assertion in it; it was simply a straight question as to what the cost of a Government policy which has been announced is. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The total cost is $2.9 billion over four years. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why can Cabinet agree on tax cuts for landlords prior to the Budget, as announced on 10 March and as indicated in the statement that he's just made, but not on boosting disability support funding and instead cutting entitlements for the families who receive them? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely with that last part of that statement. What I'm saying to the member very clearly is that this Government is working to the budget that that member and his Government put in place last year. That is the total budget that we're working for. We have a new Budget coming at the end of May, and we are considering a range of needs and a range of front-line services. Question No. 3—Health 3. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to deliver better cancer services? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In our first few months, we have made progress in both the cancer diagnostic and cancer management spaces. These announcements have been backed up by the introduction of an ambitious faster cancer treatment target. That target aims for 90 percent of patients to receive cancer management within 31 days of a decision to treat. This will help ensure the delivery of timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. Dr Hamish Campbell: What steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic cancer services? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Just last week, the Prime Minister and I were at the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau. This is a great example of taking health services directly into communities and is expected to reach up to 6,000 women a year. These mobile units will have an important role to play in our recently announced age extension for breast cancer screening, which was announced as part of our hundred-day plan. Dr Hamish Campbell: Why is it so important to improve access to diagnostic cancer services? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Improving access to diagnostic services will save lives. That is why it is so important to us. The extension of breast cancer screening means that around 120,000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. We know that catching more cancers early means better treatment outcomes. I'm informed an additional 22 lives could be saved every year on the current uptake and 65 with full uptake. Dr Hamish Campbell: What other steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic technology across New Zealand? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I thank the member for his question—I'm sure that as a representative for the South Island, this answer will be of particular interest to him. The Government recently announced that Health New Zealand has approved funding for an updated set of criteria that will allow for about 1,000 more publicly funded positron emission tomography (PET) / CT scans per year in the South Island. For example, this will remove geographic variation that previously meant people in the South Island would have to travel to the North Island to access publicly funded PET/CT scans. Question No. 4—Energy 4. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Energy: What actions, if any, has he taken to establish a fuel security plan? Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy): [Clears throat] Apologies, Mr. Speaker, there's a frog in my throat. The coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party commits to the establishment of a fuel security plan to safeguard transport, logistics, and emergency services from any domestic or international disruption. The Government is moving quickly to establish such plan, with a study into NZ fuel requirements planned to begin this later, including an investigation into the reestablishment of the Marsden Point refinery, shamefully closed down. Andy Foster: What fuels does the Minister see are critical for our fuel security in the coming decades? Hon SHANE JONES: We share a desire that Kiwis should be free of reliance on fossil fuels in the near future. That stuff, however, belongs in an Enid Blyton storybook. New Zealand will continue to need gas to keep our economy functioning. Sadly, from time to time, Indonesian coal will be relied upon to keep the lights on. This is a stark reminder to the people who sit under a rock, not appreciating the genuine complexity of energy resilience. Andy Foster: What recent causes of fuel insecurity in New Zealand is the Minister aware of? Hon SHANE JONES: I am aware that, despite the willingness of the executive and directors of the Marston Point refinery to seek an accommodation with the last Government, the last Government watched the demise and death of the Marsden Point oil refinery—an awful blow to Northland, and a wicked act undermining the resilience of New Zealand. But not only has it put fuel security at risk, it endangered cardon dioxide supplies for beer and food. It was also, we should remember, the majority producer of jet fuel. In fact, all shipping fuel and more than half of our diesel came a lot more confidently and reliably to New Zealand as a consequence of that refinery. And the people who closed it down thought that they were doing the right thing via climate change—they have worsened the resilience of our nation. Andy Foster: As a result of that closure, what actions is the Minister taking to review the opportunities that there are around Marsden Point? Hon SHANE JONES: As I have said, we are investigating the reestablishment of Marsden Point refinery. Sadly, we are left to gather the— Scott Willis: Sadly, we are left with you! Hon SHANE JONES: —results of an awful decision, made over the last to two years, and it's driven—sir—by a mixture of wokeism, a mixture of naivety, and an unwillingness to accept without gas, without fuel, the nation will collapse. With New Zealand First in charge of such an initiative, our resilience will prosper. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister— SPEAKER: Yeah, hang on. No, I haven't called you yet. Just before we go on, I suppose—I was going to use the word "poetic", but it's not really poetic; it's interesting and colourful, but not particularly helpful. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There are Parliaments that actually admire the exquisite use of the English language—we did, formerly, until a recent time. So might I just say that is important to us. SPEAKER: Can I just say, could you speak into your microphone, because I couldn't hear you. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'll say it loudly. There was a time when Parliaments, and ours was one of them, would admire the exquisite use of the English language. If some members of Parliament can't understand that, then that's their problem. That's my point. SPEAKER: Well, hang on. Speaking to the point of order— Rawiri Waititi: Hear, hear! SPEAKER: —my point simply was— Rawiri Waititi: I get knocked down. SPEAKER: My point simply was that—do you want to hear or not? My point simply was that the Standing Orders, which you didn't refer to, do require that Ministers answer within a number of criteria that are laid down in the Standing Orders. Some of that language stepped well outside that, and I'm simply pointing that out. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: how long— SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Rt Hon Winston Peters. Rt Hon Winston Peters: How long—without pipeline supply and in the event of a tanker disruption—would this country be, in terms of days, before we reach an absolute and total crisis? Hon SHANE JONES: I'm advised it is between 17 and 21 days. The situation is grossly worsened by the closure of our refinery, reflective of the shallow thinking behind that decision maker. Question No. 5—Finance 5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement from yesterday's question time asking whether New Zealanders can see $123 billion worth of value generated for the $123 billion worth of Government debt racked up since 2017. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her commitment to not cut front-line public services; if so, how does she reconcile that with the Police Association's comments today that the indefinite freeze on hiring non-sworn officers is already causing backlogs and delays, and that this policy would take police officers off the street? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. That is an operational matter for the police. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis that "obviously we will need to increase health funding at a minimum at the rate of inflation."? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In a rare breaking out of bilateral consensus across the House, National, in its fiscal plan, had the same quantum of cost pressure funding for health as the Labour Party, and I agree that that was a good amount. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she commit to increasing funding for Whaikaha to maintain crucial front-line services? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she see as a greater priority for her Budget allowance: respite care for Debbie, the parent of two adults who have disabilities in my electorate of Mana, who has been a caregiver for 36 years and a sole caregiver for 30 years, or meeting the $800 million blowout in the cost of tax cuts for landlords? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the assertion at the back of that question. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why are Government's coffers an open pit for landlords but not for disabled communities? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I reject that entirely, and I would note and caution the member that the ministry for disability services is operating on the appropriation that the previous Labour Government gave it. Question No. 6—Agriculture 6. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the Primary sector? Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Last Thursday, I declared drought conditions for the top of the South, as a medium-scale adverse event, to give farmers certainty. Conditions on the ground across Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts are extremely dry and likely to get worse in the coming months. On Monday, I visited the region to meet with farmers and growers, and was told that day-to-day conditions on the ground are extremely tough and they are particularly concerned about access to stock or feed and water. This declaration unlocks further support for farmers and growers, including tax and Ministry of Social Development support, and is on top of the $20,000 that the Minister for Rural Communities, the Hon Mark Patterson, and I made available to the Top Of The South Rural Support Trust last month. Miles Anderson: How is the Minister supporting dry conditions elsewhere in New Zealand? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, whilst the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd is indicating that no other region is yet in a meteorological drought, I'm aware that many regions have had extended periods of very dry conditions. For farmers, this comes on top of financial pressures arising from input-cost increases, increased rate rises, and reduced incomes associated with low commodity prices. Therefore, I've instructed officials to update me daily on conditions around the country. I'm particularly concerned about the Canterbury and Otago regions, as I am hearing that, for some farmers, they're already at 100 percent supplementary feed levels. Unless conditions improve considerably in the coming days, I expect to make further announcements. Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the Government supporting farm productivity levels? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, last week, I announced a partnership which will help New Zealand's pastoral farmers save $332 million per year in productivity losses, by eliminating the significant impact of facial eczema. Facial eczema effects farm productivity levels by reducing growth rates, fertility, and production, and can cause animal welfare concerns. This programme will provide farmers with practical tools and solutions so they can get on with the job of providing the safe, high-quality food that New Zealand is so well known for. The Government is co-funding this $20 million project with Beef + Lamb New Zealand to ensure New Zealand's farmers remain world best. Tim van de Molen: What else has he announced to support New Zealand farmers? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we're investing in a further seven catchment groups across the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay, and the Wairarapa to ensure farmers and growers have the on-the-ground resources they need to achieve better environmental outcomes. Catchment groups led by farmers and community members do significant work across the country to sustainably achieve common goals, improve farm practices, and to share best-practice information. It's vital we support local farmers' efforts to improve land management practice and water quality measures, and the coalition Government's investment of $3.3 million will deliver better outcomes for rural New Zealand. Question No. 7—Police 7. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes. Hon Ginny Andersen: Will there be a freeze on hiring non-sworn police staff, including those who answer 111 calls and prepare police files for court, as reported today by the New Zealand Herald? Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's an operational matter for the commissioner in terms of where he deploys his personnel. Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with police advice released under the Official Information Act regarding police employees that these corporate functions will be an important and necessary enabler to support the Government's priority of recruiting an additional 500 new front-line police over the next two years; if not, why not? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, that is an operational matter and a matter for the Commissioner of Police. Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, what I can guarantee the public of New Zealand is that they have got a Government that is serious about reducing violent crime. And, in the last six years, we have seen a massive increase in violent retail crime and violent crime relating to gangs, and you have a Government and a Minister that are actually committed to getting on top of that. Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I asked a pretty straight question, Mr Speaker. I asked whether he'll commit that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch. You've been very clear, Mr Speaker, in the past that that's not an opportunity to attack the previous Government. I think the people of New Zealand deserve a clear answer on a matter of such high importance. SPEAKER: Well, it is a matter of high importance, and the Minister started by saying what he would guarantee. If you read the Standing Orders— Hon Ginny Andersen: So that's a no. SPEAKER: Well, you can take it whatever way you like, but the Standing Orders make it clear the question must be addressed, and I think it was. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Based on the ruling that you have just made, if we asked the Minister how much something costs, he could simply put his hand up and say, "Well, I can tell you how much something else costs.", and that would be addressing the question. It would make question time into a complete and utter farce. Addressing the question means you actually address the question; you don't get to ask a different question of yourself and then answer that one instead. SPEAKER: Well, that's a very interesting point of order, and it's been taken once before in this House by a member who asked the Speaker at the time: if he asked someone the price of something and he got the answer back that was just, "Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb", would that be addressing the question? The Speaker said yes, and it's quite clear in here. So it's nothing new. In this case, I'm saying that the member addressed the question. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. So are you ruling that the word "rhubarb" is a sufficient answer to any question that is being asked? Because that's, effectively, what you've just ruled. SPEAKER: No, I'm not. But a previous Speaker did offer that view to the House. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As you've made a ruling that requires those that are making points of order— SPEAKER: No. Hang on a minute; be careful. I have not made a ruling. I've just said— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Excuse me, sir— SPEAKER: I've just said—so you know, so it will help you with your point of order. I've just said that, if the Speaker considers a question is addressed, it's addressed. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes, sir. I'm referring to a previous ruling. SPEAKER: Oh OK. Hon Kieran McAnulty: If I'm given the opportunity, I'll be able to clarify it. SPEAKER: Good. Hon Kieran McAnulty: The ruling I'm referring to, sir, is that where you've asked members to indicate the Speakers' rulings or Standing Orders that they are referring to in points of order. It's a point that you made to the Rt Hon Winston Peters—or referred to earlier—and you yourself in that ruling have referred to the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings. I don't expect you to have them on hand straight away, but it would be useful for the House if you could refer to those that you are ruling on. SPEAKER: Good. Well, the Clerk has very helpfully helped me out by referring to Standing Order 396(1). Any further questions? Hon Ginny Andersen: Yes, we have a further question. Will he guarantee that uniformed officers will not be pulled off the front line into support-staff work as a result of this freeze on police employees? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, what I will guarantee is this Government is going to support our police with legislation that will allow them to go out and police gangs properly so they don't take over rural provincial towns like they did under the previous Government, and they get on top of the violent retail crime, which grew at over 500 percent under the previous six years of the Labour Government. Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that "The police need to get a sense that there's some strong political leadership and some strong political leadership coming within their own organisation to actually back them and allow them to get out there and do their job at the moment", and if so, will he finally show some leadership and actually give the police the support and the pay that they deserve? Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Of late, this House would appear to observers, particularly experienced observers, as rather absurd. You've got a question to Mark Mitchell: does he agree with Mark Mitchell? Is that the best we can do in this Parliament in 2024? SPEAKER: I think the more interesting part of that would be the way it's answered, given that the member finished her question with what, effectively, was an opinion about the Minister's performance. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do agree with Mark Mitchell, and the fact of the matter is our police had six years of weak political leadership, where they didn't back them. Their job became more dangerous, and this Government has come in saying that we will back them. We will give them the powers that they need to get out there and do their job. So, yes, they do have much stronger political backing, without a doubt. Question No. 8—Prime Minister 8. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given. Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister name one action his Government has undertaken since coming to office that has directly reduced the cost of living for New Zealanders? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have removed the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax. We have actually ensured that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is focused on reducing inflation. There are many things that we are doing to actually grow this economy, reduce the cost of living, and lower inflation. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister telling us that petrol or fuel is now cheaper in Auckland than it was prior to him coming to office? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it will be from 1 July. But what I'd say to that member is what has been exciting to see and good to see is that fresh fruit and vegetables are down 9.3 percent. That's a step in the right direction. We are determined to lower the level of inflation, to lower the cost of living so we can get interest rates down, so we can get this country growing again, and, importantly, we can keep people in employment. It's that simple. Chlöe Swarbrick: Who will benefit the most from his Government's proposed tax cuts: landlords and high-income earners, or lower-income New Zealanders? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, you'll have to wait till the Budget. But we are very clear: we are going to deliver tax relief for low and middle income workers. Those are the people that the people of the Labour Party and the Green Party used to care about. We care deeply about middle and low income workers because they are waking up each day, giving it a go, doing everything right, paying their taxes, and they deserve a break after 14 years. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice of the Climate Change Commission that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) should be seen as a means to meet emissions reduction targets, not a revenue-gathering tool, and if so, why is he still planning to raid the Climate Emergency Response Fund to pay for tax breaks for the rich? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We believe very strongly that the ETS scheme is the way in which we bend our curve on emissions, period. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary. SPEAKER: We've got one more from Chlöe Swarbrick. Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Prime—[Interruption] The co-Deputy Prime Minister may take a seat. SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on, wait on. Wait for silence. Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How does the Prime Minister reconcile one of his Government Ministers, just this question time, talking about urgent measures necessary to support farmers impacted by climate change, and, on the other hand, his Government's commitment to pour oil and gas on the climate crisis fire by re-opening exploration? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government is committed to delivering on our climate goals and commitments, period. What we're doing very clearly is we want to double the amount of renewable electricity in this country. How are we doing that? We've actually got fast-track consenting provisions in place to get renewable energy projects built faster. That's a good thing for emissions, and I look forward to the Green Party's support on that. Thank you. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has he, in the interest of the Greens and Labour Party, and in the cost of living, reduced the cost of lemons? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm sure that was part of the 9.3 percent decline in fresh fruit and vegetables. Question No. 9—Prime Minister 9. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context that they were given. Rawiri Waititi: How many Māori will be evicted from their homes as a result of this Government's recently announced Kāinga Ora (KO) policy? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we actually hope there'll be very few evictions from KO properties, but we make no apologies for actually evicting tenants who are abusing their neighbours with threatening and abusive behaviour. We think that's fair: we think it's fair for those people that are on the wait-list that are desperate to get a State house, and we think it's fair for the neighbours that are enduring those abusive tenants. Rawiri Waititi: How many of the 25,000 people on the social housing list are Māori? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: A significant number, and they deserve their shot at a State house, as well. That's why we are very clear that we will deprioritise abusive KO tenants, and we will give those people on the State house wait-list a shot at getting a home. Rawiri Waititi: What wraparound support is his Government providing to Kāinga Ora tenants to keep them in their homes? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there are wraparound supports, but what I would say to you very clearly is we are standing up very, very strongly to say that KO tenants who actually abuse their neighbours and are threatening, do not pay their rent, do not get on a rent repayment plan—that is unacceptable. We need to give people a shot at a State house who are on that wait-list. We need to respect the neighbours that are in those communities, who are actually doing it tough and being abused daily. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you made a ruling around acronyms. Again, we've heard an acronym today. The other thing is that the question was quite clear: what wraparound support is the Government providing—not whether there is any—in those Kāinga Ora homes? SPEAKER: Yeah, the first point is that it was in regards to acronyms in primary questions. But I would appreciate the House refraining from using those and using the whole term—fair point. The point about the nature of the question—I'm sure the Prime Minister would want to say a little bit more on the matter. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, there is a range of support services, and particularly in our community housing providers, there's even higher levels of pastoral care and support that's going to those vulnerable tenants that are in those properties as well. We'll continue to support community housing providers, Kāinga Ora houses, and we're going to make sure that people get the wraparound support. But we are going to call time on tenants that are actually abusing their neighbours, because others deserve a shot. We believe strongly in rights and responsibilities. You can't just take the rights of being a Kiwi without actually having the responsibilities to each other and to the country. Rawiri Waititi: What is his Government doing to ensure that Māori who are evicted from Kāinga Ora housing as a result of his Government's policies do not end up homeless? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'm sorry, but today, there are children waking up in scungy motel rooms. Today, there are children waking up on living room floors of friends and families' houses. Those families are desperate to get a State house, and they deserve their go at that. They deserve their shot at that, and we are not going to tolerate badly behaving, unruly, disruptive, threatening tenants—period. [Government members applaud] Rawiri Waititi: Thank you! Does he agree with 60 percent of New Zealanders that the cost of living is the biggest issue facing the country, and, if so, what immediate actions will he take to address the cost of living crisis for lower-income whānau? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely—that is the No. 1 issue in this country for everyday New Zealanders. It is that they are struggling with the cost of living crisis, and the reason is very simple: the previous administration—the previous Labour Government—increased Government spending by 84 percent. It lifted domestic inflation, it raised interest rates, it supressed economic growth, and it has created rising unemployment. That is the story of economics, and that's why we're tackling the root cause of it: getting inflation down below 3 percent, so we can lower the cost of living, keep people in employment, and keep people in their homes. Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government support my bill to remove GST from food and provide immediate relief for whānau who are struggling to put kai on the table, and, if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, because it would be administratively complex. But what I look forward to is Te Pāti Māori's support for our programme to actually give low and middle income working New Zealanders tax relief at the Budget. I look forward to his support because that's the best way in which we keep money in the pockets of low and middle income workers—Māori or non-Māori—so they can navigate the cost of living and spend their money as they see fit. Question No. 10—Disability Issues 10. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, particularly my statement that no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What actions prior to 18 March did she take to seek additional funding for Whaikaha since she first found out about the forecast overspend in December last year? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The situation that Whaikaha are dealing with is a funding envelope that was given to them by the previous Government—the Labour Government—and then a situation where they had no regulations, no rules, and no settings around the individual funding flexibility. They have been trying to deal with that, and we have been working with them to deal with that since they alerted me in December. [Interruption] Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I'm about to just suggest that when a Minister is giving an answer on something as serious as this, the House does listen, as opposed to the barrage that was sort of coming out at that time. Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question itself was really clear, asking the Minister what actions she's taken. In response, we got a description from her perspective of the issues, but that wasn't the question. Therefore, it didn't address what was required. SPEAKER: Well, look, I could rule on that, but I couldn't hear it, largely. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the answer. So perhaps the Minister could answer the question one more time. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I addressed it by advising that we have been working on this since December. We have been looking at what settings, what regulations, need to be put in place around the flexible, individualised funding. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about what actions she took to get additional funding. SPEAKER: Well, OK, you can't expect the answer, or anticipate the answer, is going to be given as you want it. That certainly did address the question. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. During that answer, you raised some concern that Opposition members were making too much noise during the answer. I think this highlights the challenge that we're getting into, where Ministers don't address questions that are being asked and don't make an attempt to actually get to the question that's being asked. There is going to be more disturbance, and the ruling that you made earlier that suggests that Ministers don't, in fact, need to answer questions— SPEAKER: No, I didn't say that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —or make an attempt to answer questions is actually going to make that problem worse. SPEAKER: No, that's not quite—that's not a reasonable interpretation of what I said, and, look, I haven't asked the House to be quiet, other than for people asking questions, up until today. This is a pretty serious matter, as I understand it, and so the answers are important. Now, whether or not they're addressed to the satisfaction of the questioner is quite a different analysis to the one that I have to make. But there are further supplementaries. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Yes. Why didn't she go to Cabinet to ask for additional funding for Whaikaha? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There is a Budget process that is in place, but the most prudent thing was for us first of all to get discipline and settings in place for the funding that was already there, which was not put in place by the previous Government. As the Minister of Finance has said in her answer, there will be more funding for the disabled sector, but it is absolutely imperative that we get the settings, the policies, the regulations, and the rules in place for the funding as it is now, before anything additional has to be done. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Prime Minister correct that these changes were made by the ministry, and, if so, was she consulted prior to the changes being announced and implemented? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It was a decision by the ministry, but, yes, I was consulted. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she accept that parents and carers require respite to enable them to have the capacity to care for a disabled person? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We absolutely accept that there does need to be support for our disabled community, and so no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: When will she apologise to our disability communities for the callous accusations she made about parents and carers; the changes themselves, that will significantly affect the wellbeing of carers; and the appalling way in which they were communicated? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I regret enormously that the disabled sector is having to work through what Whaikaha are having to deal with, which is the mess that was left by the previous Government in setting up a ministry without the right settings and rules in place for them to be able to administer their funding. Question No. 11—Housing TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tena koe, Mr Speaker. To the Minister of Housing—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. 11. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that "Our collective failure to build enough houses has trapped people in poverty, it has increased inequality, it has made us poorer rather than wealthier", and, if so, will he commit to delivering enough new public homes through Kāinga Ora to clear the wait-list? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): To the first part of the question: yes, I agree with my statement. To the second part of the question: no decisions have been made around that. We have Kāinga Ora under review right now. The question also assumes that the way to clear the social housing wait-list—which I note went up 500 percent in the last six years—is to build Kāinga Ora public homes. That is not the case. We need to think about how we can grow the community housing sector, and also we need to think about how we get rent affordability better under control, because the ultimate driver of how people end up on the wait-list is when they can't afford the private rental market. So we reject the assumption that the only way to house people in need is to build more public homes. Actually, we need more houses across the supply continuum, from market housing to affordable rentals through to Kāinga Ora, but also the community housing sector. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait. It's your own member who's just trying to ask a question. Tamatha Paul: What advice, if any, has he received on the impact of increased public housing supply on overall housing supply and affordability? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, building more public housing obviously increases the supply of houses—that is self-evident. So in the sense that I have received advice around that self-evident proposition, I have received that. But, as the member knows, we have a comprehensive programme of work under way across the drivers of housing supply, going out at the edge of our cities and going up, sorting out the infrastructure funding and financing constraints, and making sure we incentivise councils to believe in housing growth. We've also got a programme of work around improvements to the rental market to make sure that we get more landlords entering the market to put downward pressure on rents. And we have a whole programme of work, which I'm leading with Minister Potaka, around social housing, and, of course, sorting out the squalid mess that is emergency housing. Tamatha Paul: What advice, if any, has he seen on how a net decrease of public housing places over the past 40 years has impacted rental affordability at the same time as total households renting have more than doubled? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, well, there's quite a lot in that question. It is true that a failure to build enough houses has ultimately made rents more unaffordable—that is why our failure to build enough houses over the last six years saw rents increase by $170 per week under the previous Government. The ultimate answer to New Zealand's housing challenges are to build more houses. The way to do that is to free up land inside our cities; make sure councils zone enough land; we create abundant development opportunities and make sure that we build the infrastructure and we have a resource management system that facilitates the building of the infrastructure so that we build more houses, both at a private market level—because that is the ultimate way we get rent under control—but also, as part of that, we build more social houses. The Government has a role to play in that, but also the community housing sector has a very important role to play in that as well. We are far more about supporting the community housing sector on this side of the House than members opposite in the past, who think that Kāinga Ora is the answer to everything. Actually, it isn't. SPEAKER: Just—answers are answers and they should be as concise as possible. That was an interesting contribution to the House. Tamatha Paul: Does he accept the findings of the Growing Up in New Zealand study that housing stability is critical for young people, and, if so, what is he doing to maintain housing stability for young people in public housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Absolutely, which is why I gave a speech two or three weeks ago talking about the failure of Governments in the past to fundamentally sort out the land supply restrictions that have held New Zealand back from growing housing. We have a comprehensive programme of work in conjunction with our New Zealand First coalition partners, where we're committed to making it easier to build 60-square-metre granny flats on land; and alongside our coalition partners in the ACT Party, making the Medium Density Residential Standards optional but at the same time making sure we explore the idea of GST-sharing with councils to make sure that councils go for housing growth. The ultimate answer to all of these problems is to build a bucketload more houses than we've done in the past, and we're committed to doing that. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was all well and fine, but that that didn't address the question, which was around stability in public housing. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait on. Wait. Sorry, just calm down. Ricardo Menéndez March: Like, genuinely just raising that point. SPEAKER: Start again. Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. That was all well and fine, but it did not address— SPEAKER: And the House will listen to a point of order in silence. Ricardo Menéndez March: That did not address the question, which is around housing stability of young people in public housing— SPEAKER: Speak up, I can't hear you. Ricardo Menéndez March: It didn't address the question, which was around stability for people in public housing. The Minister talked about land supply and addressed a range of issues, but none of which actually— SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I disagree with you. I think the Minister has made it very clear that his answer to almost any question around housing for any sector of society is housing supply, and I think that it does well and truly address the question. Tamatha Paul: Will he ensure that demand for housing from the wait-list is met by building new homes rather than by evicting families already in public housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the demand for public housing places—as I said in the answer to the primary question—will be met from a variety of sources. One way to cope with the demand on the wait-list is to build Kāinga Ora houses—that is true. Another way is to facilitate the building of the community housing sector so that people go into social houses. Another way is to make sure that people don't end up on the wait-list in the first place, and the way to drive that is to make rents more affordable. People end up on the wait-list because they can't afford the private rental market. So, as I said in this answer the primary question, we reject the idea that the way to solve social housing is just build more public housing. Actually, that has a role to play, but going for housing growth across the supply continuum is extremely important and that's what we're committed to. Question No. 12—Building and Construction 12. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about building consent delays? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Today, I announced that we are putting the spotlight on building consent delays. It's already a matter of law that building consents and code compliance certificates—or CCCs—must be completed within 20 working days. However, feedback from builders on the ground, and frustrated homeowners, is that they often take a lot longer, causing frustrating and costly delays. This coalition Government is taking steps to reduce those delays and speed up the building consent systems by requiring councils to submit data for building consent and CCCs every quarter. Paulo Garcia: What impact do building consent delays have? Hon CHRIS PENK: These delays increase the cost of building and make it harder to build, as well. The delays also limit the sector's ability to deliver the affordable houses that Kiwis deserve and need. In the words of my colleague and friend Chris Bishop, in answering a previous question, "This Government is tackling the housing crisis by going for a bucketload of housing growth." Paulo Garcia: What data is currently available on building consents? Hon CHRIS PENK: Unbelievably, there is currently no consistent nationwide data on building consent time frames. This means that there is little accountability and transparency for the delays being experienced by builders or Kiwis just looking to do some DIY. However, starting next month, building consent authorities will be required to report time frames for building consents and CCC applications, with this data being published on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website every quarter. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What steps will the Minister be taking to ensure that building consent authorities have the appropriate resources to meet these new requirements? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: More bureaucracy. Hon CHRIS PENK: There is no more bureaucracy involved because this data is already collected. Because building consent authorities are required to understand how long it is that they're taking to process the consents, it's merely a matter of them reporting that existing information. In response more particularly to the question around resources, it's precisely because we need to understand if there are shortfalls in resources, or perhaps system reform that's required, that we are wanting to have such reforms based on evidence, the hard data that we're getting currently, rather than just the anecdotal information that we're currently relying upon. Paulo Garcia: What impact will these changes have? Hon CHRIS PENK: There will be three key impacts. The first is transparency and accountability within the current system; second, collecting the data will help to inform any system reform that is needed in the future to work out our ambitious plan to streamline the building consent process; and third will provide a baseline for comparisons in the future to monitor the effects of other building reforms that we are taking in this space. GENERAL DEBATE SPEAKER: Members who have to leave, could I ask them to please leave silently, and call upon some honourable member to move that this House take notice of miscellaneous business. I call the Hon— Chlöe Swarbrick: I'll take it. SPEAKER: Chlöe Swarbrick. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Times are tough, but they do not have to be. I want New Zealanders out there to know that the polluted waterways, the droughts across our productive farmlands that Ministers of this Government were talking about just at this question time today, the gridlock that's clogging up our cities and our towns, the gut-wrenching inequality which the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury demonstrated in the form of reports last year which showed us that the top 311 families in this country hold more wealth combined than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders—none of that is inevitable. It is a consequence—a direct consequence—of a tax system that sees those New Zealanders at the top paying an effective tax rate less than half of that of our average New Zealanders. The point that we want to make here is that these are choices—these are choices—that Governments get to make. These are choices that successive Governments have made, which have given us precisely these consequences. This Government wants New Zealanders out there to think that the system that we live under is inevitable. They want New Zealanders to think that the only optional pathway in front of us is more trickle-down tax cuts straight from the playbook of 1980s and 1990s economics, but we here in the Greens know that another system is not only entirely achievable but that it is possible if New Zealanders across this country realise our collective power to hold not only this Government but future Governments to account to make it happen. This exhaustion that New Zealanders feel out there across Aotearoa New Zealand but also at home in my electorate of Auckland Central, that exhaustion is not inevitable. I know that it is felt largely in servitude to this exhausting system, which many feel, in their day-to-day lives, is exploitative not only of themselves but of our planet and the natural world that we rely on for our very survival. Now, we have a recent example which exposed precisely how these choices can be made, and it was, of course, COVID-19. We saw that all of these things that Governments successively have told us are impossible, whether it be rent freezes, whether it's direct payments to struggling people, whether it was flexible working arrangements for sole parents or people with disabilities, it happened, effectively, overnight, exposing that these things were always simply a matter of political willpower. Now, this Government has made it abundantly clear where their priorities are. They are bloody-mindedly focused on delivering trickle-down tax cuts at the cost of pretty much everything else. This Government is also having the gall to tell us that they care about the climate and the environment, while in their own words from their own Government Ministers, they are telling us that they are passing legislation that is designed to, and I quote, "supercharge mining". They are committed to pouring oil and gas on the climate crisis fire by reopening exploration for oil and gas in Māui dolphin habitats. Now, we want New Zealanders to know and to hear from inside this place as much as they do from us, the Greens out there on the streets rallying along with them, that a different world is possible. You only need to look at the economic history of this country to see that every 30 or 40 years or so there is an economic transformation. In the 1930s and 1940s, in the wake of world wars and a Great Depression, there were decisions made by the Government of the day to implement the welfare State, to create public housing, public education, and public health care, and to pay for it by higher taxes on those who had profited during a time of hardship for many. But we saw that that social safety net—decisions were made to shred that social safety net through the 1980s and 1990s in favour of this rampant, dogmatic ideology of trickle-down economics. And how's that served us? Well, we are currently facing the dual crises of the greatest wealth inequality that we have ever seen on record in this country and the climate crisis. In the face of that, I believe in the ingenuity, the creativity, and the imagination of New Zealanders. The Greens believe that in working together we can completely transform that system, because another world is possible. In the words of the Hurricanes Poua team, "Governments are temporary", and New Zealand is the one who gets to decide our future. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): When Christopher Luxon's fishing around looking for a theme song to enter his next conference with, he might look to Split Enz's "Six Months in a Leaky Boat" because that definitely sums up this Government's beginning in office. It's a Government of broken promises, and it is a Government of wrong priorities. Remember the rock-solid reassurance that Christopher Luxon, Nicola Willis, and all of their MPs gave before the election that there would be no cuts to front-line public services—no cuts to front-line public services. And yet what have we seen day after day? More evidence of exactly that happening, police hiring freezes in place because they can't be assured that they're going to get the funding from the Government that they need to be able to do the job that they have in front of them. But, actually, the one that I want to devote my time to today is talking about the cuts to front-line disability support services. Because what we've seen in the last few days is a Government penny-pinching when it comes to the support for some of the most vulnerable in our communities whilst dishing out literally billions of dollars to the country's landlords. They decided that tax breaks for landlords were so important that they needed to be decided before the Budget process had even begun, but those who have real issues around disability support on a day-to-day basis now are going to have to wait for longer and, in fact, in the meantime they are having support cut off from them. I think that says everything about this Government's priorities but, actually, it gets worse than that, because I think one of the most reprehensible things that we saw here in this House yesterday was when the Minister for Disability Issues came into the House and belittled the disability support carers who are accessing that support, suggesting that they are living the high life using that funding that is provided for those with disabilities on themselves instead of caring for those who have the disabilities. I think that was absolutely reprehensible and I hope that when the Minister goes away and reflects on that, that she will actually apologise to those carers, because those carers are people who devote their lives to providing support for some of the most vulnerable members in our community. I know that I've spoken to a number of parents who have kids with severe and complex needs, and they will tell us that it is a 24/7 job. There is no break. Even when the rest of us think we can have a bit of a break at bedtime when we go to sleep, they don't even get that. Some of those kids are up all night with their needs and some days those parents do not get one minute of respite. The fact that we changed the funding criteria when we were in Government to give those parents the ability to access respite was not a mistake. It was totally and utterly justified. And let's look at the examples that the Minister gave yesterday of parents supposedly getting massages and pedicures using the funding provided for disability support. Well, I want to talk to the Minister about what those pedicures actually help to prevent: ingrown toenails, fungal nail infections, corns and calluses, athlete's foot; people who are dealing with disability support face those very ailments. Back issues: getting physiotherapy or, yes, a massage because you are lifting someone heavy all day, every day is not an unreasonable thing for those communities to ask for. It's not unreasonable for parents who have non-verbal children to be asking for things like iPads to use so that that child has a way of communicating. That's exactly what the introduction of flexible funding was designed to achieve. I don't think that a Minister for Disability Issues should be belittling the parents who are accessing those very supports. Talk about punching down; these are some of the most vulnerable people in our communities and the people who are supporting them are vulnerable as well. They are giving up their lives, in many cases, to supporting people with disabilities and to see the Minister who is supposed to be their champion belittling them in the way that she was in the House yesterday is absolutely shameful. I think the Minister should take the time to reflect on that and should apologise. But not only that, she should put it right and make sure they're getting the support they deserve. SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Hipkins. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I think you might mean "Mr Bishop", Mr Speaker. It has been 100 days of action on this side of the House, compared to 100 days of invisibility for the Opposition, and we've just seen the duelling, competing "Leaders of the Opposition" go toe to toe on the first and second speech. The newly elected leader of the Green Party, Chlöe Swarbrick, against the so-called Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, and soon enough, the next "Leader of the Opposition", the Hon Kieran McAnulty, will be up in the second slot in the general debate for the Labour Party. I actually reckon Chlöe outdid Mr Hipkins, and that doesn't speak well about his prospects. A hundred days of invisibility for them, and a hundred days of action for this Government. There's been some criticism from some commentators who should know better—about the speed with which the Government has moved to do things. At the election, New Zealanders had a choice. They had a choice about whether or not they wanted three more years of endless drift and malaise. The three more years of talking about kindness. Three more years of kumbaya and mush, as the Prime Minister puts it. Three more years of good intentions as a substitute for good public policy. What we learnt over the last six years is it's all very well to talk about kindness, it's all very well to talk about the things you want to do about child poverty and making New Zealand better; actually, what matters is good public policy and action and moving with a sense of purpose and speed. That's what this Government has done in the first 100 days. We repealed the Auckland regional fuel tax, We killed Let's Get Wellington Moving, which delivered a set of traffic lights on Cobham Drive and nothing else. We got rid of three waters, and we're going to implement a proper Local Water Done Well policy. We introduced legislation to ban gang patches and crackdown on gangs that are causing mayhem. We've banned cell phones in schools. The Opposition said during the election campaign "Oh, that can already be done", and also, at the same time, "That would be a disaster. How will this possibly be enforced?"—blah-blah. Actually, we did it really quickly and it's working remarkably well. We've introduced an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths in the classroom. We've set up new health targets. And we have moved to establish a one-stop shop, fast-track consenting regime to actually build things in New Zealand—the infrastructure that we need. There are 49 actions—we accomplished every single one of them in those first 100 days. The feedback we are getting—across the coalition, from ACT, through to National, through to New Zealand First—from the public is that, finally, people are glad we have a Government with a sense of purpose, a clear sense of direction, that has sought a mandate from the New Zealand people and is working to implement that mandate at pace. Something else we sought a mandate for was in relation to Kāinga Ora. Now, there would not be a member of this Parliament, either electorate or list member of Parliament, who over the last few years has not been confronted with horrifying stories about the unruly behaviour of some—I emphasise "some"—Kāinga Ora tenants in properties around New Zealand. You only need to Google "Kāinga Ora tenants disruptive behaviour" or "antisocial behaviour" to hear some of the horror stories out there, and I have a list, which, in the interest of time, I won't read out to the House, but every member of this House knows that there are gang members causing mayhem in Kāinga Ora properties, there are people who are engaged in acts of violence, intimidation, and harassment. The stories are shocking, and those people are breaking their social contract to New Zealanders. New Zealanders quite rightly say there's a really important role for State housing and social housing in New Zealand. People fall on hard times, people are in vulnerable circumstances, not everyone earns enough money for the private rental market—that's why we have State housing. But what they also say is if you're going to pay 25 percent of your income in rent with a taxpayer subsidy, which the vast bulk of people do in Kāinga Ora properties—they say, "Actually, you know what, you have obligations. Your obligations are to be good tenants and be good neighbours." The last Government's policy of, basically, walking away and making sure that no one could ever be evicted from a State house caused mayhem. We've said that enough is enough. It's time to go back to consequences, bring back the social contract and make sure that people can be evicted if they break that social contract and their bad tenants. I think this will work. This Government is getting on with things and making sure we deliver for the New Zealand people. SPEAKER: Is someone—are you going to take a call? Mark Cameron: Well, I'll take a call, if no one else will. SPEAKER: In that case, I call Mark Cameron. MARK CAMERON (ACT): What defines a veteran? I'll say it again for the sake of this House: what in fact defines a veteran? What prescription, precondition, threshold qualifies as service testament? How do we recognise former servicemen and women? How is it that we do not know the answer to this fundamental question? Or is it the case that in fact we do know the answer? Is it the case that what fully determines a vet has never been fully reconciled? Is it a case of active service in countries and conflicts abroad, deployed in front-line service, or is it that of logistical support? To be those people, potentially at risk of losing all your tomorrows so we all here can enjoy our todays—is that the meaning of a veteran? I genuinely ask this House to reflect on that question. What does a veteran mean to everyone here, beyond Anzac Day, beyond Armistice Day? We all need to ask ourselves this fundamental question. What of the men and women who donned our service uniforms, wore our colours, and carried our flag on their shoulders, deployed or not? Why can't we square away what is actually a veteran? This, to me, is something of a nonsense. How do we square away with active personnel? What? "We've got your back, until we don't."? This is the question I fundamentally want to ask. I openly commit to helping the Minister of Veterans Affairs resolve this very pressing issue. Sometimes service-tested men and women are years in the making and this House has some of those people here today. They stood ready and bloody proud of this country at a moment's notice, to represent our national interests, our country, and our collective people. That debt on society must be made good with. In 2019, the Veterans' Advisory Board recommended that all those that served be recognised, considered veterans, a reflection, perhaps, of the many sacrifices so many had made, from peacekeepers in Tonga or Papua New Guinea, or in the multiple humanitarian missions that were the face of deployment to assist in natural disasters. Perhaps tens of thousands now sit and languish in a place unknown, awaiting recognition. One person said to me, "If I'm not a veteran, well, who the hell are we, then?" He followed on by saying that surely the length of service must be a consideration. I'm talking about a former commander—and this is one example I want to impress upon the House—a member of the SAS no less, with 32 years of active service, three postings in the NZSAS as a commanding officer no less, retired as a colonel, with two years in the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment in Singapore, and four years as an adviser in Kuala Lumpur. He led the initial reconnaissance mission in Bosnia. Gracious me, he moved his family 15 times. He is not today a veteran. Brian Franklin flew Bristol Freighters in and out of Vietnam doing parcel drops. He was part of No. 41 Squadron posted for 21 months in Malaysia. He doesn't qualify either. How is this so? These are a few examples of the thousands, potentially tens of thousands, yet to be recognised. If we don't recognise and protect those people in our history, how can we truly invest in our future and the surety that must surely follow? And it is for that reason that I and the ACT Party fully support any work that finally paves the way for better recognition of former servicemen and women and protects those brave people that in our future we'll come to need. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's been 112 days since the coalition Government was formed, 112 days since change came to our communities and our country, 112 days since we left the frustration of the leaky boat of the six years of the previous Labour Government and we can focus on a better and brighter future for our Government. My community in Northcote voted for safer communities. They voted for a more prosperous economy, better access to health and education, and an infrastructure that works. They voted not for promises but for a Government of delivery. From the swing seat of Northcote, I want to focus my contribution today on two areas that this Government will deliver on: law and order, and the economy. Firstly, law and order. The stories I heard while campaigning and doorknocking the streets of Northcote were concerning. A lady got scared when I turned up on her doorstep because she thought I was an intruder. A chap in Birkenhead actually tackled an intruder that came into his home, and he couldn't get the police to come out and deal with it. People were concerned with gangs on their street and the issues of youth crime. I want to acknowledge the late Joshua Tasi, who, in my community was sadly killed by youth in our community. I'd like to acknowledge his family and loved ones and the grief that they're feeling. The hundred days of actions are a start, but more needs to be done. In this speech, I want to talk about some of the positives that we've done that will make a difference. We have abolished the prisoner reduction target. We have introduced legislation to crack down on gangs, give police greater powers to intervene, and extend rehabilitation programmes. But there are good things to come in the law and order space. We're going to back our police and make sure there's 500 extra front-line police on our streets in the next two years. We're going to limit the amount of deductions that judges can make to prisoners at sentencing. We're going to deliver youth military academies, and we're going to trial one this year, which is going to be in Auckland to help give these troubled youth a hand up, not a hand out. And we're going to restore consequences for crime in this country. The second area that I want to talk about is cost of living, because, as the Prime Minister noted today, it is the number one issue for our country and for my community of Northcote. I'll never forget the harrowing story I heard of a supermarket worker whose husband took a job in Australia just to pay for the increased mortgage payments that they were facing. Now, we've made some progress in this area, and within 100 days. We've taken the regional fuel tax off, that will save hard-working New Zealanders' money at the pump. We have started to reduce the bloated bureaucracy in Wellington, and axing wasteful projects. We've introduced 90-day trials for all businesses so that they have the flexibility to hire and take on new workers. And we've axed Labour's three waters reform, which we know cost this country too much money, as well. What will we do? What's coming people's way? Well, it is my privilege to say that we will deliver tax relief, come Budget on 30 May, and that is coming your way if you're a hard-working New Zealander. We will continue to rein in spending, and asking every ministry to go line by line and make sure that they are delivering value for money in their budgets. We will grow the economy, and our finance Minister's already articulated a great plan to actually boost growth in our economy, because that's how, ultimately, growing comes: grow the tax base in this country and make all of our communities better off. So, in summary, change has come, we've started on progress, but there's more positives to come. I want to end my contribution today with a quote from an iwi leader who I met recently: Robert Edwards. He says, as I put it: "The past is the past, let us learn from it. The future is before us, let us prepare for it." Thank you. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): It is really important that the Greens get on record the voices of those disabled people, their families, and their carers and communities who have been cruelly stressed by the announcements from Whaikaha over the past couple of days. I think it's really important that while the Minister for Disability Issues is at pains to make sure that this is not a funding cut as such, that doesn't recognise that particularly for disabled people, family, and carers, their access to services, their access to care and all of the supports that they need has been underfunded for decades and decades. It is simply not good enough for a Minister who has the responsibility right now to not have asked and ensured that more funding is taken into account when it comes to disabled people, who are continuously—continuously—at the end of the line when it comes to funding, acknowledgment, value, and support. The fact that the Minister for disabled peoples and of Whaikaha is trying to uphold a narrative of austerity, that these changes to how disability support services are delivered and the changes to rules and flexibility around how people access and use the funding are driven from having to watch the wallets of Government, that is a really unjust and, if I can be clear, quite hostile narrative to have to burden on carers of people, of disabled people themselves, and their families. What that is, essentially, trying to blame is that we are having to tighten our belts in an area that has had its belt tightened for generations, when instead the choices that Government gets to make is that this area of funding should have a priority and has to be increased—but the focus has come down to who's getting a pedicure? That is quite a cruel, cruel way to apportion blame of systemic underfunding to the fact that the wellbeing of carers and the wellbeing of disabled people are interlinked. They are not separate. We have to have our carers cared for. Anybody who knows what a role it is, what a massive role it is, to be part of the village of caring for disabled people, anybody who understands that, can understand the complete and utter exhaustion that can happen for those carers, who we know also consider it an honour and a privilege to be able to care for disabled people. But it pulls on a lot. It pulls on a lot of our carers' spirit and energy and resource. Why on earth would any Minister want to focus on what they do for their wellbeing instead of focusing on the systemic undervaluing of our caring sector, that has been this way for decades of undervaluing? And that is what I wanted to put on record for the Green Party today, having heard directly from advocates, whānau, parents, particularly of children, who have been quite devastated by this news. I acknowledge that the Minister admits and has some regret about the way it was communicated out, but this is also what happens when you don't work with the sector. As a former prevention of violence Minister, I know firsthand what it is like for the sector to not believe that you are doing things to them instead of with them, for the community to not believe that you are doing things to them instead of with them. So the consultation, the discussions, and the solutions, directly with disabled people and their carers and advocates, has to be a priority in any funding changes. Even they have said they are open to looking at where we can do better with current funding, but let's not be distracted away from the bigger issue here, which is further dehumanising of disabled people and their families, that has already been a status quo; the pointing out of blame when we should be apportioning it to the underfunding and therefore increasing funding to this sector non-stop. Thank you. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. "Devastated', "heartbroken", and "distraught"—those are just some of the words that parents have used in emails and other communication with me over the past couple of days in relation to the changes that were announced on 18 March. They were announced and implemented immediately. These are changes that will significantly reduce the amount of support that carers of disabled people in New Zealand will get. I want to just take a minute to read part of an email that was sent to me just yesterday of someone who describes just how difficult it is in terms of caring 24/7 for their disabled child. They say that "through IF"—individualised funding—"I had finally found a little bit of hope that our situation is survivable. The news yesterday that all of our funding is now obsolete for our circumstances is devastating. I don't use that term lightly. The grief and turmoil is huge. The news is so fresh, I'm shaken to my core, and I can only wonder just how long it'll take before I'm in the same difficult position" that they describe in their email prior to that. This is just one email. The respite that parents have been asking for for years, finally got through the flexibility of funding, is now being taken away from them. One mother wrote to me today and said that she's surviving on 12 hours of sleep over four days. The respite allows her to get some sleep or to take a shower. This is what the Government is taking away by narrowing the criteria for disability support funding, so let's be clear about that. Disabled people, their whānau, and their carers—as the former Minister for Disability Issues, I have met many over my time in office. They are determined and strong people, and they need to be because of the challenges that they face to accessibility and support day to day. They have been calling for more flexibility for decades. So when the Minister on that side of the House says that flexibility was put in place during COVID and now all she's doing is taking it away and returning it to pre-COVID levels, that's not true. This community has been fighting for flexibility for decades, and that was the trajectory of travel that our Government was investing in over the last term: more flexibility in how funding could be used; moving towards progressing the roll-out of Enabling Good Lives, which is an approach that gives disabled people more choice and control over the decisions that they make for themselves in terms of how they access support. And now, the changes—which I believe are probably just the start, because this Government, we know, has asked Whaikaha to find another 7.5 percent of cuts in funding. This, I believe, is the start of rolling back decades of work that this community has been fighting for. Disabled people and their carers are also entitled to their entitlements, not just the Prime Minister with his accommodation. Politics is about making choices. The choice between increasing disability support for carers and for disabled people, because we must bear in mind—and, again, the numerous comments that I've read and emails that I've read that have been sent to me. I don't understand how this Government doesn't get that carers of disabled people need some respite so that they can better care for the disabled people. Ultimately, this will impact both their wellbeing and the wellbeing of the disabled people—let's not be in two minds about that. So increased disability support, or $2.9 billion of tax cuts for landlords? That is a political choice, and I believe that this Government is making the wrong choice, because what we've heard today is that this Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Penny Simmonds, didn't fight for her community. She didn't go to Cabinet to ask for more money. She talks about a Budget bid, and she probably shouldn't, but she talks about a Budget bid now—that is, after she has made changes—that will take away the support that many can access. Why didn't she do that in December? She said that she knew about this before Christmas. Why did that Minister not fight for the disability community? Why didn't she ask for more money then? Why is she only doing that now, four months on—because that is a political choice. Tax cuts of $2.9 billion, but can't fight for extra disability support services for some of our most vulnerable and marginal. That is a lazy Minister who didn't go to Cabinet, and that is an entitled, callous Government that paints this as a picture of pedicures and massages, and not as respite that is required for the wellbeing of our disability community and our nation. As a nation, we deserve better. Our disability communities deserve better. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): We are a Government of action; a Government that gets things done. As the MP for Tukituki, I thought that I would take this opportunity today to talk about the 49 actions that we have done in the past 100 days that will benefit New Zealanders and the people of my electorate in Hawke's Bay. Tukituki is a food-producing region that is reliant on our trades and exports. It creates many, many jobs and opportunities; it's the powerhouse of horticulture in this country. But our farmers, our growers, our fishermen, our foresters, they have found it so difficult in the past six years: challenges, red tape, lots of inflation, lots of spending by this previous Government over here. It is time now to get the wheels moving and strengthen our economy and reduce the cost of living and get inflation back in check. We have taken actions to do this, and I'm going to talk about some of those actions today because we have got the Reserve Bank back to its single focus on price stability after years of rampant inflation and economic mismanagement. We've abolished the ute tax. We are delivering for our Hawke's Bay farmers, for our New Zealand farmers and our tradies. After years of disrespect, we are finally respecting them. But I am particularly proud of the focus this team has on driving productivity in this country. One of the first actions in our 100-day plan was to ensure that our Prime Minister, our Minister of emergency management, and our Minister of Transport came to Hawke's Bay and came and saw the support that we need a year on since we were ravaged by a cyclone. They announced $14 million for Hawke's Bay for further silt and debris clean-up to clear productive class 1 and class 2 land, and that has been welcomed by a lot of families that are still struggling to clear the land over a year on. But I think it's really, really interesting to note here that the previous $150 million or so that was spent on the silt and debris clean-up under the previous Government had not been through a robust procurement process. This just epitomises the last Labour Government's throwing the money around with no outcomes and no results. But as the local MP, I have been liaising very, very closely with our silt task force and recovery agency and various departments to ensure that there is a full procurement process in place. There are now quotes, there are tenders, and there is a focus on getting value out of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This is really reassuring to see: that we are respecting taxpayer dollars. Further announcements in our 100-day plan, which I was thrilled to see for Hawke's Bay, was the Hawke's Bay Expressway four-laning on the Roads of National Significance. A focus on building strong, resilient roads in Hawke's Bay is going to be paramount to productivity in our region and across the country. Carrying logs from the central Hawke's Bay and apples from Hastings, getting to the port faster and more efficiently. The four-lane expressway is the lifeblood between Hastings and Napier, and it will be hugely positive for our region and for New Zealand. We are focused on building infrastructure and getting things done. That is why we've also repealed Labour's very broken Resource Management Act reforms that made it harder and more expensive to build anything. At a time that we need to actually get the economy moving again, we need tools to build things faster. That is why I'm a massive supporter of our fast-track legislation, which is going to enable infrastructure to be built. We can build the roads; we can build water storage infrastructure. Let's get building. Another part of our 100-day plan, which I personally see the impact of as a mother of four young children, we need to get back to basics in the classroom: an hour of reading, writing, and maths everyday and banning cell phones. These are the types of things that are going to get our country ahead, get our children ahead, and get this country back on track. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. General debate is a great part of Parliament's week and is a chance for members to speak on whatever topic they choose to speak on and about the vision that they have for New Zealand. We have heard speech after speech from Government members about the shopping list of policies that they have introduced under urgency that show no vision for New Zealand. This is a Government with a grab bag and a mishmash of random ideas which have been promoted by lobbyists and vested interests on the campaign, and do not reflect the kind of Aotearoa New Zealand that we could have now and could have for the future of our children. It's disappointing because, you know, general debate is a fun time in the week, and I will speak soon about a parliamentarian with a true vision for Aotearoa. But, you know, it is also a time for Government members to make that kind of contribution that we all hope to make as parliamentarians, both in this House and in select committee. And this is the first week that select committees have sort of been able to begin scrutinising bills, get out of the rush of urgency, and get down to the work of being parliamentarians who represent the communities that we are from and making things better for the lives of those people that we represent. Someone who has always done that, someone who has been a leading light in this Parliament for that is Grant Robertson. He has always had a vision for change. He's always been determined to design the kind of economy that delivers for people and for social and environmental wellbeing, not just for this generation, but for future generations to come. And that is who I will speak about in the next three minutes. Through his career, he's worked on some of the most revolutionary policy that Labour Governments have introduced. First in the Clark Government, his work on KiwiSaver and student loans moved the country forward in the type of support that people could expect from the Government and the type of social elevator that we would create to lift people out of poverty and into successful lives. The future of work that he led in his Opposition years was also something that changed the national conversation about what we could expect for people's incomes, the kind of work that they would do. And that was as a member like the other members on this side of the House, who weren't backed by ministries, they weren't backed by public servants. This was a vision that he had, and he brought people along with him. And I'll return to that theme because it is one that marks Grant's career as pretty special. The wellbeing budget in 2019 was also a huge achievement, with five key areas being targeted to mental health and child wellbeing, and other policies that had not had the kind of elevation in the Budget process that they should have before he took that lens to the budgeting process. Particularly proud to see my colleague's focus on targeted health for Māori funding, which parliamentarians had known for a long time was inequitable but only through that budgeting process could it be addressed in the way that it was through things like the Māori Health Authority. But also special funding that carved out a special place for Te Matatini; that is something that creates a sense of national identity that we can all be proud of and would not have had a look in had we not been bringing that kind of focus to the Budget. Things like keeping unemployment below 4 percent for nine consecutive quarters is the kind of legacy that as a finance Minister one can be proud of. That keeps people in work, it keeps people with hope in our communities, and it makes a real difference when I look around at how Manurewa and South Auckland look, as its local MP now. Supporting businesses through COVID is also something that he can be proud of. There are businesses operating right now in our communities who employ local people who would not otherwise be operating without the kind of decisive action that the finance Minister had to take within 24- and 48-hour periods within that COVID time. The 2021 welfare package undid the damage that the "mother of all Budgets" did in 1991 by restoring welfare to the level it was then in real terms. That is something that has changed the way that beneficiaries are supported in New Zealand and will be meaningful for decades. He also shifted the discussion on debt and investment in New Zealand and committed record levels to infrastructure and investment which will make a difference for many, many generations to come. His whole philosophy is lifting people up. He said, as the former Prime Minister Norman Kirk used to say, that New Zealanders wanted a job, a place to live, and someone to love and something to hope for, and he said about designing the sort of economy that would create that for everyone. But it wasn't just a philosophy; he lifted the people up around him too. Those were the volunteers in his campaigns, the staffers in his office, the people working in the Public Service, the NGOs and the international organisations, and the MPs on this side of the House who owe our careers to him, like me, one of his many teenage volunteers who has supported him right through his career. I am proud of his contribution and I look forward to his valedictory statements today. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I won't wax lyrical about the last 100-day programme, or the 49 projects which we were both committed to and achieved. Although it was very good, and the community is certainly relieved to see the meaningful progress after six years of well-meaning ideology, fantasy, unicorns, and, frankly, hot air. But talking about hot air, I would like to discuss the Balloons Over Waikato, which is happening this week and actually kicked off yesterday and will culminate in a great finale in Claudelands this Saturday night, attracting over 10,000 people, which is the ZURU Nightglow. Moving on, though, aside from the cost of living, which is the biggest challenge facing our people and certainly the people in Hamilton and during the campaign period, was the issue of crime—ram raids; breaking and entering, sometimes for tobacco, alcohol, vapes, but sometimes just for energy drinks and food—not just liquor stores, dairies, and gas stations either but salons, pharmacies, restaurants, cafes, jewellery stores in the middle of the day. Last year in New Zealand, 12,383 retail crimes occurred, on average, every month—that's one retail crime every 3½ minutes in little, old New Zealand. Real people effected too: Gaurav and Pooja in Hillcrest; Manish and Rupali in Green Hill; Ash in Flagstaff. Well, let's talk about entitlement, like the previous member brought up. How about people thinking they can just walk out of New World Rototuna or Woolworths with a bag or trolley full of groceries, or a surf shop with clothes and walk out and intimidate bystanders? Those days are over. Help is coming. I must acknowledge the advocacy of Ash Parmar in this space, back home, too. We recently abolished Labour's prison reduction target of 30 percent. I just want to pause on this for a moment. I still can't figure out why on earth they would think it's a good idea to reduce the prison population by 30 percent. No commensurate social investment or rehabilitation programme or key performance indicators or rationale to figure it was good; let's just empty the prisons, because it seems like a good idea. In fact, since we have been in this Government, I have heard the Opposition use the word "outcomes" more than ever; it was a shame they didn't use it in the last six years. Ironically, now they're in Opposition, we hear them talk about outcomes and delivery, and, you know, tangible things. But I think it's like an osmosis. I think we campaigned so hard on outcomes and deliverables that even the Labour Party caucus is starting to use these terms and say, "Hm, this is actually quite good." Oh, well, it's a little bit too late. As George Gregan said to Byron Kelleher in the Rugby World Cup final in 2003, "Four more years." Although, in this case, three more years, but, of course, we're going to be in here for much longer than this and we won't be getting complacent like the last Government did with the people of New Zealand, and we will be not taking our foot off the plug-in hybrid. We've introduced legislation to support police further. We've put limits on discounting sentences, and getting rid of the taxpayer-funded section 27 reports and the gravy train that that created. We took steps to extend the eligibility for rehabilitation programmes for prisoners in remand. So nearly 60 percent of our prisoners were on remand, but they had no access to rehabilitation and addiction services. So it's not just the carrot and the stick but we're incentivising, we're giving those people who have made poor choices an opportunity to find a better way. This could have been introduced years ago, but, of course, we did it in less than 100 days. Very importantly, we're starting to crack down on youth crime. Yesterday morning, I sat on the plane next to a very experienced community leader with programmes like Blue Light, and he said that those leadership camps which we are proposing work. They are an incredible partnership with the New Zealand Defence Force and act as a genuine circuit-breaker in the lives of those individuals, with the appropriate wraparound support and mentors that they need. Of course, his acknowledgment was often the whānau back at home also need support. But we're a pragmatic Government with holistic solutions, and so we will work and find a way forward through those challenges. We care about business owners and their employees. We care about our communities. We care about our rangatahi and our future, so we are taking action. Hamilton looks forward to safer communities, communities with opportunity to get educated and prosper, a world-class education system, and, hopefully, a graduate-degree medical school that will empower not only our city but the rural regions of Aotearoa New Zealand. Fast, efficient, and productive roading networks; building consents that are timely; housing supply that meets a growing need—that is aspiration and that is what we are committed to. The day for hot air and half measures is over. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is quite interesting sitting here listening to the contributions of the Government members, hearing what it is they want to talk about and noting what they don't. Never before under MMP has a newly elected Government gone backwards in the polls within a matter of months, but this Government has. Never before has a Prime Minister dropped so drastically, so quickly, after a general election, but this Prime Minister has. If you listen to the Government members, you would think that they are the saviour of this country. Sam Uffindell: We are—we are. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: New Zealanders don't agree. "We are." is the cry in response. New Zealanders don't agree, and it is reflected in the polls, because New Zealanders didn't vote for the reversal of world-leading smoke-free legislation. New Zealanders didn't vote for police officers screaming out to their Minister, "You promised that you would support us." only to have the Minister run away and hide and refuse to answer simple questions while police officers sat in the gallery during question time today. New Zealanders didn't vote for higher rates, but that is exactly what they are going to get and exactly what they are getting under this Government. The National Party went around the country and promised councils that they would help them pay for water infrastructure. They reneged on that promise. There are councils around this country that said, "We support a change in Government because the National Party will help us pay for our pipes.", and what did they do? They said, "You're on your own."—you are on your own. To regular and repeated and often questions to the Minister of Local Government asking what he is going to do to help councils, his response has been the same: that is a matter for councils—a broken promise that will leave councils high and dry, because the fact of the matter is there is $185 billion that needs to be spent on water infrastructure over the next 30 years. This Government reversed a reform that would have saved ratepayers money, and they haven't replaced it with anything. Their own governmental and departmental advice says so—they've ignored it, and now there's nothing in place in its stead. Councils are by themselves. They have this vague promise of a voluntary system that might help without any guarantees that it's going to save ratepayers money, without any guarantees that it will contain balance sheet separation—a crucial factor that the Department of Internal Affairs says has to be included but can't be included under the Government's plan. Ratepayers around the country are facing massive hikes—double-digit hikes. In some places, it is over 20 percent, and it is all the Government's fault. The Government says it's the councils' fault, but it's not the councils that reversed water reform. It's not the councils that went around the country promising ratepayers that they would help fund it; it is the National Party, and it is the National Party that broke that promise. Now ratepayers are getting hit in the pocket, and it's not going to end this year. The proposed rate increases around the country, roughly 50 percent of those increases are for water infrastructure and for servicing the debt attached to water infrastructure. The water reforms would've removed that debt from the council's books. Now they can't, and many councils are stuck at the debt cap. So how on earth are they going to build the infrastructure to meet the plan for 30 years' housing growth if they've got no money? There are councils in this country who have paused developments and paused consents for two years because they don't have the money to pay for the pipes to develop the land. That is down to this Government. When ratepayers get a bill in the mail that they can't afford, don't go to the councillors, don't go to the mayors. Write to your local National MP. Write to the Minister of Local Government and write to the Prime Minister and ask them to justify themselves, because it's not the councils' fault—their hands are tied behind their backs. It's the Hon Simeon Brown, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, New Zealand First, ACT, and the National Party who are to blame. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you. This debate started with the words that "times are tough", and they are tough. They're largely tough because of the last three years of mismanagement. I'm going to give you a little graph here. This little graph here shows you the level of Government debt going up from 2020 to 2023, and it exactly mirrors the rate of inflation going up. People might glaze over when you talk about GDP and GDP per capita, but the reality is that we are going backwards per capita. That means that in real terms — real terms, we actually earn less than we used to a couple of years ago. We are going backwards. You see that at the supermarket. You see that with rising costs, rising rents, and you see that with mortgage rates as well. Those things hurt New Zealanders. Retail sales are down eight quarters in a row—eight quarters in a row. We are still borrowing to pay for our lifestyles because our current account deficit is running at $30 billion a year — $30 billion a year we are borrowing to pay for our lifestyle. The last Government spend 80 percent more, but I don't think it delivered 80 percent more. In fact, I think it barely delivered anything more. What it did leave is more divided than ever. This is the first general debate we've had since the Government completed its 100-day plan. We've heard a lot about that. But what I do want to say is that this is a collation that is working collaboratively and constructively together. I think it is working very, very well. We're delivering on what we collectively campaigned on, we're delivering on our coalition agreements, and we're delivering real change. We're taking our country back, and we're getting out country back on track. As the Hon Chris Bishop said earlier, we've essentially achieved every single one of our 49 items in our first 100-day plan. Even that well-known friend of the Government, Stuff, gave us a 100 percent pass mark, except for one thing. They said we hadn't introduced the five objectives for our health system. Guess what? That's been done in the last few days as well. So, I think we're doing pretty well there. It's been about removing strangling, ideological legislation, reducing burdens and the cost of red tape, removing poor quality investment—for example, Auckland Light Rail—and reducing wasteful spending of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. What we are focused on is getting out great country moving forward, more productive than ever. What's been great is that after the first 100 days of hard work, we've been able to hit the road, and been able to talk to, and more importantly, to listen to lots of great New Zealanders up and down the country. I have to say, what I saw is a lot of excitement that there's a breath of fresh air. There's new management that people are looking forward to, and a greater sense of freedom to be the people that people want to be. Our team's been out and about as well. I've got a lovely picture of us all there, out and about around the country. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rt Hon Winston Peters, our leader, has been reestablishing New Zealand on the world stage after three years of neglect. Matua Shane Jones has been meeting with productive industries, and focusing on getting things done up and down the country. The Hon Casey Costello has represented New Zealand, as the Associate Minister of Police, in the UK. The Hon Mark Patterson has been meeting rural communities, farmers, and supporting the future of wool and fibre, and looking at gold mining as well. Jenny Marcroft, Jamie Arbuckle, and I met with the marine farms sector. That's a really exciting industry. What we heard about is great innovations, and great work that they are doing in looking after the environment better. One of the other messages that we got—and this is a real support for fast tracking—is the difficulty not only of consenting, but of re-consenting. That's something that I think that we need to do much, much faster, and much smarter. We met with mayors and civic leaders, and we asked them: how can we help you? Looked at Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) projects, again, up and down the country, water reservoirs, water storage, water treatment, civic libraries making a difference, and that was the last, of course, contribution that New Zealand First made between 2017 and 2020. We met with key infrastructure providers, educators, and social housing providers. We heard a bit about Kāinga Ora (KO) today. We heard concerns from social housing providers who are providing transitional housing, but what KO is doing is that they're taking the most needy, the ones who actually need the social housing support, the wrap- around support, they're taking those people away from that, and putting them in permanent housing. What could possibly go wrong? And it does. We heard from downtown Auckland businesses, saying how thrilled they are to see the police back on the beat, and even chasing crims through town. That is great to see. They're seeing a breath of fresh air. We met with small businesses and hospices, and what I can say is they love being heard. They want to see vision. They want to see certainty. They want to see action. They want to see inspiration. We finished off with a wonderful field day in Feilding. All three of the parties in the coalition represented there, none of the Opposition, which was shameful, and our leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters speaking to a mass crowd of 700 people giving a state of the nation speech. This country is under new management, and our country is loving it. CORRECTIONS (VICTIM PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. Sorry, James. On the first day of February of this year something fortuitous but potentially quite impactful occurred. This bill, in discussion, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, was drawn from the ballot box. Now I say impactful because this bill, although on the face of it it's quite straightforward, if passed through it will no doubt improve the lives of many victims of crime. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, Hon Judith Collins, Hon Mark Mitchell—all who are connected to this bill in some way, and it is my quiet pleasure to now be the member in charge of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. Now, as I just touched upon, this bill is simple in form but substantial in effect. In essence, this bill seeks to protect victims of crime and protection order applicants from being contacted by the perpetrators of the crimes against them. Many people I have spoken to about this bill within my electorate of Takanini and across South and East Auckland, quite frankly have expressed surprise at the fact that this specification, this specific protection, is not already enshrined in law. Victims of crime and those who are under the supposed safety net of a protection order should be able to feel safe and protected from unwanted, undesired, and unsolicited contact from those who inflicted harm upon them and who are in the supervision of corrections. This is the crux of this bill that we are conversing today in the first reading. Now, before delving into the mechanics of the proposed changes, I would like to briefly discuss the current status quo, which can help our listeners further understand why these changes, in our opinion, are imperative. Currently, the Corrections Act 2004, which for the benefit of our listeners from home—in Australia as well—is the principal Act that we are seeking to amend with this bill. This Act provides a framework for the management and rehabilitation of offenders within the New Zealand corrections system and this Act, the principal Act, outlines the responsibilities of corrections staff, the treatment of prisoners, and various mechanisms to ensure safety and order within the corrections environment. Essentially, the Corrections Act focuses in a broad manner on the management of offenders, with some specific provisions for victim notifications, for example parole hearings, but does not explicitly mention preventing contact between prisoners and victims across the board. And this is where I want to acknowledge that there is a section of the Corrections Act that refers to the victims of family violence, but we want to widen the scope to all victims of crime. So although the Corrections Act covers a range of situations and scenarios, including the subject of telephone calls and mail being sent to people outside of prison—and telephone calls fall under the sections of 111 to 115, specifically, of the Principal Act—we believe these sections do not include the objectives that we are aiming to achieve with this amendment bill, that is to put an obligation on the Chief Executive of Corrections and prison managers to make sure prisoners do not contact their victims of crime. This is why the proposed changes in this bill are necessary: to fill this void; this void which is causing harm to people who should be at the forefront of our protection, the victims. Now, there are three changes to the Corrections Act that this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, intends to make so that this void can be adequately addressed. First, by introducing a new power and function of the Chief Executive of Corrections into section 8 of the Act. Now this section, section 8, stipulates the power and functions of the Chief Executive of Corrections. We want to bring in a new power to ensure that processes are established and maintained to protect victims of offences and persons for whom protection orders are in place from unwanted contact from people within corrections control or supervision. Secondly, this bill seeks to amend section 12 of the Act, and this section outlines the powers and functions of prison managers to also include the power and function that we've spoken about just now. And thirdly, this bill also amends section 190 of the principal Act to ensure that these matters are included in the department's annual report. Now, one must question why should these changes be made to the Corrections Act when the purpose of the principal Act does not include the direct protection of victims. In response to this, I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 6 of the principal Act, which outlines the principles guiding correction systems. Subsection (b) states that: "victims' interests must be considered in decisions related to the management of persons under control or supervision". And as to whether these proposed amendments are consistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I'm pleased to direct the House's attention to the Attorney-General's findings—thank you, Madam Attorney-General—that this bill appears to be on par with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Now, I'd like to also draw my colleagues' attention to a various number of news articles that we've collated just to bring us into a deeper understanding of why we feel these changes should be made. As early as January of this year, the Family Court ruled that a serial rapist is not to contact his daughters after he sent mail after mail of inappropriate drawings to the daughters and to another person that he had sexually abused. That was just this year, January. Hon Judith Collins: Disgusting. RIMA NAKHLE: It is disgusting. In 2021, Stuff reported that a stalker was guilty of continuing to contact victims despite being in jail. And here, out of the 77 convictions for this person, 60 were for attempting to contact the couple—that was meant to be protected from this person—from prison. Another article: in 2019, a psychopathic sex attacker sent letters as well from prison to his victim, and the victim endured three days of repeated sexual assault and violence. She said in her victim impact statement: "How is this possible? How is it possible that this can happen?" This is what we're dealing with. The Corrections Commissioner at the time, Ben Clark, said that the ability for prisoners to send and receive mail was a statutory minimum entitlement. And so this is why the specificity we talk about in this amendment bill is very important. In 2019, again, a convicted stalker sent multiple mail from jail. In 2018, the article that really stirred the Hon Louise Upston to act is where someone made over 100 phone calls to a victim of their crime—from jail. And so although the Act has some type of general references to protecting victims of crime, we need to make it specific. Finally, I'd like to end with a quote from the victims advocate Ruth Money, who said: "I can't understand why this basic protection for witnesses and victims isn't already in place … It's mind boggling" Let's get this simple yet deeply effective bill through, and I commend this bill to the House. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to just start my contribution by acknowledging the member who's just taken her seat, Rima Nakhle, for the fortune of inheriting this bill and for doing such a good job of introducing it to the House today. I think it's fair to say that I don't think anybody would disagree that victims of crime deserve—absolutely deserve—to feel safe and absolutely deserve to feel supported by the system. For that reason, Labour will be supporting this bill. Most often than not, though, victims of an offence have ongoing fears, not only for their physical safety but often for the safety of their family members as well, so there is some work to be done in this quarter. However, I'm glad that the member touched on something, and that was that Corrections kind of already do have this ability. Corrections already provide a range of support, and the Act enables some of that to happen, but we are mindful of the fact that sometimes the specificity and making it very clear rather than the general application has a purpose, so, for that reason, we are prepared to support the bill, but I do want to make a couple of remarks around that. When we think about what Corrections can do and the range of support that they can provide to ensure that victims are protected from further harm from those offenders, along with the standard kind of conditions as set out on the Parole Act—things like having to report to your probation officer and telling the probation officer if you're going to be moving—the courts and the New Zealand Parole Board can also impose some special conditions for sentences and orders, such as those non-contact orders. So whilst we acknowledge that that already exists, we can see that there is at least some merit in specifying this. Those non-contact orders which consider—and have the ability to consider the ongoing safety and the choices and the preferences of the victim not to be contacted by the offender. So it's already there, and I just want to acknowledge that. What this bill does, though, we don't actually think it provides any additional support over and above what's already there. Corrections already provides various kind of mechanisms to ensure that those who have been subjected to crime and who feel the way they feel about those particular perpetrators, they have an obligation to try and limit the continued mental and physical harm that offenders of crime can cause. But this bill creates an obligation, as has been said by the member, for the chief executive and for prison managers to protect those who are subject to a protection order and the victims of crime from contact from prisoners. I think there are some details that need to be worked out there, so perhaps during the select committee process, while it's quite specific and it's specified and it's not necessarily over and above what already exists, I think there are some details that do need to be worked out, and the select committee is a good place for that. What the bill also does, as the member has very eloquently said, the bill ensures that the victims and others who are subject to protection orders under the Family Violence Act 2018 are also protected from unwanted communications with those prisoners. I think the issue I have, though, is that whilst acknowledging that this is a member's bill, and whilst acknowledging, as my own have been pulled from the tin, it's a bit of a lottery, this Government has talked a pretty big talk and a pretty big game on supporting victims and victims' rights. We've heard today through the general debate about the first 100 days, and, therefore, that's somehow supposed to specify priorities, and it's taken this member's bill to be drawn to actually have something come before this House that's particularly dedicated to supporting the victims of crime and their rights. So I think it's a little bit rich that despite having talked a big game, on one hand, not that long ago, the section 27 reports were scrapped. We've heard it being referred to today, quite unceremoniously, as the stopping somehow of some sort of gravy train, which I think is a pretty vacuous comment that was made earlier on, and I think it simplifies, and it is, yeah, just quite an unfortunate characterisation of something that actually provided the victims of crime a chance to have a voice in this process as well. So to scrap that on one hand and yet to say that more needs to be done is a little bit of an incongruent sort of position. I think the other thing that also concerns me when we think about how we could better support the victims of crime and the various mechanisms that we can either utilise better, or ensure has some sort of priority recognition in terms of daily business and business as usual, is the fact that it's yet another example of something that's being loaded onto a service where they're actually being told not that long ago to go away and make 6.5 percent cuts to, and to make those cuts and to come up with those line-by-line savings that the chief executives of these departments and these organisations have been asked to do just to make tax cuts work, just to chuck that out there—6.5 percent to the Crown Law Office, 6.5 percent to the Department of Corrections, 6.5 percent to the Ministry of Justice, and 6.5 percent to the police. At some point, you've got to add that all up, and it almost conjures up a visual picture of the sorts of things that fall through those gaps that aren't seen as necessarily priorities and that are seen potentially as "nice-to-haves" and things that can get done once all the other really important stuff is done. But I think looking after the victims of crime is important, and I would have liked to have seen a commitment from this Government, alongside the introduction of new legislation, to ensure that there are actually resources in place to support these types of measures. Because no matter even if it's just small, it still requires resource and it still requires that someone work collaboratively within an existing system to enable these new measures to actually make sense in a practical sense, in so far as that which would actually filter down and help real victims. When I think about that, I think about the contrast that during our last term, Labour made, I think, some of the largest ever financial investments into victims. We reviewed legislative settings; we launched operational pilots in the court, many of which were incredibly successful; we tripled the level of funding for victims' assistance schemes; and doubled the level of funding for Victim Support. Whilst that's not an opportunity to make direct comparisons, it's certainly worth noting, because you can't achieve these types of measures that we're talking about today unless those structures and that scaffolding is in place to support that. So Labour has made progress, I think, in increasing also the access to justice, particularly for low-income New Zealanders. There's a whole list of things that I could rattle off in so far as how that's been done, but it's just to illustrate—and I'm sure that colleagues might like to expand on that as we go through this process, but, as I said, happy to support this bill through to select committee. Very pleased for the member to be able to shepherd this further, and we will be supporting the bill. We wish it all the best and we want to ventilate this a little bit more in select committee with some practicalities. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just belatedly say the question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I also congratulate the MP Rima Nakhle for bringing this to the House. Having picked up the bill from others, it's clear that she is no less passionate about this topic and will be a good steward for it as it makes its way through the House. It does appear to be a very narrow bill, on the face of it, and it aligns, at first blush, with a survivor-centred approach to justice. The scope includes, but is not limited to, people who have a protection order against someone. And a protection order, of course, is used to seek protection from family violence. So, in this speech, I will be focusing on the victim/survivors of family violence. A survivor-centred approach to justice avoids re-traumatisation, and it systematically focuses on their safety, rights, wellbeing, their expressed needs, and their choices. Ensuring that victim/survivors of family violence are protected from unwanted contact can be seen, certainly, to align with that approach. So we do welcome the opportunity to hear directly from survivors, advocates, and from front-line experts as to how we can make sure that this bill truly provides protection from re-traumatisation, and a role in affirming survivor dignity. We do want to test, at the Justice Committee, the extent to which the protection against unwanted contact is actually already in legislation, and how this bill can add substantially to that. We also want to test whether or not we are including family violence victim/survivors who may not have a protection order. This is important because, of course, protection orders aren't easily accessible to everyone, so we want to make sure that there isn't a discrepancy there. We do need to be very clear that a survivor-centred approach to justice is not the same thing as a tough on crime approach—which is the flavour of the month at the moment—because, when it comes to family violence, it ends up being the justice system itself that can cause as much harm as the actual family violence. Sadly, we can highlight generations of family violence victims saying that they wished that they had never reported family violence, because they felt even more violated by the system's response to it than by the family violence itself—which is an extraordinary indictment on the justice system. So while we do welcome this change as having positive potential—as long as it's done right—we know that so much more needs to be done in order to truly transform our system away from just an adversary approach and towards an actual restorative justice and authentic accountability and enduring justice. So, on that note, the Greens hope that the Government continues to prioritise Te Aorerekura and the essential system-change shifts that are highlighted in that strategy. This is a focus on primary prevention over the course of 25 years, and we really do want to invite this Government to truly engage with victim/survivors lived experience—backed up by years and years of research—and what the real solutions are to preventing crime and violence. It is all—hopefully I have a copy with me here—there, for all the MPs in this House to take a look at and to learn from. [Holds up a copy of Te Aorerekura: National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence] In summary, the Green Party does support this bill, and we do look forward to public submissions to make sure that it can truly protect survivors and victims of violence, of crime, from unwanted contact. And there are some things that we do want to test in select committee as well, to make sure that this is adding real value. But we also know, at the same time, that the real transformational work to prevent violence and crime requires a new, collective approach from all of us working together and taking on a new strength-based whānau-focused and whānau-led lens to our work. We recognise that the scope of a member's bill is not to transform the entire justice system, so, you know, we do support it within that context, but it has to be within that context as well. So, as I said, we will be supporting this bill, and we look forward to working with the member to advance it through the House. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I'd like to congratulate my Government colleague Rima Nakhle on getting this bill drawn and bringing it to the House. I think, as we've heard, it is a very simple bill, but I think a very important bill. It does really go to the heart of actually strengthening protections for victims. ACT has been a supporter of increased victims' rights and ensuring that we do get a balance in our justice system between, obviously, people having a fair and proper trial and making sure those rights are protected, but also ensuring that victims are actually heard and what they want is also acknowledged and understood. We've campaigned on a number of things during the election. Obviously, some of them are around actually getting a bit tougher on some of the areas we think have been deficient—things like restoring three strikes, changes to the Sentencing Act, etc. In fact, in the first 100 days, we've seen a number of advances made, with the defunding of section 27 reports. Let me be very clear, section 27 reports are still allowed, they are still available, it's just they're no longer funded by the taxpayer. So I think this bill really fits nicely into some of the Government's other objectives in the justice area. We've talked a little bit about some of the other things we will be doing around youth offending. My colleague Minister McKee's actually done something around virtual participation in court proceedings and making that more available. And I think we may see another bill, actually, around some victim-centred and witness-centred improvements this afternoon which we'll be discussing. But we really do want to try and get some real balance in our justice system. We know that cuddling criminals hasn't worked, and we actually need to put victims first and their rights. Again, while some of these obligations might already be in the Corrections Act, I think making them explicit and actually placing an obligation on prison management through the amendments to section 8 and section 12 and having those obligations spelt out around unwanted contact or stopping unwanted contact with the victims, particularly, as James Shaw pointed out, when those victims are actually from family violence situations where it can be very, very unpleasant and people can be retraumatised by unwanted—whether it's phone calls, emails, postal mail. Again, I know the member had some examples. So we're very happy to support this through to the Justice Committee. I know some of the people on that select committee. I think it can then be examined and some of this overall context—again, as the Labour member said, some of the overall context of what that committee's looking at, how can this actually be used to really strengthen this focus on victims and make sure we are getting a balance in our justice system so that everyone's rights are protected, and that's really the key that ACT would like to focus on. There may be some administrative burdens. There may be ways we can improve this bill in the select committee. And I look forward to actually hearing hopefully from some of the people who would benefit from this bill and having this obligation put on prison management. And I'm sure they will be able to give us firsthand accounts of what a difference this could potentially make. And I think, again, we could look at any other improvements or anything else that needs to be considered as part of that process. So I look forward to, hopefully, if this bill is referred to select committee, working on it. But ACT certainly will be supporting it. Thank you. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, and I would also like to acknowledge the member Rima Nakhle for bringing this bill to the House. Sadly, many individuals are so obsessed that they will stop at nothing to contact their victim. I have worked with a number of victims who have lived in fear and have not known how to cope. Even though the perpetrator was behind bars, they still lived in fear and they still held even shame of the actual crime. I feel that this bill is a wonderful way for us to now just add that extra level of protection for those who have suffered at the hands of crime, some heinous crimes, and often the perpetrator is very skilled and knows how to stay in the victim's head. And this is one way that the victim can be sure assured that there will be an extra level of protection. So it's something that's very close to my heart, to be able to speak on this bill, especially when you hear that people continue to carry the trauma of crime, and it doesn't have to be that way. New Zealand First is very, very happy to support this bill. New Zealand First is a party that prioritises the safety of all New Zealanders, and we believe that we need robust measures in order to protect victims of crime and anyone who is vulnerable, no matter how many years after a crime has taken place. So we will support the bill. It reinforces the principles of victim protection, especially within the corrections system, and it very much aligns with our goals, New Zealand First goals, of prioritising victims' rights to ensure there is accountability within our justice system. So how will this bill do this? Well, as I already mentioned, there is a new function for the chief executive to establish and maintain processes. They have to be established, and I'm hearing what the members opposite are saying to ensure that there are secure processes and that these people are protected. This function is extended to managers as well. This will ensure an extra layer of accountability within the process. In any process you need a segregation of duties. You need more than one person assigned for one task. So this will be one way to ensure that at least there is some manageability within the process. And the third part of the amendment that I find to be very, very good is that there is going to be that extra level of accountability to ensure that the processes have been carried out and that they are recorded, and recording them in the department's annual report every year is one way of doing that. You cannot manage what you don't measure, and if it is not recorded and accounted for, then there is no way. So this bill will enhance transparency through this public reporting. I think that's probably about all I have to say. I've said a lot about the victims. I really wanted to focus on the victims, who, I am sure, will feel that extra level of certainty and safety and know that the system is protecting them. So I commend this bill to the House on behalf of New Zealand First. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou. E Rima, tēnā koe, tēnā koe i tō kawe mai i tēnei pire ki mua ki te aroaro o tēnei o ngā Whare. Kei te hāngai tonu te titiro o Te Pāti Māori ki tēnei pire me te tautoko ake, te tautoko ake i tā te whakaaro e mea nei kia āwhinatia te hunga kua tūkinotia i roto i te wā iti. Ā, kia kaua anō hoki rā te hunga kua tūkino e tūkinotia anō e te kaitūkino. Nō reira e tautoko mārika nei mātou i tēnei tū a koutou, me taku mahara ake ki a koe, e Rima, me tō tō ake i tēnei pire hei kawenga māu, hei hāpaitanga mō ngā tamariki, mō ngā mokopuna, tae atu ki ngā whānau. Heoi anō kei te whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero kua puta i tēnei o ngā huihuinga, me te mea nei kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, engari ngā kōrero i puta ake nei i tēnei taha kei te manako nui, kei te hāpai tonu i tā te taha ki te tangata. Engari anō i tā mātou titiro ki ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga hou me te tango nei i te tahua pūtea mō te section 27 mai i te Tāhū o Justice, me te tango ake i te 7AA i a Oranga Tamariki, he tūkinotanga, he turakitanga o ngā mana o te iwi Māori i raro iho mai i te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka tahi. Heoi anō i roto i tēnei o ngā kawenga, e Rima, kei te kite ahau i tētahi paku whitinga o te rā kei te whai whakaaro nui te Kāwanatanga hou ki te mana o te whānau, ki te mana o te wahine, o te tāne, o te tamaiti, heke mai ki te mokopuna. Nō reira tēnā rā koe i tērā ōhākī ōu. Nō reira kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, engari ki te toko ake nei i tā Te Pāti Māori tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire. E Rima, tēnā koe, otirā kei te Pīka, tātou katoa, tēnā tātou. [Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us. Rima, well done, well done for bringing this bill before this of our Houses. The gaze of the Māori Party continues to focus on this bill in support, in support of what the concept proposes, i.e. to assist the people who have been abused in a short time. Also, that those who have been abused are not further abused by the abuser. And so we absolutely support your position, as I consider you, Rima, and how you have brought this bill as a responsibility for you, to uplift the children, the grandchildren, and also including families. However, I consider the statements made during this assembly, and I will refrain from repeating those statements, but the comments that arose from this side are aspirational, and continue to support humanity. But also in our observation of the actions of the new Government that include the removal of the budget for section 27 from the Ministry of Justice, and the removal of 7AA from Oranga Tamariki, this is abuse, this is the subjugation of the authority of the Māori people that was granted under the Treaty of Waitangi, firstly. However within this commitment, Rima, I see a small ray of sunlight in that the new Government is considering the authority of the family, the authority of women, of men, of children, and all the way down to the grandchildren. So thank you for that final commitment of yours. So I will not repeat the statements made, but will endorse the Māori Party's support of this one of the bills. Rima, thank you, indeed Madam Speaker, all of us, greetings to everyone.] PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I start by acknowledging our colleague Rima Nakhle, who has put her name to this amendment bill and who will be the one to see it through the process. It is a very-much-needed bill. It seeks to amend section 8 of the Corrections Act 2004—the focus of section 8 is to empower the chief executive of Corrections to establish and maintain processes to ensure that there is no unwanted contact between perpetrators of crime against their victims. Then there is section 12, which also provides that authority to prison managers to, again, establish and maintain the processes that will prevent unwanted contact. As I went through preparation and reading of this bill, I am surprised myself that there remains opportunities and that these opportunities have been used a number of times by people who are in prison already to contact their victims. Central to crime, particularly family violence, is this assertion of power and intimidation, and this intimidation cannot be allowed to carry on even as the perpetrator has already been put in prison. The process is long and so there are many perpetrators who are intent on disrupting that process and possibly continuing on with intimidatory contact with their victims to prevent them possibly from testifying in the cases, particularly if they are themselves the claimants. So it is unbelievable that contact is continuing to be made. So we have been given various and multiple examples of how this contact has been made. Multiple letters sent over time, multiple repeated calls—phone calls up to 100 times; up to 90 times. I understand that the opportunity to make a call is given to prisoners and a call is able to be made to people on a list and these people would have given their consent to receiving a call. So there have been machinations about frustrating that list and having the very victims of the crime put on that list so that they are able to be called and contacted. The have examples also shown that continued calling and intimidation over the phone has resulted in a prolonged process where victims have themselves been cowered to not participate in the process and not testify to their experience as a victim and to add to the court process and facilitate the process. So it is clearly necessary that that unwanted contact and continued intimidation be stopped. The bill authorises the Corrections chief executive and prison managers to make sure they establish those processes to stop the unwanted contact. It is a necessary bill. We cannot not have this bill pass through. I commend this bill to the House. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We're in support of this bill because victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported. More often than not, victims of an offence have ongoing fears about their personal safety or security, and that can even be on a physical level, and it's really important to make sure that people who say they want no contact with their offender—we know that that can be implemented. So, non-contact conditions support this right. This bill does not provide any additional support on top of what Corrections already provide to ensure that victims of crime aren't further subjected to further mental or physical harm from offenders of crime. One point I would like to make is that while we support the general intent of this bill, I would just like to raise the fact that when a Minister is in charge of a ministry, one of the first things that they typically do is write a letter of expectation to the chief executive, and that's the case quite often. So, a change like this one, I would've thought that would've been a pretty typical thing for a Minister to stipulate in a letter of expectation to the chief executive in terms of the types of processes that they expect to be followed. So while I think it's a great idea, I don't know if legislation is necessarily the right pathway. It's great that you're going to take a belts and braces approach to this, but it would be something that would typically be covered off in a letter of expectation from a Minister to the ministry to outline what should be happening. What this bill does is it creates a legal obligation, if it goes ahead and is amended, on the chief executive and on prison managers to protect those who are the subject of a protection order and victims of crime from contact from prisoners. So we really look forward—I assume it will come to the Justice Committee if it passes its first reading, and we look forward to receiving that at the Justice Committee to hear directly from Corrections what their current approach is, how they can strengthen that, and how we can make sure this bill works in the best way possible. This bill ensures that victims and others who are subject to a protection order under the Family Violence Act are protected from unwanted communications from prisoners, and this is important work. It's important to note that when you talk a big game on getting tough on these areas, it's also really important that there is funding in place to make sure that this happens. There's already been a statement made in terms of Corrections, that there will be increased availability of rehabilitation while at the same time Corrections are expected to find a 6.5 percent reduction in their overall spend. So I guess as a word of caution, if we're expecting our Corrections department to be doing more work but reducing the amount of funding that they receive annually, then that's not—I mean, I'm not flash at maths; I didn't do great on school cert, I was more into other things, but you can add up that if you're asking someone to do a bit more and you're giving them less money, something's got to give. I question where the funding's going to come if you're asking corrections staff to do more than what they're currently doing but giving them less money to do it. This bill does what Corrections sets out to do but, as I said, provides no additional support. I'd just like to wrap up by saying that, you know, we stand strong in our record of supporting victims of crime. We know that 93,000 more people accessed legal aid by increasing that threshold, with further increases to come over the next two years. I really hope that that funding stays in place and it's not subject to cuts in the upcoming Budget. It's really important, if we care about victims of crime, that we give people access to legal aid and that there are no barriers to justice. Finally, I'd just like to touch on the fact that we've increased the hourly rates of those legal aid providers and also removed the user charge fee for people receiving civil and family legal aid. These are really important mechanisms. Also, stopping that sort of litigious harassment through the courts—that's an important step as well to make sure victims of family violence are not further subjected. So we support this bill, but I'm looking forward to receiving it at select committee and asking some good questions. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to first pay tribute to its sponsor, my good friend and colleague Rima Nakhle. Rima comes to this House with the perfect credentials to be the sponsor of this bill and the inheritor from the likes of Judith Collins and Louise Upston. Rima Nakhle and her husband, Roger, have been involved in transitional housing, emergency housing initiatives over a number of years and the Nakhle family is synonymous with the building and creation of Manukau City over many decades. And so Rima brings a social licence as well as empathy as well as experience and as well as the credentials, because she also, of course, studied law at Western Sydney University and so comes well equipped to see this bill through to select committee and, hopefully, on to greener pastures. As previous speakers have alluded to—but I will again for those that might have just tuned in to parliamentary TV with a valedictory speech coming up—this member's bill would create an obligation on the chief executive of Corrections and on prison managers to protect those who are subject to a protection order and victims of crime from contact from prisoners. And as Rima Nakhle, the MP for Takanini, told us, the current Corrections Act refers to the protection of victims of family violence, but this member's bill widens the net to all victims. And as has been alluded to, there are processes in place, there are managers that are overseeing it and doing the right thing. But as the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, said, this creates a legal obligation and that is what the law is all about, those legal obligations to close the net and to make sure victims are protected. And on this side of the House, we certainly are a Government that's going to go out continually and back the victims of crime. This is common sense. It's a pragmatic yet simple law change that would provide relief and protection to victims of crime. Many New Zealanders would be surprised that such a legal safety net and requirement and compliance of those leaders within our corrections facility is not actually mandatory in a wider sense. And as others have alluded to, there's been plenty of cases, as Rima Nakhle said. She alluded to a more recent one, but as the National MP, the Hon Louise Upston, when she had the bill, she alluded to a number of terrifying cases as to why we should make this a stipulation on the statute books. We heard about a recent case a few years ago that was highlighted in the media that exposed the fact that a prisoner contacted his victim 93 times to get her to change her story. There's also been newspaper reports in recent years were a victim of a savage beating, who should have felt safe in the knowledge that their assailant was behind bars, was indeed contacted more than 100 times from jail, calling upon the victim not to give evidence at the trial. And there's another case during a seven-weeks in custody: another 102 phone calls from prison to a victim in a desperate bid to prevent the victim from testifying against them. So these people are our most vulnerable. They need the most protection. Victim advocate Ruth Money has been all over this and says we need to close this loophole, we need to get this on statute. Rima Nakhle has the social licence, has the empathy, has the experience, and has the credentials to see this through. I commend the bill. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Well, congratulations to the member for getting this bill drawn, and, as is apparent from the speeches that have gone before, it looks pretty certain to make its way through, I imagine, the Justice Committee, and we look forward to having a good, old look at it there. I think it's really important, though, to recognise that putting an obligation in the Corrections Act doesn't magic up the resources to make sure that the obligation is complied with. We know that, at the current time, Corrections don't have the resources to do the things that they're legally obliged to do at the present time. The member whose name this bill is in was on the select committee when they were subject to annual review and fronted up and said that they can't comply with their legal obligation under the Corrections Act now. So if this bill goes through—it's got a pretty good chance of it—it's going to require more of Corrections, it's going to impose further obligations on Corrections, and we've got to make sure that Corrections has the resources to do that. Having said that, the sentiment behind this bill is a very good sentiment, and certainly, in terms of having a survivor focus on how we manage prisoners, that's a really good thing, and I think that simply shifting the narrative to make sure that survivors are part of the conversation, in terms of how prisoners are managed, is a good thing; whether we need legislation to do that is quite another. The bill, as is apparent from its slim nature, does not make significant changes. I would note that there's already considerable powers. So section 33 of the Corrections Act, which is the Act being amended, gives a prison manager the ability to make rules for prisons, and these are pretty uniform across prisons, and they can deal with things like visiting rights, correspondence, telephone calls, right through to what they can spend their pocket money on, and all sorts of things. So the ability is already there to do that. In fact, a ministerial expectation that this is part of prison rules would probably achieve the same thing. I suspect that when we go through a select committee process, there will be some discussion around whether legislation is, essentially, a disproportionate reaction to that. I note in section 108 of the Act that there is an explicit power to withhold mail between the prisoner and any other person. So, actually, the power is already there, in black and white, in section 108, to stop mail from going from the prisoner to any other person. I'm aware of a number of the instances that we've heard where this power has not been properly exercised. That's not because the power didn't exist. All of those anecdotes that the member who just spoke alluded to, that won't change simply because we say that there is now a function of Corrections to protect victims. There's already that power to do so and the expectation. So if we're going to make sure that this harm doesn't occur, we've got to give the power, the rules, but also the resources. I also note, going through, again, section 77 of the existing Act: outgoing telephone calls can be monitored. There are very narrow exclusions: lawyers and medical professionals, for obvious reasons. But the very purpose of monitoring outgoing telephone calls is to stop calls which are not appropriate. I've had contact with people who, for that exact reason, have had phone calls stopped because they were, essentially, re-victimising people—and that's exactly what should happen, and in section 112, it sets out the purposes for that. So, look, it's not a bad piece of legislation. You've got to fund Corrections to do these things; at the moment, they're pretty much on their bones, so to speak, so we absolutely need to address that as much as this minor tidy-up of the legislation. Thank you very much. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I'd like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the speeches that were made and the support on this first reading for the bill. I didn't expect it that much. I expected it a little bit because, in my heart of hearts, I know that most of us here in Parliament are good people even though we have different views on how taxpayer money should be spent. So thank you for the support across the House at this stage. I note the various concerns, and for the most part they're concerns I share as well. When I inherited this bill, I did a lot of research and continue to do so. I did find—just as Dr Duncan Webb mentioned and the Hon Ginny Andersen and also before her mentioned—that in the Corrections Act, the principal bill as it is right now, there are these protections in a way. But what I'd like to just, for the time being, highlight, which I touched upon earlier, is that section 33 and section 108 use the word "may"—that prison managers, etc. "may" withhold mail and things like that. When I was doing my research looking into it more, I thought, "Well, 'may' clearly hasn't been enough." So we need to really highlight the abuse that's taking place notwithstanding these sections that already exist and, respectfully to my colleagues across the House, I think that, at this stage, has driven me to feel more strongly about this amendment bill. Yeah, look, I tautoko about the resources and also looking forward to Corrections coming in in the select committee stage and us querying them and hearing from them how it is on the ground and how we can hopefully make this work. I'd like to also say thank you to my colleague across the House, Tākuta Ferris. Later I'll tell you what "farris" means in Arabic, actually—means "stallion"—but I'd like to say thank you for the thoughts that you shared and thank you for acknowledging that from your point of view. It's a glimmer of hope because, as I said, I'm of the view that most of us in this House are inherently good people. I'd like to also say to my colleague Cameron Brewer: you can write my new CV any time. Again, I'd like to recap for our listeners that have just tuned in or for our guests in the gallery that have just come in to listen to the final speech of this first reading. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Just for you, Rima! RIMA NAKHLE: Just for me! I'd like to recap what we're doing here today. It's the first reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. We're in the first reading, ladies and gentlemen, and essentially this bill is hoping to make three changes in the Corrections Act 2004. Those three changes, in essence, seek to protect victims of crime and protection order applicants from being contacted by perpetrators of crimes from prisons or being under the supervision of Corrections. I'd also like to re-highlight the recent stories that I spoke about during my first reading about people being contacted—victims of crime being contacted. But also, I would like to emphasise before we go on and continue on from the point that my colleague Cameron Brewer made, with respect to the current protections in this bill, the Hon James Shaw spoke about the need to focus on survivors but also to reference family violence survivors. The Corrections Act, the principal Act, at this stage does cover protection for victims of family violence but, as we said earlier, we want to expand the scope. So thank you very much to my colleagues across the House. Thank you for everyone in the gallery listening to this final reading of this amendment bill. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Justice Committee. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (REMOVING GST FROM FOOD) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I move, That the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider this bill. Tēna tātou. Well, I feel absolutely privileged to see all of these ex-MPs—and even Sir Geoffrey Palmer is here to hear the first reading of this bill—because at one point, they would have all been passionate about ensuring that we start to close the gap between the rich and the poor. So I rise to introduce my member's bill, the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill, to the House today. Just before I enter into the speech, I want to acknowledge all the whānau that supported and signed our petition. Near-on 20,000 people signed this petition to take GST off kai. Look, Aotearoa's experiencing a cost of living crisis. This bill looks to make immediate changes to allow our whānau the dignity to put kai on the table to feed their whānau and their babies. Therefore, a vote against this bill is a vote against eliminating poverty. I wish that that they treated this bill the same as they treated just the last bill that's just gone through the House, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, where it was unanimous—where it was unanimous. That we were all agreeable on eliminating poverty in this House, not just addressing it. Because I hear a lot of the parties in this House—they want to address the poverty, but they don't want to eliminate it. GST is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts lower-income whānau who spend their entire income to survive. If I'm making $10 an hour and you're making $200 an hour, I've got to pay the same tax on that goods and services from the supermarket. If I send my five-year-old tamaiti, or child, into the supermarket, they've got to pay tax on whatever they buy. This is how regressive tax disproportionately impacts lower-income whānau, who spend their entire income to survive. The removal of GST from food, would recognise cost of living pressures and the reality that food products are basic necessity of life that people should be able to access without taxation. Kai is a human right. We have a broken tax system which has fuelled extreme wealth inequities here in Aotearoa, and it's only getting worse. The richest 2 percent control 50 percent of this country's wealth. Ordinary whānau are subsidising the lavish lifestyle of the rich. Ordinary whānau paid 20.2 percent on tax; the wealthy paid 9.4 percent on tax. Even today, Ipsos, the third-largest market-research company in the world, reported the primary concern for New Zealanders remains to be inflation—cost of living—with 59 percent of New Zealanders identifying it as a key issue. If an apple a day keeps the doctor away but whānau can't afford apples and can't afford to go to the doctor, all whilst this Government has scraped Te Aka Whai Ora, how do we look after the wellness of our people? If this House is so concerned with bread and butter issues but whānau cannot afford bread and butter, then what does that say about the morality of this House? It's absolute hypocrisy and disgraceful. Tangata whenua have never been afforded the privilege of experiencing a cost of living crisis, because they are still bearing the brunt of the cost of poverty. Not only that, but you've left your own people behind as well, where many tangata Tiriti are also experiencing the same hardship. The supermarket duopoly—they made $400 million in the year. We need to break the duopoly. This is an and/and. Others will make speeches in this House saying GST has too much impact on the administration, has too much impact on administration. Others will sympathise with this bill, but will not go as far as supporting this bill to eliminate poverty from this country. Between June 2019 and the March 2023 quarter, household living costs for all households had risen by 17.7 percent, and for Māori households by 18.4 percent. In fact, in the coalition Government 100-day plan to rebuild the economy and to erase the cost of living, they do not have a single item of urgency addressing poverty for whānau who are facing hardship. Instead, the Government introduced legislation to narrow the Reserve Bank's mandate to price stability, repealed the fair pay agreement legislation, cut benefit increases, introduced legislation just to disestablish the Māori Health Authority, e kī rā! [really!] Repealed amendments to the Smoke Free Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990, and so many more regressive, harmful, racist legislation aimed at further disenfranchisement for whānau. Because we know what is actually urgent, and that is that whānau can't afford to buy kai. Today, one in five tamariki Māori are living in poverty. This means their whānau can't afford a safe home, essentials like regular healthy food, doctors visits, or to pay their power bills. Food prices have gone up 12 percent as of 2023, the biggest annual increase since 1989—and some of the ex-MPS that are up the back there would remember this. In 2014, the Ministry of Social Development provided quarterly 92,167 food hardship assistance grants. In 2023, that number increased to 336,270—it increased by 265 percent. In the 2020 to 2022 time period, the New Zealand Food Network reported 165 percent increase in the demand for food support following COVID. Those are extraordinary numbers. Those are extraordinary numbers. This bill will automatically make a make a big difference to those whānau who are struggling right now. But it's time for us to put politics aside and to actually address poverty and the hardship that many of our people are suffering right now. This is not an and/or; this is an and/and. Some of you will come up with other initiatives that you say are better. Our people cannot wait. They are starving right now. They are starving today. But they cannot wait for you to come up with other alternatives. This must be an and/and. Yes: taking GST off kai. Yes: breaking the duopoly, for our whānau, in those supermarkets—$400 million, in the year, made, taken overseas. Where's the company tax on those particular corporate companies that have taken our money overseas? That money should be used for the greater good of Aotearoa. And so this is an and/and. Yes: doubling baseline benefits—absolutely an and/and; it should not be an and/or. We've got to have a collective approach to this. We've got to prioritise poverty. We should not walk into a supermarket and see whānau walking through down those aisles, having to put food back because they can't afford it. This is not about food discrimination, where you're saying, "Only fruit and veg." E kī rā! [Really!] So our whānau can go into a supermarket and you're going to say, "You can go down this aisle because we're taking GST off it, but you can't go down that aisle. Only the rich go down that aisle. We're going to discriminate against you from going down that aisle." Everybody should have the dignity and the mana to be able to walk down those aisles and shop for whatever they want to without being taxed. Kai is a necessity—it is a human right. You shouldn't be taxed for kai. We need to take GST of kai right now. I'll tell you what, people have tried to push Te Pāti Māori onto the left, onto the right—we are staying up the guts. We are in the middle, and we want to know who else is committed to running the ball up the guts. Pop me the ball! Who's going to run the ball up the guts? Who's going to commit to eliminating poverty? Who is going to support our people who are struggling out there? All eyes are on you. All eyes are on you. I know this House; I know where they're voting—not you, Madam Speaker. All eyes are on us. All eyes are on us. So I look forward to the debate. I look forward to seeing where everybody else votes, because Aotearoa is looking. The 20,000 people that supported their petition, and the 70,000 people that supported another petition last year, where they agreed that GST should be taken off kai. All eyes are on us, e hika mā! Who is here to eliminate poverty, or who is here to play politics? This is about an Aotearoa hou, an Aotearoa hou where we will welcome you on to that marae. We will feed you, we will house you, we will care for you, we will love you. This is the bill. Kia ora tātou. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And I wish to acknowledge Rawiri Waititi for that very energetic introduction there. I think what he was indicating there is he might be wanting to join the parliamentary rugby team, and we're going to run it up the middle. As his co-captain, I welcome him to that team at any point. But as I said to the member as I came in and I acknowledged—and I won't leave the House in any more suspense for any longer, but as a Prime Minister acknowledged in his comments at question time today that National will not be supporting this member's bill today, and I acknowledge that. But, look, before I delve into why National will not be supporting this member's bill, I want to extend my congratulations to the member for getting this bill drawn in the ballot. The primary reason why National will not be supporting this bill is because of the staggering fiscal cost that this change will incur. Rawiri Waititi: Oh, the administration—I knew you were going to say that. Hon SIMON WATTS: And the member's saying he knew that's why I would do it. He is relatively psychic, and I acknowledge that. But the cost of $2.6 billion is a figure that cannot be overlooked. Over the last year, there has been a considerable amount of commentary, I think across the House, in regards to this bill, so what I'm saying comes as no surprise for those that have been watching this. But the issue around the fact of GST on food—and, in particular, fruit and vegetables, as was noted by the Labour Party—has also been covered extensively by the Labour Party's Tax Working Group back in the day as well. So we know that this analysis has already been done. And not often does a National Party member refer much to the Labour Party's Tax Working Group, but today is the day that maybe we will. And I will cover some of that. So estimates within the work that was undertaken by the Tax Working Group indicated that the total value of this change could give an additional $53 to some of the most wealthy households per week as a result of this change, and about $14.50 for our lowest-income households. So let's unpack that aspect. Let's start with the first point, which is in regards to the Tax Working Group indicating that that spending and that amount of money would mean, in effect, a cash transfer of around $29 for every household per week. Far more than the lowest income families would get from this policy that the member is representing. And I note for the House that these numbers are from 2018, before, obviously, a significant implication in regards to the inflation that has flown over the prior periods. But let's take that aside. The goal merely from this policy, as the member quite rightly indicated, is in order to maximise that transfer of money back to the back pocket of those with low income predominantly, and it is just simply not an efficient mechanism in order to do that. The claim that this is a progressive policy that will deliver most of its value to low-income households simply is not correct. It is not the reality. It is unavoidable because the nature of GST as we know is that GST is paid in terms of those that spend it, and it will benefit those who spend more on food than those that don't. The truth is that this policy benefits a number of those people who were going to spend more on food and will not necessarily bring the benefits to those on lowest income. It's also based on the assumption that all of this benefit will be passed on to consumers. And we know from analysis in the debate, actually, that the Labour Party had in regards to a similar promise that they made leading into the election that the real question is how much of this GST reduction will actually flow through to consumers. Sadly the case that one of the biggest beneficiaries of this policy that the member is proposing will actually be the supermarkets chains themselves, not the low-income families. And that's why we are not supporting this bill. Rawiri Waititi: That's rubbish. Hon SIMON WATTS: And the member's saying that's absolutely rubbish. I can hear the member saying "rubbish". It's not rubbish—it's not rubbish. It is facts—it is facts. And I'm running it down the middle there for the member, and I'll pass it to the member as well. But we'll keep going because we've got five minutes to go and I'm enjoying this opportunity to do a little bit more talking on GST, which is a great topic to be talking about as we lead into the main event at 5.30 p.m., in only 14 minutes. And I can feel the crowd building, not only for this GST speech, but for the main audience. So let's get back to the topic. The other issue with this is that the more exemptions that you place in terms of GST, the more complexity that comes into the system. And New Zealand has a very good system in regards to GST, unlike our cousins across the Tasman in Australia who have exemptions for everything. In New Zealand, actually, we have a very simplistic model and very few exemptions. Rawiri Waititi: We follow them into war. We don't follow them in the example of no GST on food. Hon SIMON WATTS: And I'm loving the participation of the member in terms of the commentary that I'm providing, but the reality is, as it stands, our system has very few exemptions, meaning that the flat rate of GST that flows through on most goods and services means that it is a system that is easy to apply and it is easy to predict, and that's important as well. For businesses, it makes it easy for them to do what they need to do. And if we apply what the member's proposing, that's going to make it more complex, and that is not the outcome we want. I obviously congratulate the member for putting this bill in. It's a little bit simpler than what the Labour Party were proposing prior to the election, so I acknowledge the work and effort that's gone into simplification of that. But that's pretty much where I'll draw the line—it's where I'll draw the line—in terms of that, because there's a lot of complexity that comes in between fruit and vegetables and other food items, and the problem is, as we know in these types of conversations, the devil's always in the detail, isn't it? The devil's always in the detail. And when we start getting into the definition of food, that's when the complexities are going to arise, and we can't have any of that. We're a Government of simplicity and we want efficiency in regards to that, so we're not going to be up for that. And don't believe that this is going to do what we need to do. So don't worry about that. We think that GST should apply flatly across all goods and services, and I think that is the most appropriate way that we want to do that. In regards to other aspects of this, we think that in the points that I've raise that it will apply to any of the changes, and we need to also think about the broader context around this bill. We're also aware that this will make our system more complex, and we have noted that pretty clearly. So look, I'm not going to continue on too much longer. I know we've got a little bit more time to kill this evening before 5.30, but National will not be—[Interruption] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, and I do welcome all our visitors to the gallery and thank you for being here. But the House needs to continue its business until the valedictory that you're here for. And I just respectfully ask that you do it in silence. Thank you. Hon SIMON WATTS: Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sure they were no doubt wanting to listen to the conclusion of this GST speech before that. But National, sadly, will not be supporting this bill. Instead, we will be focusing on more policies of substance that will lower the cost of living for hardworking Kiwis across this country like focusing the Reserve Bank on a single mandate, or maybe removing the Auckland fuel tax could be a good option that we might do, or delivering real tax reductions for hard-working Kiwi families. And we'll be talking about more of that soon, for the member as well. So when it comes to tax, we'll be focusing on making the system much more straightforward, much more simple, rather than making it more complicated. On that basis, sadly, I will not be commending this bill to the House. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this member's bill, the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill, in the name of Rawiri Waititi, and I want to acknowledge the brother and thank him for coming to the House with an actual initiative to address the cost of living. The reason why I want to thank you is because on the other side of the House we have seen over the last hundred days policies that have done nothing, nothing, to improve the cost of living for everyday Kiwis. In the House today when the new co-leader of the Green Party, Chlöe Swarbrick, asked the Prime Minister to name one cost of living policy they've implemented in the last hundred days to bring down the cost of living, the answer was the Auckland regional fuel tax. And then when the member for Auckland Central continued to ask the Prime Minister "By how much, what is the cost now?"— Rawiri Waititi: Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. What we have seen from the other side of the House to address the cost of living has been cuts to benefits, and the removal of the Māori Health Authority, which was there to help with the health and wellbeing of Māori people who are at the very bottom of our health statistics. What we have seen is a commitment to removing public transport fees at half-price, and removing it so it's no longer free from July. These are costs that are on everyday Kiwis and everyday families. But this Government, who says they've got a laser-like focus on the cost of living, instead decides to put $2.9 billion towards tax breaks for landlords. And then on the other hand, what they do is they say sorry to the disability community, sorry to all those hard-working parents who have to work 24/7 to look after their disabled child, but there's not enough money in this pit for you. And yet $2.9 billion has been committed to tax breaks for landlords. That is what we're seeing on the other side of the House to address the cost of living—and a member across the House has asked me what this has got to do with the bill. It's very clear the purpose of the bill is to deal with the cost of living. But, you know, I will give the member some latitude because they are a new member in the House. I want to take a very quick moment to acknowledge what's going to be happening at 5.30 today, and that is that this House will be farewelling the Hon Grant Robertson. It's always intimidating to speak in this House, even more so when surrounded by former members of Parliament—who will probably grade me after this—like the Hon Kris Faafoi, who was the mighty member for Mana. When he left one door, he left the door open for me to walk into it. Then when it came to the Hon Grant Robertson, when he decided to leave the door, he opened it for me. So I'm indulging the House's time to be able to provide that small acknowledgment of the contribution that the Hon Grant Robertson has done for this country. Coming back to the bill, purpose and values is why this side of the House walks through those doors every single day. If you have no purpose or values, you are in the wrong job. This side of the House is absolutely committed to helping those who are most vulnerable, providing support where we can to advocate for those carers because of the actions of the other side of the House, because of the ministerial decision to tighten up their application for respite care funding. So this side of the House will have more time to speak as to our view in relation to this bill, but I do want to finish by ensuring that we acknowledge the contribution that the Hon Grant Robertson has made for us, through the Working for Families changes, the Best Start payment, and the winter energy payment. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I wish this was the audience that we had for every single tax debate. As Rawiri Waititi, the co-leader of Te Pāti Māori, has just outlined, we have a fundamental problem in this country when it comes to the way that our tax system presently operates. That is, as he was alluding to, that report from the Inland Revenue Department with subsidiary papers from Treasury, released at the beginning of last year, which showed us—which showed this House and the whole of the country—that we have a tax system that sees the top 311 families pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of the average New Zealander. That's not an accident but a consequence of the way that our tax system has been designed. So let's get into the content of this legislation. Firstly, I just want to commend our colleagues and our friends in Te Pāti Māori, for, as the Hon Barbara Edmonds said, bringing a bill to this House which does speak to values, and also for the luck of the draw in having it put forward to us in the House today. The call to action from Rawiri Waititi was asking this House whether we had the guts to do what was necessary to eliminate poverty. That's where I'm afraid I must be up front and straight up with Rawiri Waititi and our friends in Te Pāti Māori. I called him and said this earlier today, that we in the Greens could not support this legislation because, unfortunately, it will not do what it says on the tin. Hon Member: Oh, you agree with us. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So let's get into precisely that. It is fundamental Green Party policy, and one that we've said multiple times throughout the campaign, Carl. So the question is: what does this bill do? The proposition that we've had is that this bill will eliminate poverty. Unfortunately, it won't do that. The reasons for that are manifold. The first is that we know that there is nothing that will stop the supermarket duopoly from filling the gap. We have seen similar moves from corporates when we've seen targeted taxes removed à la the regional fuel tax. We know this because it's reflected in the Tax Working Group's report, which the Minister of Revenue alluded to just before. We also know, as a result of that independent advice, that a policy like this, unfortunately, will disproportionately benefit the wealthy, who will buy more of those goods at the supermarket. We also know that it comes with an approximate $3 billion price tag, and, therefore, the proposition from the Greens is that that money can be better spent elsewhere. If, indeed, our priority is to eliminate poverty, we can do that through the likes of what we campaigned on in the Greens—our evidence-based policy to tax wealth and pay for a guaranteed minimum income to eliminate poverty. We also know that there is immense complexity in administration of a policy like this. We've seen that reflected in Australia where they have a similar policy. I just want to call out the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Simon Watts, who previously was speaking to some of these points in the Tax Working Group report, because he loves to cherry-pick the fact that the Tax Working Group went through this policy and said that it wouldn't work and it wouldn't do what it said on the tin, but what he doesn't want to put the microscope on is the fact that the Tax Working Group recommended a comprehensive capital gains tax, which would have gone some way to fixing our tax system and some of those fundamental inequities that I opened my speech with. I also want to say thank you to our colleagues and friends in Te Paati Māori for expanding the tax debate from the austerity, trickle-down nonsense that we have heard thus far from the three-headed taniwha that is this coalition Government. So, in summation, let me be very clear: the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand wants to eliminate poverty—those are our values. We will follow the evidence to see that happen, as is reflected in our policies for a wealth tax and for a guaranteed minimum income, least of all and also helping to fund our public infrastructure that we know is in colossal, hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit, because successive Governments have preferred to stick their heads in the sand than fix our tax system. Ultimately, I might add, that comes at the cost of our productivity. I put these questions once again to Treasury when they were in front of us at Finance and Expenditure Committee the week before last. The point that they have consistently made is that a lack of a capital gains tax pushes up house prices and robs us of that productivity. So, in conclusion, the values behind this bill are correct, but the evidence shows it will not do what the member says it will, and we look forward to working with them to see more evidence-based policy implemented. Thank you. Debate interrupted. VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with a determination by the Business Committee, we're now going to hear a valedictory statement. Before I call the member to make his valedictory statement, can I just say to the Hon Grant Robertson that I wish you all the best for your future, and every success in your new job. There are a lot of members who come through this House. You, sir, have been a great parliamentarian, and I'm sure you'll do an equally good job in your new role, although I do have a little worry about the curriculum, but perhaps we can talk about that some other time. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Tihei mauri ora! E mihi ana ki ngā mana whenua ki tēnei rohe, a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, Te Ātiawa Whānui, tēnā koutou katoa. [The breath of life! I acknowledge the people who hold the mana of the land in this region, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, Te Ātiawa Whānui, greetings to all of you.] When I arrived here in 2008, the Speaker was the Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. We had a bit of history. He had been education Minister when I was the student president at Otago, and we pursued him around the South Island. He didn't seem keen to talk. At one point, he had to climb out of a window at Canterbury University to get away from Megan Woods, and some other students as well. I need not have had any concerns. Lockwood was an excellent Speaker, who—like you, Mr Speaker—had the occasional lapse with names. He did try hard. He, memorably, prepared himself for one of his first calls, for my friend and colleague Carmel Sepuloni. She duly rose to take her call, and Lockwood proudly announced, "I call the member Sepul Carmeloni." Now, Lockwood also diligently read the prayer each day off a card, and at the time the prayer began, "humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant"—and, strangely, Lockwood paused each day at that point. I felt very much at home. Of course, I did know the place pretty well. I had worked for the fifth Labour Government in various guises for five years prior to becoming an MP. In doing so, I worked for two—well, actually, three remarkable women. Firstly, my dear friend the Hon Marian Hobbs. Now, I've made a lot of Marian's memorable quotes over the years, and there certainly have been a few, like the time she was impressing on the executives at TVNZ the importance of the film and television industry to Wellington, and she so wanted to say that it was the city's bread and butter but instead she told them in no uncertain terms that it was the city's "bed and breakfast". We laughed until we cried. But today what I want to do is thank Marian for being my political conscience. She is principled, intelligent, and empathetic. These are the qualities of a great politician; not being able to pull off a one-liner or find the right words for a witty riposte. Marian, you are a tower of strength for the Labour movement. I was poached from Marian's office by Heather Simpson to come and work for Helen Clark. My job description was to count to 61—the number of votes that we required to pass legislation. In the five years I worked for Heather, I received four emails—take that, Mr Ombudsman. She set incredibly high standards and is the best political operator I have ever seen in this building. She also had a Southland sense of humour that I appreciated. One day, a mysterious stain appeared on the carpet immediately outside her office door. Her executive assistant (EA) Stephen Woodhouse and I were staring at it when Heather appeared, grunted, and said, "Well, I guess now you know where the bodies are buried." I have always presumed that was a joke. Helen Clark was extraordinary. She managed to make progressive change while maintaining an attachment to a coalition of voters from across the political spectrum. She is ultimately the reason I joined the Labour Party—and for your leadership, courage, and insatiable love of gossip, Helen, I thank you. Those times working in the fifth Labour Government were formative. It's also where I got to know Sir Michael Cullen. Michael was a visionary, whose legacy as Minister of Finance is enormous. He was a terrific mentor to several of us who entered Parliament in 2008, and especially for me as finance Minister and finance spokesperson. I miss him dearly. Our nine long years in Opposition when I first arrived here was when I settled into the role of being Wellington Central MP. Among many, a true highlight was sponsoring and passing the Wellington Town Belt Act. The only protection that the town belt had was the trust deed signed in 1874 that was, depending on the whim of the council at the time, honoured in the breach, with some interesting developments taking place. I worked with the council to produce a piece of legislation that not only protected the land currently in the town belt but allowed us to add land to it. Another highlight has been the creation of social housing in Wellington. The development at Rolleston Street is a partnership with the Wellington City Mission to provide housing and wraparound services. I want to acknowledge Murray Edridge and his team for their work. Along with Stephanie McIntyre, when she was at the Downtown Community Ministry, they and their teams were my heroes, and, Steph, wherever you are, we finally got ourselves a wet house. In my electorate office, our philosophy was that the door was always open. I am so incredibly grateful for the team I had with me over those 15 years. Anna, Sheila, Sophia, Beth, Kurt, Reed, Kasey, Alka, Seamus and Thomas, thank you for being the front line. You literally saved lives, gave hope, and made people feel that there was someone in their corner. One of the people who walked through the electorate office door in about 2010 was Keith Whiffen. Keith wanted my support with his case arising from abuse in care at the Epuni Boys' Home. What has followed is a 13-year journey and friendship. Previous Governments had said no to the establishment of a royal commission into abuse in State care. In 2017 myself, Andrew Little, and Jacinda Ardern met with Keith and gave him our assurance that we would establish a commission if elected, and we did it—in our first 100 days. I would ask every New Zealander to pay attention to the report of the commission when it is shortly released. The abuse, bullying, and cruelty experienced by young people who were supposed to be cared for by the State and churches is horrific beyond any measure. It casts a dark shadow over our history. I am proud that we stepped forward to tackle this, but that pales in comparison to my pride in the courage of Keith and other survivors. We owe it to them to get our response fair, timely, and long lasting. In Parliament, there were a couple of highlights in the "nine long years". One of those was the passing of a bill I drafted with the help of staff member Marcus Ganley, to ensure that Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day were given full recognition and "Mondayised"—Chris Finlayson hated that word—when they fell on a weekend. We had the numbers because Peter Dunne supported it. But the bill lay in the members' ballot for several years, and eventually I gave it away first to Darien Fenton, and then to Dr David Clark, who, of course, had it drawn immediately. In an interesting twist of fate, Dr Clark was "unavailable" on the day of the third reading of the bill and I got to move it when it passed. I am pretty sure David was OK with me locking him in his office for a few hours. The "Mondayisation Bill" passed on the same day that we had the final debate of the marriage equality legislation. The speech I gave that night—actually, from this seat—remains the one I am the proudest of in this House. I was involved in the campaign to get civil unions passed. We were never totally confident that we had the votes on that one, and in the end we got there 65 to 55. To see how far we had come less than 10 years later was remarkable, and to win the marriage equality vote 77 to 44 was a strong vindication. Colleagues, the next time you have a visitor in the building, take them to the Rainbow Room, also known as select committee room 11—not such a great title. It is a humbling experience to see the wall with the front page of the laws that this House has passed to address discrimination against rainbow communities. In my time as an MP, we've added marriage equality, the expungement of convictions pre - law reform, and the banning of conversion therapy, and I was proud to play a role in all of those. We still have some way to go to ensure people can grow up to be who they are and are supported to live fulfilling lives. I am particularly concerned at the way our trans community have been the subject of increasing hatred, bigotry, and lies as part of the ongoing culture wars. I saw this especially in the sports portfolio. People with absolutely no care for women's sport suddenly became warriors for safety in pursuit of an imagined enemy. The "othering" of trans people is despicable. We have to support people to live the lives that they want to live, and to show them some respect. Today is not the day to go through the ups and downs of what happened to the Labour Party before we eventually got into Government in 2017. It's a bit like the 1960s: if you recall it, you weren't really there. Nor, sadly, is there time to discuss every portfolio or role that I have had. But I want to focus on two of them. When Jacinda asked me to be the Minister of Finance, I told her that it was on one condition: that I was the Minister of Sport and Recreation as well. She said a few people have expressed interest in that role. I asked her how many of them she had asked to be Minister of Finance. I have loved sport for as long as I can remember. I was never very good at it. My own personal sporting peak was being the ballboy for the All Blacks versus British Lions test at Carisbrook in Dunedin in 1983, running along beside Matt Doocey's father, who was the touch judge that day. It rained, sleeted, and huge pools of water appeared on the field. We were given giant oilskin parkas to wear. I looked like a rotund, bespectacled, drenched ewok. It was only ever going to be downhill from there, but I believe in sport as a way to strengthen our communities and our wellbeing. New Zealand never had a comprehensive strategy for women and girls in sport before we came into Government. Thanks to the hard work of the team at Sport New Zealand and wāhine across the country, we were able to pull together a plan. It had a clear vision and priorities: increased participation, improved leadership opportunities, greater valuing and visibility. The results are obvious: bidding for and hosting three exceptional World Cups for cricket, rugby, and football, with each of them special in their own way. Cricket delivered in the shadow of COVID, but ending with a full house at Hagley Oval; rugby with the extraordinary run of the Black Ferns and a final that ranks up there as my favourite ever sporting moment; and then the incredible, commercially successful FIFA World Cup. I want to thank the amazing teams who ran those events, some of whom who are here today. But much more than that, it's the increased participation of girls and women across many sports that I am proud of. The enormous increase in visibility and the improved roles for women in governance, with all national sporting organisations now compliant with the policy to have at least 40 percent women on their boards. There is still a long way to go to achieve the equity that women in sport deserve. But I am proud of what we achieved. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the wāhine toa who have promoted women's sport over generations, against the odds and the prejudices they face. We owe it to them and the generations to come to keep the momentum going over the coming decades. The second achievement in the sport portfolio that I am particularly proud of is the establishment of Integrity Sport NZ. There have been far too many examples of abuse, bullying, and undue pressure being placed on athletes. The death of Olivia Podmore while a resident in the High Performance New Zealand cycling programme was tragic, and I think of her family today. Integrity Sport NZ is an independent body to uphold safe, fair, drug-free sport, assess complaints, and undertake investigations that can give athletes and their families confidence. Being the Minister of Finance is an extraordinary privilege. It gave me the unparalleled opportunity to spend time with my colleagues when they were at their most stressed and anxious. I want to—[Laughter] You'll know! I want to particularly thank Willie Jackson for his patient and calm advocacy. I genuinely felt his aroha when he said to me "Why do you hate the Maoris?" when I had just given him a billion dollars' worth of funding. I also want to thank "Chippy" for not following through on his annual threat to resign during the education budget process, and all other colleagues who responded so well to the limited amount of funding we had available. I was going to ask the Parliamentary Library to calculate how many times I used the word "balance" as Minister, but I feared that the computer server would explode. But that balance was what I was trying strike between the careful approach to managing the country's finances and the pressing needs that exist in our country. In my first two Budgets, we posted a surplus and kept net debt below our self-imposed limit of 20 percent of GDP. Our first Budget paid for our 100-day plan commitments. Craig Renney and I dreamt up the winter energy payment one day in Opposition, with a nod to the work of the UK Labour Government. It remains the policy that I think I got the most positive correspondence about. The 100-day plan also included fees-free, the Best Start payment, and the broader Families Package that lifted Working for Families and the accommodation supplement. It was a positive and constructive start to our time in Government. Budget 2019 was our first ever Wellbeing Budget. This approach to creating a Budget and measuring our success as a country with indicators beyond GDP is world leading. This approach means that Budget initiatives must show value for money, but in all senses of that word—for people, for our environment, for our communities, and our finances. We now report at each Budget on indicators of child poverty, climate change, and overall wellbeing. We continue to report on how we are tracking fiscally, but to do so myopically risks forgetting the very reason we are here. The economy is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. We moved to multi-year capital allowances to give significantly more room to plan properly. We brought together agencies with a common purpose to agree on priorities and then to be funded for three years, not just one, so they can get on with the jobs we need them to do. These approaches are the way of the future. The public that we serve do not care which agency funding comes from, they just want to know we are getting on with addressing the challenges and creating opportunities for the future. We often measure Government activity as a percentage of GDP. It allows comparisons over time and borders, rather than dollar figures, which lack context. When we entered Government in 2017, Government spending was 27 percent of GDP. That's not enough. It's the reason why we had sewage running down the wall of hospitals, it's why nurses and doctors were so underpaid, it's why we saw a growth in homelessness and more kids in poverty. It's vital that we are careful with the money we spend on behalf of New Zealanders, but the public services they want and need will not be provided without sufficient investment. Our level of spending peaked at about 34 percent of GDP during the COVID period, and it's coming down. The long-run average is a bit over 30 percent. Anything less is, in my mind, austerity. We are still dealing with the intergenerational damage from that approach in previous decades. We must not repeat the same mistakes. Budget 2021 was a personal highlight. It was 30 years on from the "mother of all Budgets", and, finally, 30 years on, we restored main benefits back to the value they had been before that event. In the interests of not seeing history rewritten, here are some facts: we built more State houses than any Government since the 1970s, we built more school classrooms than any previous Government, we supported thousands of apprentices, and we lifted the pay of nurses by more than 20 percent and the pay of teachers by a similar amount. But numbers don't tell you the story. I think of the young woman in Kawakawa who came through our Mana in Mahi programme. By the time I caught up with her, she was running the team on the building site. I think of the social worker who burst into tears when I knocked on her door in the last election campaign because she was so overcome by the difference a pay equity deal had made. I think of the family I met in Christchurch who had their first home of their own through Kāinga Ora, and the love and respect they had for that modest home was humbling to witness. I think of the parent who wrote to me to say how the apprenticeship that their son had undertaken had transformed him from heading to a life of crime to wanting to run his own business. And I think of Jim Kelly—rest his soul—and the workers at Hillside in Dunedin, a few hundred metres from where I grew up, beaming from ear to ear when we brought back manufacturing to South Dunedin. I am proud of the necessary first steps we took on climate action, and I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague James Shaw in this regard. He was tireless and dedicated to making progress. His patience is extraordinary. I still think he and Damien O'Connor should go on the road together to talk to New Zealanders about climate. Damien would be meaner to the farmers, but they both know that we need to do more. Our modernisation of the Reserve Bank was a massive undertaking, with three pieces of legislation that led to more open and transparent decision making as well as the expanded objectives for the bank. A less commented-on element of our reforms is the creation of a depositor compensation scheme. New Zealand has been a bit of an outlier with not having a formal protection scheme for depositors when a financial institution goes belly up. Our strong prudential framework makes this a rare occurrence, but when the worst can happen—think South Canterbury Finance—we need to give account holders and investors confidence that their money is safe. The scheme will be fully operational next year, funded via industry levies. It will protect the first $100,000 of a deposit. It is a landmark achievement, and I thank the incredibly dedicated officials who worked with us on this. A particular personal thanks from me to Governor Adrian Orr and his team for their hard mahi in challenging times. Working with Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister was the greatest joy and privilege. I am not sure New Zealanders appreciate just how fortunate we were to have someone of Jacinda's intellect, compassion, and practicality leading us through some of our most difficult times as a nation. Jacinda got the balance between head and heart so well. She knew how much it mattered to children who wrote to her that she replied—often with a personal, handwritten message—but at the same time, she was equally clear on how important was to speak clearly to leaders around the world about our independent foreign policy. I was so very honoured to serve alongside you, my friend. I remember vividly the day we shut the borders. We did it on a teleconference of Cabinet. I was in Jacinda's electorate office with her. When the call ended, we looked at each other and recognised the enormity of what we had done. It felt very heavy. I tried to lighten the moment by noting that I knew when we went into coalition with New Zealand First our immigration policy might change, but I didn't think it would go this far. Jacinda didn't laugh. As finance Minister, I was looking at some dire forecasts. Globally, financial markets were in freefall. We were told that bond markets could dry up, Treasury were forecasting 13.5 percent unemployment and mass business failures. We were heading into unknown territory at every turn. Early on, we knew Air New Zealand was in trouble. The border closures here and overseas were cutting their revenue to next to nothing overnight. We pulled together the $900 million loan package in a very short few days. When it came time to announce it, it coincided with the directive for Beehive staff to work from home. We scrambled out a media release, I hand-wrote some talking points, and headed down on my own to the theatrette to announce it. A small number of journalists were sitting there. After I had finished speaking, one of them said, "Why have you done this?" I said, "Because Air NZ would be insolvent in months if we didn't." Everyone just kind of nodded. As I walked out, Pattrick Smellie said to me, "On any other day, that would have been the biggest financial story of the year." I agreed, as we stood in the Beehive foyer with staff coming by carrying screens and printers, wondering if they would ever be coming back. As we got into lockdown, we settled into some routines. There were only seven staff actually working in the Beehive. I was completely alone on the seventh floor. Of course, no shops were open, and at the beginning we hadn't been to the supermarket. Like some kind of latter-day Bruno Lawerence in the movie The Quiet Earth, I roamed the office in search of food, eventually stealing the bread from Kelvin Davis's freezer. Things improved dramatically on the catering front when Leroy Taylor began his daily sausage roll - making. The Government's approach to the virus was to go hard and early. In the finance space, this translated to focusing on cash flow and confidence. The wage subsidy was the centrepiece of this support. We wanted a scheme that would keep people in their jobs and save businesses at the same time. We also knew that it needed to be available quickly and for long enough to give confidence. The work done by the Ministry of Social Development in particular to make this happen was positively heroic. At one point, they were processing 21 applications a minute. In the 2020 election campaign, I remember being in Featherston one day, waiting outside the community centre for an announcement. A filthy ute came past, and my first thought was that Kieran McAnulty had arrived. But it wasn't. It was a builder who had pulled over to talk to us. He walked over to me and shook my hand. He told the story of telling his employees, his various contracts they had were cancelled, that he would probably have to let them go. He and his wife sat down one night to look into the wage subsidy. They filled out the forms and were gobsmacked when the money was in their account the next day. Every single one of those staff had their job kept. In the end, across the lockdowns, the wage subsidy paid out $19 billion and protected more than 1.8 million jobs. There were many other schemes that we developed fast: the Small Business Cashflow Loan Scheme, the Business Finance Guarantee Scheme, COVID-19 Income Relief Payment, the leave support payment. The combined result of all of this and the hard mahi of New Zealanders was that unemployment never went above 5.4 percent, and it actually fell to record lows and business failures were lower than in a normal year. And you don't need to take my word for it: New Zealand was one of only a handful of countries to have its credit rating upgraded during the pandemic by the international ratings agencies. It's worth noting that those credit ratings have been maintained throughout our time in Government. Now, these great results, of course, pale into insignificance in the face of the one statistic that matters: the number of lives saved. On that measure, New Zealand stood head and shoulders above others, with lower death rates than in normal years. Those statistics are real people. We know exactly who they were, if we look around the rest of the world. They were our grandparents, neighbours, kaumātua, and kuia. To coin a phrase: they are us. Savings those lives trumps any statistics or any hate on social media. Alongside the things that I am proud of, there are of course things I could talk about that we did not get to do. I'm just going to talk about one, and my colleagues will not be surprised: New Zealand's tax system is unfair and unbalanced. We are almost alone in the OECD in terms of not properly taxing assets and wealth in some form. Our current system entrenches inequality. It's not my place any longer to say specifically what the answer is here, but I do know that the answers are out there. This is not a message for my party alone. The truth is that we need some political consensus about this to ensure we get it right and that it sticks. I don't want to spend too long giving my reckons on all the things that you need to do—after all, I'm the one that's leaving—but there is one other area that I have to talk about. One of the greatest joys of my life has been connecting more closely to Te Ao Māori, in large part through Alf, his whānau, and the mighty Ngati Porou iwi. They have welcomed me more than could ever be expected. No trip to Ruatōria is complete without being spotted at the Four Square, and the steady stream of visitors to wherever we are staying to share the unrivalled subtle and quiet East Coast wisdom. But one thing I have learnt from my contact with hapū and iwi across the motu: if Māori are doing well, if Māori are supported and enabled, if Māori are given their rangatiranga, we are all better off. Te Tiriti has been dishonoured by Pākehā settlers, and it has been contentious. It has also been remarkable. It has given our country so much. It's the framework through which we have sought to right wrongs, to give hope, to come together. It's an imperfect partnership, but it is one that sets us apart from many other nations in giving place and voice to indigenous people. It sickens me when people use our journey as a nation, and the role and place of Māori, as a political punching bag. My message to rangatahi and tamariki is that what we are seeing now is but a blip; a small, ugly footnote to the progress we have made, and that you will make in the future. Kia kaha. Mr Speaker, it's the people you meet on the way. The extraordinary people of the Wellington Central Labour Party. I am proud that we had the largest membership in the country and that we brought by far the largest number of remits to conference. May you always push the boundaries. To the New Zealand Labour Party leadership and wider membership, as an MP we are nothing without the party we represent. I owe you all so much more than you could ever owe me. I want to make a special mention of the crew who helped me during my early election and leadership campaigns. You were Young Labour then, and you're well on your way to being "Middle-Aged Labour" now. You know who you are. You have been my support and my inspiration. And now I am asking you to stay in the fight, because it matters. A big thank you to everyone who supports us to do our work in this building. It's hard to single folks out, but I do want to specifically mention two groups. Our VIP drivers—as Ministers—were without exception, superb, and to Malcolm, who snuck his retirement in just before mine: thanks, mate, for always going above and beyond. To the cleaning staff of this building: it has been a humbling experience getting to know you over the last couple of decades. I was so proud when you were paid the living wage. You deserve more. To Angela Bray, my senior private secretary for the six years I was a Minister: you were unflappable, Ange—thank you so much. And the late Jen Toogood, my EA for the whole nine years of Opposition, thank you Jen—I learnt so much from you, and I miss you very, very much. And my thanks to Janine Tapelu for helping pull today together. To the political staff of my ministerial office, thank you so much. We did good and we had fun. To the exceptional public servants who worked as seconded staff in the office, I say a heartfelt thank you. I think it is very easy to forget that the public servants who work for us are just people. They do not possess superhuman powers. They do not possess an endless supply of time and knowledge. What they are is a group of people who work extraordinarily hard to support the Government of the day, whoever they are and whatever they are doing. I thank them all. To my darling Alf. You have always kept it real and kept me grounded. Having a partner who actively dislikes politics has something to be said for it. But you have always supported me. We celebrated 25 years together last year, and I love you more every day. I also love the family that you have given to me. Especially to Hayley, Abe, Keira, Khloe, Miley and Kenny, and the Nolans, thank you for all the love and hugs. I never ever thought I would be a GG—that stands for Grandad Grant—and you have made my life a joy. To Stephen, Delwyn, Cleo, Craig, Erin, Felix, Lisa, Campbell, and the wider family, thank you for your support from near and far. To my late father Doug, I am pleased that you got to see your son enter this place. I know it made you proud, because you told everyone, all the time. You were taken from us too soon. And to my Mum. Weaved through this speech has been my admiration for strong women. The strongest of them all is my Mum. It's your values, your love, and your spirit that I have spent a lifetime trying to match. I am not sure what we're going to talk about each week without me being here, but at least we can both complain about the Government now. Thank you for everything, I love you with all my heart. I remember Steve Maharey saying that politicians make rubbish friends, and he was right. I have been blessed with friends who have accepted that, and always been there when I needed them. I look forward to a beer with all of you some time soon. To the Labour team, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. It has been an absolute privilege to serve alongside colleagues over the last 15 years. You are a terrific team, and, "Chippy", you are doing a great job in leading them. I endorse "Chippy" 's view that you cannot be the dog that barks at every car. It can be tough if there is a convoy of stupidity going by, but it's still the right strategy. A special thanks to my friend and benchmate Megan Woods for letting at least 40 percent of our conversations be about me. To every member of this House, I wish you well. I continue to regard it as an absolute privilege to have had the opportunity to serve as a member of this House. What we do in this place and in our community really matters. It can change lives and the course of history. You will not get everything right when you are here. You will not be able to achieve everything that you set out to do. There are days when its hard and you think no one cares. But they do, and they need you too. l said earlier that the speech I was the proudest of was the one I gave on marriage equality. In it I quoted Harvey Milk, the gay US politician tragically assassinated in office. Harvey Milk once said, "I know that you cannot live on hope alone, but without it life is not worth living. So you, and you, and you—you gotta give 'em hope." That is our job in this place: to give people hope. To give hope to those who seek a better tomorrow for their families and communities, to give hope to everyone that they can be who they are and live free of discrimination, and to give hope to those who have none. So that is my final, simple message today to you all. Hoatu he tumanako ki a rātou—you gotta give 'em hope. SPEAKER: The House is suspended for the dinner break. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata—"Homai o Ringa" Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.