THURSDAY, 30 MARCH 2023 [Volume 766] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker—National): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Next week, the committee stage of Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill—the annual review debate—will begin with star appearances by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. Legislation to be considered next week will include the remaining stages of the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill, the first reading of the all-important Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill, the second reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, and the committee stage of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. The first general debate of the year will take place on Wednesday, which will also be a members' day. At 5.30 p.m. on that day, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern will deliver her valedictory statement. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the House for that very fulsome update on what's going to happen next week. Can I also point out that Government order of the day No. 5 is in the name of an individual that I think you'll find is neither a Minister nor responsible at least for that bill. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I note that point, and I'm sure that by the time we get to Government order of the day No. 5 that will have changed. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Sabah Deniz Gulensoy requesting that the House ask the Government to grant temporary work visas to family and loved ones affected by the earthquakes in Turkey petition of Marina Stewart requesting that the House counsel the New Zealand Police to station a police officer permanently in the twin townships of Opononi and Ōmāpere petition of Jodie Winterburn requesting that the House urge the Government to fund Gumboot Friday. SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2021/22 annual reports for the New Zealand Blood Service and Te Māngai Pāho Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, Long-term Insights Briefing March 2023 Controller and Auditor-General, The Auditor General's Auditing Standards 2023. SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled New Zealand Defence Force: Resetting efforts to reduce harmful behaviour. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of: Callaghan Innovation Crown Infrastructure Partners Ltd Kordia Group Ltd, and New Zealand Post Ltd. Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of: The Accident Compensation Corporation WorkSafe New Zealand, and on the report of the Ombudsman on Official Information Act (OIA) Compliance and Practice with the Accident Compensation Corporation. 2021/22 annual reviews of the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Tertiary Education Commission, Education New Zealand, Education Payroll Ltd, Network for Learning Ltd, and on the report of the Ombudsman report on OIA Compliance and Practice in the Ministry of Education. Report of the Environment Committee on the 2021/22 annual review of the Department of Conservation. Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2021/ annual reviews of: New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd New Zealand Productivity Commission, and Briefing on the 2021/22 annual review of the Productivity Commission. Reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of: Fire and Emergency New Zealand Taumata Arowai National Emergency Management Agency Office of Film and Literature Classification Public Service Commission Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Parliamentary Service. Reports of the Justice Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of: Crown Law Office Department of Corrections Electoral Commission Human Rights Commission Independent Police Conduct Authority Ministry of Justice New Zealand Police, and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Law Commission, Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Public Trust, and the Serious Fraud Office. Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of: Radio New Zealand Ltd Television New Zealand Ltd, and Broadcasting Commission and New Zealand On Air, and 2021/22 annual reviews of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Arts Council of New Zealand, Heritage New Zealand, New Zealand Film Commission, and the briefing on the 2021/22 financial performance of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Board, and briefing on the 2021/22 financial performance of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment 1. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What additional support will be available for New Zealanders and their families from 1 April? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Good news: I'm pleased to advise the House that, from 1 April, 1.4 million New Zealanders will receive increased financial assistance. This includes those receiving a main benefit. This Government has made the largest increases in main benefits since the 1940s, including in Budget 2021, when we took the step of reversing the 1991 cuts to benefits. On 1 April, we will lift them again by the rate of inflation. This will mean a couple with children on jobseeker support will receive an extra $40.86 per week, and a sole parent will receive $31.83 through their main benefit. On average, since 2017, couples receiving a main benefit and raising children are better off by $256 per week under this Government, while a sole parent is $180 per week better off. I'm proud of the work we've done, but, as we've always said, there's more to do, and we are laser-focused on delivering for all New Zealanders and getting the job done. Terisa Ngobi: What will be available for older New Zealanders? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It's not just main benefits that are rising; superannuation will be lifted by the rate of inflation as well, ensuring our older New Zealanders are not left behind. If you are a couple on superannuation, you will receive an extra $102.84 per fortnight. If you are single, living alone, and receiving superannuation, you'll receive $66.86 more per fortnight. These lifts to the incomes of our seniors will go a long way to combatting the global cost of living pressures. Terisa Ngobi: What will working New Zealanders receive from 1 April? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yet more good news: the 59,500 workers earning minimum wage will all receive a wage rise from $21.20 per hour to $22.70 per hour. But that's not all: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment research shows 222,900 workers will receive a pay rise as a direct result of the shift in minimum wage. This is especially important for Māori and young people—19 percent of people earning the minimum wage are Māori, while 61 percent are workers aged 16 to 24 years old. Alongside this, Working for Families will rise, meaning many working families will receive more each week, and the Government's pay equity agreement with community nurses will also come into force, meaning 8,000 community nurses will receive more from 1 April. Terisa Ngobi: Will there be any more help available for main beneficiaries and superannuants? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, there will be. I'm pleased to remind the House that the winter energy payment will come into force on 1 May. When we first came into Government, we recognised that older people and beneficiaries can sometimes have issues with the increased power costs during winter. This is why we introduced the payment. Also, yesterday in the House, we read the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill for the first time. We are on track to have this implemented by 1 July, and it will put more money in the pockets of over 41,000 sole parents. This is a Government which is delivering on our promise to lift incomes, reduce poverty, and tackle the cost of living crisis. Chris Bishop: Can she confirm that further interest deductibility changes also come into effect on 1 April, thus raising costs for landlords and putting more pressure on tenants, who are the collateral damage in this Government's war on landlords? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I certainly can't confirm that, mostly because I don't have responsibility for that as the Minister for social development. Question No. 2—Housing 2. BROOKE van VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Housing: How many additional permanent and fixed-term full-time equivalent staff were employed by Kāinga Ora in December 2022 as compared with December 2019, and how many additional homes did Kāinga Ora manage in December 2022 as compared with December 2019? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: On behalf of the Minister, I'm advised that there were 1,361 additional staff and 4,628 additional homes. Brooke van Velden: How can she justify Kāinga Ora increasing its staff count by over 1,350 fulltime-equivalent staff in three years, an increase of 74 percent, when the number of homes managed in the same time period only increased by 7 percent? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Kāinga Ora has been given a much broader mandate to help meet the Government's housing priorities. Kāinga Ora has transformed from a State house seller to a State house builder, to leading the largest urban regeneration ever undertaken in New Zealand. Kāinga Ora staff costs have been very stable as a proportion of total spend. Brooke van Velden: How is Kāinga Ora's establishment of an additional 455 management positions between October 2019 and January 2023 not representative of a bureaucracy out of control? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The increase in staff matches its vastly increased work programmes. The majority of the growth in staff has been in front-line teams that support customers and in the construction and urban development and planning areas. It is also delivering a range of new functions and accountabilities under the legislation. These include the teams which are helping drive the increase in housing supply and the large-scale urban regeneration of large-scale projects which will deliver up to 40,000 homes over the next 15 to 20 years. Brooke van Velden: When will her Government stop trying to compete with more efficient private developers by creating a bulging Kāinga Ora bureaucracy at the taxpayers' expense? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I refer the member to my previous answers, and I also add Kāinga Ora people costs as a proportion of overall expenditure are declining and will continue to decrease over the next few years when balanced against the continued growth in houses built and developments completed. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "in 2021, Stuart Nash's then ministerial office consulted the office of the then Prime Minister on an Official Information Act request release where that email had been identified as part of that release"; if so, why was that request release escalated to the Prime Minister's office for consultation? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, to the first part of the question: yes. To the second part of the question: on occasion, ministerial staff provide information relating to Official Information Act requests to the Prime Minister's office on a no-surprises basis. I've accepted the apology of the staff involved and believe this was an oversight. Staff in the Prime Minister's office deal with large volumes of information every day, and errors of judgment do occur. However, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I've made my expectation clear and don't expect such an error to occur again. Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister really expect New Zealanders to believe that one of the most highly ranked members of staff in the Beehive was that ignorant of Cabinet rules? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Human error is something that occurs everywhere, including in the Beehive. The advisers receive significant amounts of documents that they need to wade through. Clearly a mistake was here—they underestimated what was in front of them—but it was an honest mistake. Nicola Willis: Isn't it, in fact, the case that this was not one bad decision by one staff member but part of a culture of cover-up? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not. Nicola Willis: Why didn't the staff member involved—with knowledge of the email—come forward with it two weeks ago, when the Prime Minister sought assurances that there were no further breaches of the Cabinet Manual by Minister Nash? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would be speculating with regards to answering that question. I can only assume that given the copious amounts of documents they've had come through that it wasn't front of mind that that was an issue. They underestimated, at the time, the significance of what was in front of them. But it was an honest mistake. Nicola Willis: Isn't it actually the case that the Prime Minister's office saw the email and, instead of doing the right thing, actively chose to cover it up by refusing to release it under the Official Information Act? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No, that's absolutely not the case. I also will say that, ultimately, all Ministers have responsibility for signing off Official Information Act requests. We receive advice from advisers, but ultimately it is the Minister's responsibility. Nicola Willis: Was the Official Information Act request in question one from Newsroom that, on 8 June, requested all correspondence since 2020 between Minister Nash and his political donors, and, if so, why wasn't the email released? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe, in response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of the question: ultimately, Ministers have to sign off Official Information Act requests, and that Minister at the time made the decision that it wasn't within scope. Nicola Willis: Who decided it was out of scope: the Prime Minister's deputy chief of staff or Minister Nash? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Ministers ultimately are responsible for signing off Official Information Act requests. That member knows that is the case. You can get advice from advisers, but ultimately it is the Minister's signature on that. Nicola Willis: What is the point of consulting the Prime Minister's office if they don't have the ethics and understanding of Cabinet rules to urge Ministers to release information in compliance with the Official Information Act? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that question. The staff involved made a mistake and ultimately the Minister is responsible for signing off on Official Information Act requests. Nicola Willis: Why isn't the Prime Minister taking this opportunity to front up and make it clear that this was an egregious breach of the Official Information Act which involved a conspiracy between a Minister's office and the Prime Minister's office to decide to hide information from the New Zealand public? SPEAKER: Order! A couple of things. I've reminded members yesterday, and I'll remind them today, members might not like the question being asked but they are asked in silence. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member used the word "conspiracy". Speaker's Ruling 177/2 says that "Members can't make implications or imputations in questions that go to matters that could be interpreted as misconduct or corruption", and that seems to me that— Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. My knowledge of the dictionary is such that I think a conspiracy is when people work together on an agreed strategy, and I did not use or imply corruption. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. Mr Speaker, yesterday you admonished me and others in the House around interjecting and so on, and you made the point in doing so that you operate a different approach to questions, which I accept and understand that you allow questions to be asked and if they're out of order or not within responsibility, then a person can get up and say that. What you saw from us was a reaction to that being taken to a series of questions involving unparliamentary language that also goes to the integrity of both MPs and also members of staff who cannot answer. I appreciate the style of chairing that you have, but I think what you saw was a response to the fact that we believe there has to be a limit, even for that, Mr Speaker. Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to be helpful: conspiracy, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Any time the House is ready, when the Speaker is on his feet—that would be very helpful, thank you. The Hon Grant Robertson is correct, and I have let things go. I think I'm going to make a new alteration to the way that I have presided over question time. At least one part of the question should be in order for it to be valid. That question contained an imputation, and I am ruling it out of order. Question No. 4—Finance 4. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand reported yesterday that labour productivity rose 2.2 percent in the year ending March 2022. That represents the largest growth since 2010. Labour productivity measures the quantity of goods or services or output produced per hour of labour. The rise in labour productivity reflects that output rose 5.4 percent, a faster rate than the 3.1 percent increase in labour inputs. As I've previously said in the House, we know that 2023 is a difficult and challenging year for many New Zealanders, but this data is further evidence of the fact that New Zealand faces these challenges in a strong position, with a more productive economy and near record low unemployment that will help New Zealanders deal with cost of living pressures. Rachel Brooking: How important is the impact of productivity on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The challenge of higher productivity is a long term one for New Zealand and other countries, and, despite this positive report, we know that it is an ongoing challenge. But the Government's strong commitment and investment in skills and training, research and development, industry development plans, the signing of free-trade agreements, and other efforts are important factors in helping lift our productivity over time, which, in turn, delivers higher-skilled, higher-wage jobs and builds a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient economy. Rachel Brooking: What other reports has he seen on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The jobs market continues to support the economy. Statistics New Zealand reported that employment rose in February 2023, with filled jobs up 0.4 percent, or 8,391, to 2.34 million compared to January 2023. The majority of gains were in the services industries, followed by the goods-producing industries. On an annual basis, the biggest gains were in accommodation and food services, followed by transport, postal and warehousing, and professional services. There were gains in nearly all age groups, and this was also led by the number in the 15- to 19-year-old age group. Rachel Brooking: What reports has he seen on confidence in the labour market and its impact on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Confidence in the employment market has improved. The Westpac McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index rose 1.5 points, to 109.5, in the March quarter. A number above 100 represents optimism. Confidence improved in most regions, including in the cyclone-affected regions of Tai Rāwhiti and Hawke's Bay, where it has been driven by perceptions of upcoming job opportunities. We continue to see opportunities in regions across New Zealand. Rachel Brooking: What reports has he seen on the international context for the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest OECD Economic Outlook report projects that global growth will slow from 3.2 percent to 2.6 percent in 2023. These are below-trend rates for global growth, and the OECD warns that the outlook remains fragile. New Zealand's prospects will not be immune to what happens overseas, but we are well positioned to face the challenges ahead, and it is worth noting that our economy is 6.7 percent bigger than it was before COVID. This is not something all other countries can say. We have a solid set of Government books, low unemployment, growing exports, and a rising number of tourists. We must continue to take a balanced approach to support New Zealanders and invest in strong public services. Question No. 5—Environment 5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Cabinet minute that stated "now is not the time for regulatory uncertainty ... or to impose new costs on businesses and households", and is he confident that the Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Bills are consistent with that statement? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes and yes. The repeal and the replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA) will make the planning system better, faster, and cheaper for businesses and households. There is much more cost and uncertainty under the existing RMA than there will be under the new system. The regulatory analysis which was independently prepared and tabled in the House with the bill shows savings for businesses and households of 19 percent per annum compared to the status quo. This is around $150 million per annum and billions over time. Chris Bishop: Why is he pushing ahead with bills that will make it more difficult to build wind farms, as stated by the Wind Energy Association, and are the biggest single barrier to decarbonising our economy, as stated by Contact Energy? Hon DAVID PARKER: There are some fair, detailed points in those submissions that I'm sure will be considered by the select committee. But many years of work have gone into these reforms. There have been reviews by the Property Council, Infrastructure New Zealand, the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association, the Waitangi Tribunal, Local Government New Zealand, the Randerson review, the select committee inquiry on core provisions, the efficiency review by independent experts, plus the current select committee process. Everyone's working hard to take into account the likes of those submissions and further improve the bills based on the very detailed and thorough submissions received. But it is time to finish the job and drive it through. Chris Bishop: How will the inclusion of everything consented under the new RMA having to uphold and protect, and I quote, "te Oranga o te Taiao", an entirely new legal term, contribute to regulatory certainty? Hon DAVID PARKER: The new purpose statement makes it clear that after natural biophysical limits are achieved, development is enabled. We've stripped out amenity, matters of subjective taste as opposed to biophysical outcomes, from the purpose of the Act and we are both better enabling development as well as adequately protecting the environment. The definition makes that clear. Chris Bishop: What does he say to submitters on the RMA 2.0 that have warned, like the Chief Justice, of, quote, "extensive litigation following the reforms", and how on earth will this help make it easier to get things done in this country? Hon DAVID PARKER: The legislation is taking care to carry forward the most important court decisions that arose out of controversies in Marlborough Sounds, where the King Salmon decision in the end, after many decades of uncertainty under the RMA, found that there is a hierarchy: the Act; then national direction, the planning framework; then plans. That hierarchy is both preserved and made clearer under the new regime. Hon Grant Robertson: Why does the Minister think that after six years he will be able to show a reform of the RMA, whereas a previous Government had nine years and wasn't able to do it? SPEAKER: Order! I rule that out of order. Question No. 6—Veterans 6. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister for Veterans: to the Minister for Veterans: What is the Government doing to support veterans? Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister for Veterans): With the indulgence of the House, may I welcome students from Hukarere Girls' College, whose Eskdale-based college was completely devastated in the recent floods. In response to the question, tomorrow the Government's 1 April adjustments will come into effect, and this will see the New Zealand superannuation increase by over $100 for a couple per fortnight, and nearly $70 for individuals. What this means for our veterans and their whānau is an increase for those on the veteran's pension. Tomorrow's adjustments will help 880,000 people receiving New Zealand's superannuation, and more than 5,500 on the veteran's pension. Dan Rosewarne: What else have we done to support the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services' Association (RSA), veterans, and their families? Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The Government recognises the value of the services the RSA provides and, for the past four years, with a grant of $250,000 annually, we have supported the RSA to help them do what they do best: provide welfare and support for our servicemen and servicewomen and their whānau. Recently I made the decision that this funding will continue for the next three years. In addition, in 2020, during COVID, the Government supported the RSA with a one-off grant of $2.53 million so they could continue to provide welfare support to veterans and whānau during the pandemic. Dan Rosewarne: What have we done to support the wellbeing of our veterans? Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Many veterans leave service and transition into civilian life successfully, but others experience mental health and/or addiction issues. He Ara Oranga, a 2018 report to our Government's inquiry into mental health and addiction, identified veterans as a vulnerable group. However, a framework was never developed to address their needs. In 2021, the Ministry for Veterans Affairs began the process of building a framework that brought together key defence and health organisations, veteran advocacy groups, health practitioners, and veterans to focus on the mental health and wellbeing of veterans and their families. Dan Rosewarne: How did the Government respond to the He Ara Oranga report to the Government? Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: In 2022, we launched a new framework to address mental health and wellbeing for our veterans called Te Arataki mō te Hauora Ngākau mō ngā Mōrehu a Tū me ō rātou Whānau, The Veteran, Family and Whānau Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy Framework. This framework identified what was needed and, just as importantly, it looked at the evidence about need and responses. It also identified where work needed to be done and what are the sorts of interventions that actually do make a difference for our veterans. This framework, along with the increased amounts to superannuation and veteran's pension, is just another step by this Government to improving the quality of life for our veterans and all those that serve our country. Question No. 7—Health 7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Has she seen St John Ambulance data released this week showing that the amount of time ambulances are ramped while waiting to admit patients to hospital emergency departments has more than trebled since 2019, and are ambulances being used as ED waiting rooms? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question: yes. In answer to the second part: no, although ambulance handover delay does happen when it is determined to be clinically necessary, and work is under way to reduce emergency department (ED) pressures and address this issue. Dr Shane Reti: What responsibility does she take, if any, for Auckland Hospital on 6 March diverting six ambulances to other hospitals because its ED was full, with ED doctors saying that every bit of corridor and recreational space was full of people still on their ambulance stretchers? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Since I have been Minister of Health, I have established the winter preparedness, or the response to the acute demand in our hospitals, as a priority. There are a number of measures under way to address the demand that is in our hospitals following on from COVID. As I've already said in the House, that includes comprehensive flu and COVID vaccination programmes, measures within our hospitals to make sure flow of patients in and out of them are maintained, plus collaborative work with community partners, including St John and primary care, to make sure that all opportunities to keep people out of hospital are maximised. Dr Shane Reti: How was her inability to know how many staff vacancies there are at each emergency department contributing to EDs saying that they are under resourced? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Mr Speaker, I don't believe that is the response to the written parliamentary questions that member has submitted. Dr Shane Reti: Why has the number of people waiting more than 24 hours in emergency departments trebled since Health New Zealand was formed? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The relevant trends in interpreting that data is that there has been an increase in acute demand since the pandemic. This has been seen in a number of countries—for example, the relevant stats for ambulance ramping in the UK are five times worse than they were pre-pandemic. This is a global trend with increased demand for healthcare, and we are determined to address it. Dr Shane Reti: Have the international countries she has just referenced also undertaken major structural change of their health system? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The opportunity to address acute demand in our health system is maximised by having a single national service, and the member will see a number of initiatives that were developed at a local level be rolled out nationally because of our new, joined-up health system. Question No. 8—Youth 8. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Youth: What recent reports has she seen evaluating the outcomes of programmes designed to support and empower rangatahi? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister for Youth): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare, and I mihi to all of the rangatahi that are in the audience today. Mr Speaker, I have recently received the term 4, 2022 update on the Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund, which builds on previous pleasing progress reports. The Ākonga Fund was set up to help mitigate the risks of disengagement from education for at-risk ākonga, and it's designed to support and empower those who have had their education impacted by COVID-19, and who have had no pathway into further training or employment. As has been previously reported, as at the end of term 3, 2022 over 6,200 ākonga had engaged with funded programmes, and that had exceeded our original goal of 5,500 ākonga engaging with the programme by the end of 2022. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that the success of the Ākonga Fund is further highlighted in the term 4 report with 6,743 ākonga having engaged with the programme at the end of 2022. Two key themes emerged: showing increased support for rainbow ākonga and promoting whānau and community connection. Naisi Chen: What examples did the report show regarding the theme of promoting whānau and community connection? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Of those who exited an Ākonga Fund programme, 96 percent developed stronger connections with their community. The recent activities of three providers show how this has been done in really creative ways. For example, here in Wellington region, alongside Upper Hutt Community Youth Trust, ākonga worked with Forest & Bird to plant more than 60 new trees in Upper Hutt. Another great initiative, which I personally love, was from the Southern Youth Development Trust in Dunedin, who ran a bike recycling programme with ākonga. They recycled around 200 bikes, and the money was used to buy helmets for people who are unable to afford them. And the Matapuna Trust ran a community painting project with ākonga, where they helped clean up graffiti in the community while also meeting their planned post-family group conference, and allowing them to be discharged from the court or Youth Justice. Naisi Chen: How did the report show that Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund providers supported rainbow ākonga? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Members of the rainbow community in Aotearoa New Zealand often face a range of complex issues and are overrepresented in statistics around mental health and discrimination. In term 4, 2022, three Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund providers highlighted their work to support and connect this cohort. Triple Summits Services Ltd brought together a small group of rainbow ākonga to explore the rainbow community, building confidence and connections, and supporting them to feel heard. Te Ora Hou Ōtautahi Incorporated ran a group named Kanorau Rōpū to support rainbow ākonga in its community. And the Horowhenua Learning Centre Trust ran a rainbow specific programme, which was met with the enthusiasm and positive feedback from ākonga. Naisi Chen: What feedback did the report contain from those who took part in the Ākonga Fund programme? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Through this report we have heard from kaimahi, from ākonga, and from teachers who all support the positive difference the Ākonga Fund programmes have been making in the lives of our young people. One ākonga told us that they "learnt skills which I needed for job interviews, and how to communicate well. My mentor was amazing and set up the interview for me where I got my first job". One kaimahi said, "We have completed an incredible year of wānanga," and in the words of some of the rangatahi, it has not been just life changing, but a lifesaving one. As the House can see, the Ākonga Fund has resulted in our rangatahi having an increased level of engagement in their learning and aspiration for their future, and having transitioned to further training or employment; outcomes I think we can all be proud of. Question No. 9—Education 9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement when asked if she could explain how it is fair for one child in one school to get an hour of maths a day, as recommended by the Royal Society, while a child in another school the same age gets far less, "Oh yes, absolutely I can"; if so, does she accept this variation has contributed to the widening gap in maths achievement for New Zealand students? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes and yes. Erica Stanford: Why did she say on Tuesday that "Some teachers will have an approach to teaching maths that will mean they don't need to teach an hour a day", when the Royal Society experts recommended an hour of maths a day regardless of the way in which maths is being taught? Hon JAN TINETTI: The Royal Society, in their report—and it was a Government-commissioned report—made 14 recommendations, and this Government, instead of being focused on one, is focused on all 14 of them. I made the statement on Tuesday because of research that shows that—and I will quote Dr Sarah Aiono's research that says—"One hour per day of focused teaching for each core subject is developmentally inappropriate for most children in the primary school sector." The research shows giving students information in small chunks at a time gives the brain time to process the information and continue to practice it. Accumulatively, that could add up to an hour of maths a day or even more. That is why National's outdated policy of sitting kids down with a pen and paper for an hour isn't an effective way to teach maths. The science has moved on. Erica Stanford: How will she guarantee that every primary and intermediate school child across New Zealand will get the same amount of time learning maths every day to ensure that they are mastering the basics? Hon JAN TINETTI: The Royal Society, in the report that the member keeps referencing, notes that most teachers are already teaching three to five hours of maths a week, and 20 percent are actually teaching seven hours of maths a week. But the point that the member is missing is that lifting maths is not about clock-watching; it's about quality teaching. Erica Stanford: If a teacher follows the recommended maths teaching methods in her proposed Common Practice Model, which includes supporting student relationships with maths, which encompasses feelings and emotions related to maths, and addressing issues of power, social justice, and equity, will this method require less than an hour of maths per day for all students, as she suggested on Tuesday? Hon JAN TINETTI: The Common Practice Model will be in place from next year and will ensure that maths is taught consistently from Kaitāia to Invercargill. What the Common Practice Model might actually do is actually show that the amount of teaching will be prescribed as well, but we are not at the point of making those policy decisions at this point in time. We are concentrating on quality teaching, not clock-watching. Question No. 10—Transport 10. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with advice from Waka Kotahi that providing an additional Waitematā road crossing would result in over 3,000 additional vehicles entering the city centre, compared to a light rail - only crossing; if so, will any of the options proposed, which all include additional road lanes, reduce congestion? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister, the Waitematā Harbour Connections programme is focused on delivering, as quickly as possible, a futureproof solution for people wanting to travel across the Waitematā by car, bus, light rail, walking, cycling, or truck. The scenarios released today consider both the needs of Aucklanders to get into the city centre and also through the city. It is correct that Waka Kotahi's advice on one of the five option is, as the member states, with respect to the number of vehicles entering the city at the a.m. peak, but they also advise that there will be a reduction in congestion in that option. In answer to the second part of the member's question, updated private vehicle demand projections will be provided when the preferred option is confirmed in mid-2023. However, as I say, the indicative work on the option the member has raised shows that congestion will be reduced. Hon Julie Anne Genter: How will congestion be reduced if there are additional cars on the roads at peak time? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's not just a peak-ime analysis, as I'm sure the member well knows. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with advice from Waka Kotahi that the road connections either side of the Auckland Harbour Bridge cannot carry any more private vehicle trips in the peak periods; if so, how will adding further car lanes and introducing more vehicles into those roads help congestion in the city centre? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the focus here is on the resilience of the entire network in the Auckland area. Obviously, as I've already stated, the focus is not just on people coming into the city; it is also on people going through the city. Also, Auckland has seen, in recent times, the importance of resilience in the network, including with regards to the harbour bridge itself, which requires support to be able to continue to play its role. So it has to be an integrated solution that is adopted. Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can the public meaningfully engage on the options proposed, without seeing their projected impact on tail-pipe emissions? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These are scenarios that the public can engage upon. There are frank assessments of them already, both the pros and the cons of various options, that people can engage with—and I'm sure Aucklanders will be keen to do so. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why is such an outrageously expensive, complex project with such a poor economic case—a benefit-cost ratio well below 0.5—a priority when we need to be investing urgently in projects that actually give New Zealanders low-carbon transport options right around the country? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject various assertions in that question. What's attempting to be done here is to make sure that we have an integrated transport plan for Aucklanders, one that will give certainty to them and those that will help construct it, and one that does support the Government's overall goals that include the work around climate action but also include making sure that we provide resilient cities. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I seek leave to table the most recent benefit-cost analysis for these options, which is 0.2 and 0.3. SPEAKER: Is that publicly available? Hon Julie Anne Genter: It doesn't seem like the Ministers have read it. SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Stand, withdraw, and apologise for presenting facts. SPEAKER: I'm considering what I'm going to do. That was deliberate. The member will leave the Chamber. Hon Julie Anne Genter withdrew from the Chamber. Question No. 11—Courts 11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Courts: What progress has been made to reduce delays in the coronial system? Hon RINO TIRIKATENE (Minister for Courts): Yesterday saw the passing of the third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. I'd like to thank my colleagues across the House for their unanimous support. The Government is committed to improving the coronial system and the experience of families who engage with it. The new law will reduce delays for a number of measures, including the establishment of a new coronial position known as the associate coroner. The associate coroner will help to ensure that coronial cases are, where possible, dealt with promptly and efficiently while not adversely affecting the quality of coronial findings, the judicial independence of coroners, and adherence to law. Since 2014, there has been a significant increase in the number of active coronial cases and time taken to conclude them. The measures in the bill will address these delays for grieving families. Marja Lubeck: How will this bill support coroners in their work? Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: Associate coroners are able to exercise almost all of the duties, functions, and powers of a permanent coroner. In practice, associate coroners will primarily undertake duty coroner work within the first 48 hours after death and will be responsible for some of the more straightforward coronial investigations. This will free up coroner time to be utilised for more complex cases—in particular, cases requiring an inquiry to be opened and cases where it is in the public interest for a coroner to make recommendations to avoid similar deaths in future. Marja Lubeck: Have any other positions been established to support coroners? Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes, there have. Budget 2022 saw a package of investment to improve the coronial system, including the establishment of the clinical advisers team. Clinical advisers will work alongside coroners and pathologists to ensure coroners have high-quality clinical information to support their decisions. This will contribute to improving efficiency of coronial cases. This month has seen the appointment of the first Chief Clinical Advisor working with the coroner's court, and a full team of clinical advisers will shortly follow. Marja Lubeck: What other work is being undertaken to improve the coronial system? Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: In addition to the bill, the Ministry of Justice has a broader work programme under way to further improve timeliness of coronial processes and the coronial experience for families. These work streams include responsiveness with respect to tikanga Māori, and improving the ministry's case management system. The improving coronial system Budget 2022 initiative provided $28.4 million in funding, which is funding new permanent coroners, associate coroners, and clinical advisers. All this work is aimed towards achieving, where possible, more timely completion of coronial findings while ensuring the public interest continues to be well served across the coronial system. Question No. 12—Health 12. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Why has the year three stocktake of the Budget 2019 Mental Health and Addiction package found the delivery status of the mental health infrastructure programme has "not meaningfully improved" since the previous Health Minister, Andrew Little, said he was "extraordinarily frustrated ... we seem to be a long way behind actually getting a shovel in the ground", and why did the $30 million allocated to support delivery result in a finding that the programme has not accelerated and estimated completion dates are unlikely to be met? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): To the first part of the question, the report was written in June 2022 and since then solid progress has been made. I'm advised by Te Whatu Ora that many of the recommendations in the report have been implemented or are well under way. I'm advised that of the 16 mental health infrastructure projects, two are complete, eight are in construction, four are in planning, and two are in the business case stage. I understand my colleague Minister Little's frustration. COVID has been disruptive to project delivery. Inflation, demand for skilled workers, and supply chain disruptions have had flow-on effects to Government infrastructure projects. In response to the second part of the question, $30 million was ring-fenced to accelerate projects. Some of this money has been spent where it was able to be used to materially progress delivery. For projects in later stages, such as detailed design or reaching the point of contractor procurement, there is limited scope for acceleration. Matt Doocey: Which of the following from the report has contributed most to delays: the mental health project with incorrect costs due to the wrong number of beds, the project with the wrong site, or the one with a business case with no plan or time line? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: If the member is referring to seismic issues that have been discovered in one of the sites, I think that is a very legitimate reason to readjust a project. There are a number of reasons for those delays, some of which were outlined in my primary answer. Matt Doocey: What is her response to the report's findings that "A light touch approach by consultants resulted in unrealistic costings, budget escalation, and over-optimistic schedules."? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I would characterise one of the themes of the report as identifying in our disseminated health system a lack of capacity for infrastructure projects, which has been addressed through the centralisation of oversight of infrastructure in Te Whatu Ora. The visibility of projects, their risks, and the capability for leading them has been substantially improved. Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I asked was about the consultant's work. That wasn't answered. SPEAKER: The question was definitely addressed. Matt Doocey: Why has the implementation unit, nearly two years since being tasked with reviewing mental health projects, admitted they don't have the appropriate expertise by calling in the Infrastructure Commission? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We have substantially improved the expertise dedicated to supervising these projects, and, as I said in my primary answer, a number of them are being built now. Matt Doocey: Supplementary? SPEAKER: Sorry, no more supplementaries. URGENT DEBATES Hon Stuart Nash—Dismissal as Minister SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Christopher Luxon seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the decision by the Prime Minister to dismiss Stuart Nash as a Minister. The application was received on Tuesday, 28 March, but because of urgency, this is the first opportunity to consider it. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The dismissal of a Minister is a significant matter. After weighing up the circumstances and the public interest in ministerial probity, I have decided to grant the application. Before proceeding, I would like the House to consider the fact that the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition do not generally attend Thursday sittings. While Ministers can act for each other, the dismissal of a Minister is something only the Prime Minister can do. It may be more difficult for another Minister to have the knowledge to act for the Prime Minister. In this instance, therefore, I am going to seek leave of the House to hold the urgent debate on Tuesday, 6 April. It is entirely up to this House to decide whether it does or not. Any one member can object to this, but, having outlined my intention to seek that leave, I do so now. Is there any objection? There is objection. I call on a member to move on behalf of Christopher Luxon that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. There they are, ducking for cover yet again. They don't want Prime Minister Hipkins here to hear this debate, do they? They don't want him associated with the stench swirling around the Government. It is a stench that is swirling around the Labour Party, the Prime Minister's office, and the conventions of our democracy. New Zealand is very proud of our reputation as a country that is consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt in the world. The international transparency index puts us at number two because of our perceived levels of lack of public sector corruption, and we must guard that very carefully. What we have experienced in recent days with a series of revelations reminds us that there is a grey area that Governments can stray into too easily that could put that reputation at risk. The grey bits matter. I want to step through for the House what has actually gone on here, because this is not a matter about one man, Stuart Nash. This is not a matter about one decision. This is about Ministers in a Government being part of a culture that thinks that if you don't want the public to know, you work out how to cover it up. We have witnessed an egregious breach of Cabinet confidentiality in which a Minister shared information with his personal donors for reasons that have not been explained, but reasons that leave us all wondering. We have one group of privileged New Zealanders accessing information that is never available to everyday people. We now know for sure that it wasn't just Minister Nash and his staff who knew about this; the Prime Minister's office knew all about it too. They knew about it last year. They were actively consulted about how it should be managed, and they were complicit in the decision to cover it up. So let's go through what happened. What we know is that back in June last year, there was argy-bargy about how landlords and tenants should deal with commercial lease issues— Hon Andrew Little: The member's got her dates completely wrong. Hon Grant Robertson: In 2020; that is not last year. NICOLA WILLIS: —resulting from COVID-19. The members opposite, including Minister Andrew Little and Minister Grant Robertson—sorry, in 2020; the Minister is correct. In 2020, they decided that they would take action, and there was a Cabinet decision. It was a decision that was made with power to act from Cabinet by the committee. They decided that they would intervene, they would change the law to change the obligations of commercial landlords. Now we learn that Stuart Nash did not like that decision, so two days after—two days after—Cabinet made that decision, he got into his email and he wrote an email to two of his mates and he gave them the low-down on what had happened. He gave the low-down on David Parker's views. He gave the low-down on why the decision had been made and why it was a bad decision. So we ask what happened next. Well, the interesting thing is that actually, that law never got written. That law never got introduced. That law never got passed. Actually, the Cabinet resiled from the positions held in that Cabinet paper. At the time, they explained it saying, "Oh, well, that's because New Zealand First don't support it." Well, we now have a very real question to ask: why was that? Who was involved in that? What we need to understand is: was there improper influence of Cabinet deliberations? Because what is at stake here is not simply the breaking of the rule that you don't talk about what happens in Cabinet with your donor mates. The other thing at stake here is the integrity of the decision-making process of Cabinet, something that is set out in great detail in the Cabinet Manual. What that involves is a high level of personal conduct for Ministers and them identifying personal interests that may be seen to influence their decision making. Here we have a case where decisions were changed, and where it certainly seems that something influenced their decision making. We cannot be clear whether or not that was proper. But then let's take us to the next bit, because this is where it gets incredibly stinky. Stuart Nash's office received an Official Information Act request on 8 June asking for all written correspondence between him and his donors. Now, clearly, the alarm bells went off in his office. They went, "Uh, oh! We've got a really bad stinky one here that now we're going to have to release." So what did they do? They thought, "We better kick this upstairs." They rang the Prime Minister's office, not once; three times they engaged with the Prime Minister's office about this Official Information Act request, so seriously were they taking it. The Prime Minister's office, at that moment, had a choice. They had a choice where they could look at that email, and they could say, "We need to do the right thing here. There has been an egregious breach of the Cabinet Manual. This Minister is acting defiantly and arrogantly outside of the rules. We're kicking it up to the Prime Minister. Action must be taken." That's what they should have done. That's what a National Party Prime Minister's office would have done. That's what, actually, successive Prime Ministers' offices would have done, because we respect the Official Information Act. What is actually clear is that over on the other side of the House, the promises of transparency have eroded into a reality of contempt for the Official Information Act. So what did the Prime Minister's office do next? They said, "Oh yeah, you've said it's out of scope."—Clever! That's pretty clever, isn't it?—"We'll just say it's out of scope." And they replied to the Official Information Act request without releasing that letter. They knew about it. They did nothing. They are complicit in a cover-up. Now, where does this lead us? Because my concern here is about longstanding conventions in New Zealand about the standards we have, about how Cabinet runs, about how Governments run, and about who has influence. And it seems to me that there are clear implications here, not only for Minister Nash but for the Prime Minister today. In order to clear the stench that is now swirling around the Government, we need assurances that they actually understand their obligations under the Official Information Act, that they actually read the Cabinet Manual, and that they think those rules matter. The other thing I want to highlight here is that the former Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters has said, "Hey, this isn't a big deal, this went on all the time—this went on all the time—when I was in that Cabinet. Members of that Cabinet were constantly leaking about Cabinet discussions." Well, if that is the case, then that is a severe corrosion of standards in our Government. And if that is the case, the Prime Minister needs to take action to ensure that we actually return to standards that mean that Ministers don't do that sort of thing. But the other issue that we have here is that we have a Minister who says, "Oh, look, I stuffed up a little bit.", and he's resigned, but we have had no action taken by the Prime Minister's office who were completely complicit in this action. They knew about it. They didn't act on it. And then they worked with him to withhold the email. So National's view is this: New Zealand's reputation as a country known for its transparency, for its good ethics, and for its freedom from corruption is one that is too important to put at risk. We uphold that reputation by maintaining and enforcing high standards. There are several things that need to happen now. There needs to be a full investigation, not just into Minister Nash's correspondence during this period but into exactly what influence he was having and the donors were having over him, if at all. There needs to be an investigation into how many times he leaked from the Cabinet. There needs to be clarity around whether this is, as Winston Peters has suggested, accepted practice under Labour. There needs to be an urgent investigation by the Ombudsman. I understand that the Ombudsman previously received a redacted version of the email in question, and I wonder whether that has influenced the attitude of that office to this. There needs to be a coming to transparency by the Prime Minister's office. They must release not only all of the correspondence relating to this Official Information Act request but actually document how many times they were consulting with Minister Nash's office about what he should withhold from Official Information Act requests. National will continue to prosecute what has gone on here. I fear that there may be a lot more to this. I have been very careful today not to make allegations that can't yet be proved, but we will be examining the evidence very carefully. And Ministers opposite can ask themselves this: when you take your Ministerial oath—and every day when we stand in this House and we make that prayer and commit to put aside personal interests, we must uphold it, and we must uphold it not just by walking past bad behaviour. And if it is the case that staff in the Prime Minister's office were so ignorant of the Cabinet Manual and the Official Information Act that they made an error and didn't release this information, then ask yourself what sort of ethical standards exist within your staff and set some. I don't blame the individual staff members; I blame a culture in the Beehive that comes straight from the top. They are only acting on the guidance and culture that has been set from the very top down to the very bottom. That culture is one where if you don't want the public to know, you cover it up—until, of course, the media ask questions. When the media ask questions, you better do some performative ethical behaviour. But that's actually not good enough. You need to act in advance of those queries. You need to enforce the standards at all times. It's a sad day—it is a sad day—because New Zealand is a country that should be free from this sort of stench, it should be free from this sort of erosion of clear standards, and it should be a country where the Prime Minister's office doesn't make excuses in the way that we saw today. There is an urgent need for this Government to clear the rot, to make it clear that they will be instructing not only Ministers but their staff on what the Cabinet Manual requires of them, of what the Official Information Act requires of them, and that they will be acting with the integrity that New Zealanders expect. This is not a matter just about Minister Nash, it's about what has become acceptable under this Labour-led administration—an administration more influenced by lobbyists than any I can recall in previous history, an administration which has loosened the rules around Cabinet to a worrying extent, an administration that has been party to a significant cover up. It is a day of disgrace for the Ministers opposite, and National has one job to do, and that is to make it clear to the New Zealand public that if they vote for us in October and we enter that Beehive, we will come in and we will clean it up. We will enforce the Cabinet Manual. We will enforce the Official Information Act. We will bring standards and ethics back to the heart of Government where they belong. We will protect New Zealand's international reputation, and we won't sit back and make excuses when such egregious actions are taken. They should bow their heads in shame. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I want to begin by noting that, obviously, the dismissal of a Minister by the Prime Minister is indeed an extremely serious matter. As the Prime Minister indicated, when he did dismiss Minister Nash from Cabinet, what had happened—his behaviour—was utterly unacceptable. None of us take any pleasure, I imagine, in any part of the House, in fact, with this happening to a member of this House, but it is clear that the behaviour involved was completely unacceptable. As the Prime Minister said at the time, this was not a matter that was a three-strikes matter in terms of the other two things that the Minister had been brought forward for. This on its own was the reason that Minister Nash was dismissed, because what had happened was completely unacceptable. Minister Nash's actions were a clear breach of collective responsibility and Cabinet confidentiality. He fundamentally breached the trust of his Cabinet colleagues and his conduct was wrong; and that is why the Prime Minister acted in the way that he did. The principles within the Cabinet Manual are well understood by Ministers. Ministers understand that the decisions we are making are serious ones. They are ones that we do hold collective responsibility for; and our ability to work together requires us to have the level of trust that one would expect in a Cabinet. That is not what occurred here. Mr Nash himself has spoken of how remorseful he is about this, but he has paid the ultimate price in terms of his career as a Minister in losing his role. In terms of the actions that the Prime Minister has taken in response to this, he has of course dismissed the Minister. In addition to that, he has asked the Cabinet secretary to conduct a review into communications between Stuart Nash and his donors. That review will take place over the next two months. The review will look at whether there have been any other breaches of Cabinet collective responsibility or confidentiality where there has been perceived or actual conflicts of interest in the communications that Stuart Nash has had with those donors. The scope of this review is focused around the emails, texts, and other messages between Stuart Nash and any declared donor to his campaign. We do expect a high level of conduct from Ministers and MPs, and the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear to his colleagues—and indeed to New Zealanders—that he does not accept what has happened here, that he believes we must uphold standards far higher than those that Minister Nash exhibited, and, as a result, Mr Nash is no longer with us. In terms of the issues around whether or not—oh, sorry. I should also just say it is actually important to note that Minister Nash has said he will cooperate fully with the inquiry, and we will certainly be able to have an outcome that will be released to the public prior to the election. I do want to turn to the other matters that have been raised in the speech from the member Nicola Willis, who moved the motion, and that is around the issue of the email that was put into the media and then has subsequently now, obviously, been released to the public. I want to note two things at the outset. The first of those is that both the member who has just spoken and myself have worked in offices—the Prime Minister's office in particular, but other offices in the building. Once upon a time, I was the person in the Prime Minister's office who had responsibility for looking at Official Information Act (OIA) requests. What the member knows, and what I know is that has been a feature of the work of the Beehive under administrations of all shades that the Prime Minister's office is involved with Official Information Act requests. It's called a no-surprises policy. It's exactly the kind of thing that we would expect, and it is no different in terms of how we're dealing with it as to how it has been dealt with in the past—that is part of the way it works. Once upon a time, Official Information Act requests actually never went to agencies. They all came into ministerial offices. Over time, the practice changed, and particularly Opposition members—again, of both shades—have gone ahead and made requests directly to departments. As a result of that, there are now no-surprises policies between departments and ministerial offices, and there are no-surprises promises within the ministerial offices, up to the Prime Minister's office. It is simply a part of the system that we now have. In terms of the timeline of what happened, that's been publicly released today by the Prime Minister's office to make sure that people are absolutely clear about what occurred. If I can just work my way through that chronologically and pick up a number of the points that were made by the member, the first of those is that it is true that Cabinet committee agreed to amend the Property Law Act to imply a clause into leases with criteria, including businesses having 20 or fewer full-time equivalents for the lease site, and also to agree to Government support for arbitration. It is also true that, obviously—as the member said—that law never went ahead. Now, at the risk of doing the very thing that Minister Nash did, I have to limit my comments. But at the time it was made public by members of the coalition that we were in, there was a difference of view between coalition partners around that matter. For those who've been in coalition Governments—and there's not probably any left from the other side of the House who were in one, or maybe a few who were there—they will know that coalition Governments have to operate on the basis that it is relatively flexible because coalition partners don't always agree on matters. Equally, something changing between a Cabinet committee and Cabinet is actually not that unusual more generally, but particularly so when one is dealing with coalition arrangements. So obviously, you know, we take that into account, and I believe that yesterday, the Minister of Justice ran through a large amount of advice that was provided to the then Minister of Justice around this particular matter. So it was a creature of the particular situation and the particular time that we were in. I know that the member who gave the speech offered us earlier on today a definition of conspiracy, which she said was people getting together to work on something. Now, the member's got a lot of experience in conspiracies to roll Opposition leaders, so I understand that she simply sees it as a plan where two or three people get together, but actually the member is jumping at shadows in that regard with this particular issue. Then we come to the matter of the email and its arrival in the Prime Minister's office. As I've said earlier today, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that he does not find acceptable what occurred here. The staff members in question have apologised. They acknowledged that this was an error of judgment in not recognising the significance of the email and escalating it at the time. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said today, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, errors of judgment—human error—are a fact of life. They are a fact of life in every workplace in every building around New Zealand, and I want to take a moment to acknowledge the staff who work for us in these buildings here. They work in one of the most stressful environments that it is possible to work in. They provide extraordinary service to all of us. We've just been in a period of urgency, and I have no doubt that in the Opposition as much as in the Government, there were staff who were here until midnight last night, working to make sure that they support us. This particular exercise all happened during the COVID period, when people were under a huge amount of stress, where they were working from home more often than not. None of that is an excuse; it's simply a reason for why errors of judgment get made. But, more than that, I felt today in question time possibly the angriest I've felt in the whole time I have been in Government. To have the deputy leader of the National Party call into question the integrity of staff members, who have no ability to defend themselves—and for many years in this House, it has been a strong convention that we would not do that. We would not drag those staff members in. I think it's appalling behaviour from the deputy leader of the National Party to do that—and, Mr Speaker, I want to actually apologise to you, because I was one of the members yelling out and you were on your feet, and I don't think that's right. But there comes a time in this House when I think we go beyond things that are about political debate or political theatre— Chris Bishop: Andrew Campbell named them. Andrew Campbell fed their names to the media. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: So Mr Bishop is saying that Andrew Campbell fed their names to the media. Mr Bishop is correct about that, and we've been transparent about this. What Andrew Campbell didn't do, Mr Bishop, was accuse those people of being unethical or indulging in a conspiracy, Mr Bishop. That's not what Andrew Campbell did; that's what Nicola Willis did. Nicola Willis stood up in this House and impugned the integrity of people who cannot answer back. Mr Bishop, that is a disgrace. In terms of the way in which this situation then rolled out, there is, as I've noted, a long history of the Prime Minister's office being involved with the Ministers' offices in the way that Official Information Act requests get handled. We've gone through the process that happened. Those in the Prime Minister's office have acknowledged their error of judgment. What then happens is that an Official Information Act release goes back to a Minister's office and it is a Minister who signs that out. At that point—and it's something that we all, as Ministers, know and understand—it's up to us. At that point, we are the ones who take responsibility for what goes out. Now, I'm not sure what the processes were in Minister Nash's office, but I can tell colleagues in the House what the processes are in my office, and that is that I do spend a significant amount of time, usually on a Sunday afternoon, going through numerous OIA requests to make sure that I'm confident about what I am putting my name to. That is true, and I am sure that if Minister Nash were here today, he would also acknowledge exactly that point—that he is the person who signed out that OIA request. He is the person who is ultimately responsible for that. So while I know that the Opposition over there are intent on hanging out to dry staff members who cannot answer back, the reality is that they themselves have acknowledged an error of judgment, and that is why we are in the position that we are. It is quite true that on this side of the House, we have been through a situation here that none of us are happy about in terms of both Minister Nash having to be dismissed and, indeed, with the process around this email, which the Prime Minister has declared is unacceptable and, certainly, he does not want it to happen again. But I've been here a while and I've seen a lot, and some of the things that I have heard in this House today just beggar belief. I'm only going to give a handful of things as examples here. I sat over there, I think possibly in the chair that Mr Bishop is in right now, when we were discussing what happened with the deal around the SkyCity convention centre. To summarise that for members, there was an open tender process about who was going to deliver the SkyCity convention centre, Steven Joyce had dinner with them, and then all of a sudden the process changed and it was a direct deal with them. Is that upholding the highest ethical standards, Mr Bishop? Then we've got the issues around the Saudi sheep deal, which are in fact so many it's almost impossible to mention, but the Auditor-General had a good look at that. Chris Bishop: Steven never had dinner with them. You're going to have to correct this—it's wrong. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Mr Bishop might be right: it mightn't have been Steven Joyce who had the dinner, but it was certainly a Government Minister. Then I do want to mention in addition to that the issues around Oravida, and they're ones that I am extremely familiar with. In those situations, be it the Saudi sheep deal, be it the SkyCity convention centre deal, be it the Oravida situation, there is a long history on the other side of the House of behaviour that I don't believe met ethical standards. It does not make right what Minister Nash did by any means, but what it does point to is the fact that getting up on their high horses over and telling us that they're the ones who understand what it means to have ethical standards, I believe, is absolutely outrageous. So where does this leave us now? It leaves us in a situation where Stuart Nash, a member of Parliament who came in in 2008, at the same time that I did, who around the House has many people on all sides of the House who would regard him as a friend and somebody that they like, is gone. He's lost his political career as a Minister. He's no longer exercising the warrant that I know made him so proud, and, unfortunately, that's the right decision. The decision taken by the Prime Minister—which is the subject of this motion—to dismiss Stuart Nash is the right decision. It gives me absolutely no joy that that decision had to be taken, but it was undoubtedly the right one. The conduct was utterly unacceptable. We now have a situation where the Opposition are determined to carry on and prosecute—as the member opposite said—an issue around the email. That is entirely their right to do that. But from the perspective of the Government and the perspective, indeed, of the motion that's been moved here, the dismissal of Stuart Nash has occurred as a result of the Prime Minister's decision. It was the right one, but it is not something I take any comfort or joy in. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): As others have said, I—on behalf of the Green Party—say that this is a sad day for us as a House of Representatives, and as a nation who prides itself in its democracy. This is a nation that has had many firsts when it comes to representation. We've got one of the longest-standing Houses of Representatives in the democratic world. We are the nation that gave women the vote first. But it seems like we have a long way to go. We've had two speeches representing two major political parties who have been fortunate enough—and it is a privilege—to have formed and led Governments in this country, each naming each other for breaches of the Cabinet Manual, and those breaches are terrifying in this context because they relate back to the interaction of Government Ministers—decision makers who are meant to represent the people of New Zealand—and big money funders. So we've had the Skycity deal; the Saudi sheep scandal; Oravida; last term, we had cameras on boats delayed, and that was another leaked email scandal of a Minister; we've had, just over the past week, the logging lobby and landlords as just a few of the big money donors that we as members of Parliament can remember within our political life having had a greater influence on decisions of Government, allegedly, than ordinary people who have just one vote. Chris Bishop: Careful about your privilege here. Skycity did not donate in relation to what you're talking about. You should be careful of what you say. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Cool. So moving on, ha, ha! We actually do have now—fortunate and privileged as a nation—a New Zealand – based study for the first time done at Victoria University just across the road, by Lisa Marriott and Max Rashbrooke into the way that political lobbies and political donations work in this country. They interviewed, as academics, hundreds of people who've had interactions with all of us—in terms of our political parties, and not individuals—ex-MPs, ex-Ministers. To quote Max Rashbrooke, in his findings, he says—and this is not my opinion; this is a quote of one of the researchers who's done this seminal piece of work for the first time into how lobbyists and donations work in this county—"It gives a remarkable level of access to political donors with their money."—remarkable access. That is based on what is detailed in the report as lunches, conversations, being able to pick up the phone, having personal relationships with Ministers—it doesn't go into ordinary members of Parliament, because we don't make those decisions per se, but I imagine that probably happens also. The scary bit is Cabinet Ministers, right? So we as Greens say that since we know that this seems to happen, we all agree, across this House, that it's terrible if it happens, that we all hate it, that we all know that it undermines democracy and that democracy is a fundamental human right, it's one that underpins all the other rights, all the other interests, as members of the public. Whether it's workers' rights, indigenous rights, women's rights, or environmental protections, democracy is the one that we are meant to uphold in order to know that all of those interests are, in fact, represented. So why are we still working within a system that is so weak, that lacks transparency and proper regulation that would guarantee that our democracy is not dependent on the character of the particular Minister who happens to be holding that position at the time, or human error per se, but has the kind of strong protections and regulations around it that we see elsewhere? The Money for Something report that I've been quoting from actually found that "New Zealand is increasingly an outlier among developed countries" due to our weak regulations of political donations. There is little transparency. They recommended $1,500—that was in my strengthening democracy member's bill. I am happy to say that after political donations were said not to be a priority last term that this term we did get to a point where we did limit them to at least a lower amount than $15,000, which they were, but $1,500 is where these guys landed and it's where the Green Party landed. Two-thirds of developed nations limit large donations; we don't have any limit. Given that big donations gain remarkable levels of access, shouldn't we limit big donations and therefore that access that we're all so worried about in this House that we've so condemned Stuart Nash for, rightly? Three-quarters almost of New Zealanders distrust our political system, based on our political donations rules. Two-thirds of New Zealanders want donations capped at $10,000 to $15,000. And in the research it was found that all things being equal, more money, more donations did result in more votes. So the one-vote-per-person democracy that we pride ourselves in is under threat by this kind of conduct and it seems like its protections are just based on some kind of gentlemen's agreement right now. We're an outlier and we can do more. There's research here and elsewhere in the world that says we should be doing more. My concern is that, substantively, we can see clearly today that our democracy has been undermined, but that also there's that intangible harm that every time there's a scandal like this, whether it's true or not, people lose interest and trust in democracy. They stop paying attention. They stop feeling heard or represented or included. They don't feel like there's any point. And when that happens, they stop voting. And when that happens, can we proclaim a democracy if we're not only excluding people based on their ability to buy influence on the free market but also just their interest because they don't trust the system any more? If they don't trust the system any more, because every second week we've got a scandal that we all stand up and admonish, it doesn't matter any more whether we fire the Minister or not. Because those fundamental rights of those who can't afford to donate big money, their votes are gone too—their interests, in terms of being renters, being workers, being indigenous, being from other marginalised communities that we know have a lower ability to donate. It does mean that it's a sad day for our democracy whether or not any of what's been hurled across the House today is true. But we as Greens point to systems change to restore that trust, to restore transparency, and to protect the fundamental right of every New Zealander to a functioning, inclusive democracy. Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm not sure it's a pleasure to rise as part of this urgent debate on the dismissal of the Hon Stuart Nash as a Minister. The fact is he has been dismissed. The Prime Minister dismissed him within two hours of being notified of what is clearly an egregious breach of the Cabinet Manual and the standards expected of Cabinet Ministers in New Zealand. I say, as much in sadness as in anger, that what Stuart Nash did was wholly and utterly wrong, and the decision of the Prime Minister to dismiss him was the right decision. We do have standards, and we should be very proud in this country of the standards that we maintain in this country. They stem from a range of sources: from the Cabinet Manual, from the transparency arrangements that we have, from the Official Information Act, through written parliamentary questions, through an extraordinary network of advocacy groups and interest groups—and, yes, would you believe, lobbyists and others—who bring their advocacy and bring their issues to this House, and it now being more accessible in terms of bringing petitions and issues to this House. So we have a lot going for us. I respect what the member Golriz Ghahraman has just been saying in her words to the House, but I do just point out, in terms of electoral transparency, the way our rules in the Electoral Act are currently framed is that, basically, the higher the donation, the more transparency there is. It is true that there's a level of non-disclosure of details behind donations, but for very significant donations there's not only a disclosure requirement but a timeliness requirement on that disclosure as well. But it is a matter of fair debate about whether that is adequate anymore in the environment that we've got. We know that we live in political systems now, in this country and many others, where money sloshes around and it can be pretty easy, not just within political parties but within the broader political firmament. You look at the amount of money that was being pumped in to, for example, the occupation on the grass in front of Parliament last year: that was funded by all sorts of sources, and that was intended to have a political influence. I want to talk just a little about the circumstances in which the origins of Stuart Nash's ultimate dismissal arose back in 2020, in spite of the members opposite's desperate bid to create some sort of conspiracy theory out of it. We were faced with, in the middle of the lockout, the first lockout, many businesses, small businesses, who'd completely lost their revenue, struggling to meet their overheads and specifically their rental outgoings, the payments for their leases. I was Minister of Justice at the time. We got much correspondence and much representation, and we made the decision that we would do something about it and that those small businesses, as so many other businesses had, should get some sort of assistance to get them through what was an extraordinarily difficult time. We made the judgment that a potential policy remedy lay in the Property Law Act, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and, therefore, the Minister of Justice. We looked at the provisions there that allow interventions into lease agreements in particular circumstances, and we thought we would devise a temporary remedy to give some relief to small businesses, bearing in mind that, actually, for some small businesses—and I would say, actually, many small businesses—their landlords had already come to the party. There were many landlords who were sympathetic to their tenants who had lost their revenue, either all or most of it, over a reasonably significant period of time. But there was a number of landlords who just thought, "I've got my lease agreement, you have this obligation; you must pay me those lease payments as per our lease agreement." even though in the circumstances beyond everybody's control, it was manifestly unreasonable. There was some concern, because we were a coalition Government and New Zealand First Cabinet Ministers—or one in particular, Winston Peters, was concerned about what he called the erosion of the sanctity of contract. He was most exercised by this, and he was concerned about it. Nevertheless—and I was involved in many discussions with New Zealand First MPs and their Ministers to try to get to a mutually acceptable solution, mutually acceptable between the coalition partners. Well, we got to one, and our Cabinet committee made a decision but then, even after that decision was made—effectively a Cabinet decision because it was a Cabinet committee, with a power to act—New Zealand First then withdrew their support, and they indicated they would not vote for it. I can say, for the record, too, there was another party in this House—well, there's two other parties in this House—who also indicated they wouldn't vote for it: it was the ACT Party and it was the National Party. So the crocodile tears that were being wept early this week by members in the National Party about the plight of small business at that time—they were completely meaningless. The National Party didn't care, and I doubt whether they care even now. But we did, and we tried to find a solution. It's interesting, when I go back, there was an interview, for example, involving Winston Peters with one of our top broadcasters, Mike Hosking, and Mike Hosking asked Winston Peters about this issue—the lease issue that has led to Stuart Nash's dismissal—said, "Are you holding up Andrew Little's plan with the rents around landlords and commercial operations?" Winston Peters answers "Why do you ask that question?" Then Mike Hosking says, "Because I've heard it." and Winston Peters says, "From who?" and Mike Hosking says, "People I talk to." Then there's a bit of exchange and Mr Peters then goes on to say, "I don't cause trouble, but I've got an understanding of how business operates and how landlords and tenants operate, and they are people where one size fits all and it's very complex and he's not prepared to do anything about it." is essentially what the rest of his answer amounts to. So we were up against a difficult situation and I can say, dealing with that issue and dealing with all Ministers—and including Stuart Nash at the time—there was difficulty; there was resistance. Nobody would have expected that a Cabinet Minister of whichever party in the coalition would have breached Cabinet confidentiality and started disclosing to members of the public what individual Cabinet members had said, either in a Cabinet committee or around the Cabinet table. That was simply not something that was ever expected in the Government under Jacinda Ardern, and nor is it expected under Chris Hipkins. They are two people who uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct, and they have both made it very clear during their tenure of the office of the Prime Minister that they expect nothing less of Cabinet Ministers of whichever party they are in. So that is what has happened, and I have to say when the facts came out this week of an email from Stuart Nash to supporters of his, including donors of his, where he had disclosed that information—disclosed deliberations of Cabinet—I can tell you that I, like many, many people who know the rules, who strive to observe them, was crestfallen and just extremely, extremely disappointed. Now the benefit of all of this, of course, is that, to a large extent, what we see is the standards that we have set and the system that we have for dealing with lapses of integrity and acts of dishonour are dealt with. So, literally within a couple of hours of this becoming apparent to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister took the only action he could take, which was to dismiss the Minister. There was an Official Information Act (OIA) request and that has been the subject of members opposite's discussion but that Official Information Act request was processed in the way you would expect it to be processed. When there was a challenge about non-disclosure, as I understand it, by the requester to the Ombudsman, ultimately the Ombudsman made no ruling and it wasn't pursued any further. But the system kicked into action; somebody who was interested did make a request under the OIA. That process was followed and when the requester wasn't satisfied, appealed it to the Ombudsman, but no different outcome was achieved. That is all that has happened and where there has been a lack of integrity, where there has been a breach, the system has kicked in and the stabilisers have worked, and we should be thankful for that. What I can say, on this side of the House, and all of the colleagues I have worked with and work with now, all of them display and carry out and sincerely uphold the obligations and responsibilities they know they have, to maintain their integrity and the confidentiality of the Cabinet processes. BROOKE van VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of my ACT Party colleagues to take a call in the urgent debate about the dismissal of Stuart Nash from Cabinet. The Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, is now paying the price for having low ministerial standards and weak leadership. Stuart Nash is finally being dismissed from Cabinet—but not after one strike or two strikes or three strikes; it's after four strikes. The Prime Minister has now shown that he didn't have the backbone to dismiss a Cabinet Minister when he should have, and he doesn't have the backbone required for the leadership of being the Prime Minister. He should have followed ACT's advice on day one and sacked Stuart Nash on day one, when we knew that he did not have the ethical standards required to be a Minister in Cabinet, and he breached his own rules, the rules of the Cabinet Manual—very important rules that all people in Cabinet should follow. Stuart Nash, on day one, attempted to interfere in a Police prosecution. It's a pretty serious matter. Not only did he call up the Police Commissioner, he then went on radio and boasted about it. Then, when he was confronted about whether he'd done anything wrong, he didn't apologise or admit that he'd made a mistake; he doubled down. He didn't even recognise that anything he had done was wrong. Stuart Nash didn't follow the rules that he had signed up to as a Cabinet Minister. If he didn't know the rules and he couldn't follow the rules, he shouldn't be able to make the rules and he should have been removed from Cabinet. Chris Hipkins then went on to say that he'd asked for assurance that Stuart Nash had done nothing else that would breach the Cabinet Manual, and he got that assurance from Stuart Nash. Well, clearly, he did a poor job of seeking that assurance, because only within a matter of days, more information had come to light: that wasn't the only time Stuart Nash had breached the Cabinet Manual by commenting on an individual Police prosecution—he had done it before. It turns out he had failed to inform Chris Hipkins about an earlier incident in 2020, when Crown Law investigated Stuart Nash for inappropriate comments around the handling of a Police case and encouraged David Parker, the Attorney-General, to get involved about his conduct. Now, Stuart Nash was either, at that time, telling his boss porkies or he was being cute with the truth. Now, either way, at that point in time, he had completely embarrassed Chris Hipkins. And surely—surely—then he had to go. How is it possible that the Prime Minister could have confidence in one of his own Cabinet colleagues who not only had once but twice interfered in a Police prosecution matter and somebody who had twice breached the Cabinet Manual but then gone and bragged about it publicly, didn't learn from his mistakes, and obfuscated about the truth. He didn't have the ethical standards required on strike one or strike two. Because the Cabinet Manual says that, at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. So at this point, it then raised a question in ACT about what more does Stuart Nash need to do to get sacked? Well, it wasn't the third strike that then came out. It then turns out he was found to have contacted a senior Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment official over an immigration case, rather than following the process that Cabinet Ministers should follow for an established procedure on immigration cases. That wasn't enough to remove him from Cabinet. He was bumped down to the lowest rank within Cabinet, but, somehow, the Prime Minister still stood up in front of all New Zealanders—in front of everybody who pays these guys' jobs—and said, "Yes, I still have the faith to have Stuart Nash in my Cabinet." So then it raised a question of, well, what possibly could Stuart Nash need to do more to lose the faith of Chris Hipkins and to be sacked from Cabinet? Chris Hipkins was forced to answer that question when Stuart Nash appeared to breach Cabinet rules again by sending an email that showed he breached Cabinet confidence and collective responsibility. He leaked information from his own Cabinet colleagues outside of Cabinet and spoke out against them to his own interests, to people he knew in the public. Now, Kiwis deserve better from our Government Ministers. We expect and deserve Ministers to have high standards. Every day, up and down New Zealand, taxpayers hand over their money to Government Ministers hoping that they will use that money wisely, to spend it in the best interests of other New Zealanders. They vote for people to be representatives in this House for them, to make the rules that everybody else must follow. They give up their trust and their faith, believing that Cabinet Ministers will hold themselves to a high standard and they will hold their own colleagues to a high standard. And what we have seen in this instance is a Prime Minister who has extremely low standards. If this is what he would have allowed Stuart Nash to get away with, what else does he allow his Cabinet colleagues to get away with? The standards are so low. He only removed Stuart Nash after his fourth strike—not his first strike, his second strike, or his third strike; his fourth one. So all of these turns of events have finally led to the sacking of Stuart Nash, but they have led to the truth of Chris Hipkins—that he has low standards and he can't make the hard decisions that New Zealanders should expect of our Prime Minister. ACT is here in Parliament to put forward better ideas on how to make New Zealand a better place for everybody, but we're also here to hold the Government to account. If it wasn't for David Seymour listening to Newstalk ZB and choking on his cornflakes that he had heard a Minister admit and boast that he had tried to interfere in a police prosecution, we may never be having this debate. But we are having this debate now because we have members of this House in the ACT Party listening to the Government, watching the Government, and making sure that we're holding them to account, because New Zealanders expect a high standard of their Ministers and ACT expects that too. Now, it's possible that something more may have ended up having Stuart Nash sacked. I mean, he did have four strikes after all; there might be more to come—something was bound to happen. But ACT is here to hold the Government to account, and we're sorry to see that this is the state of affairs that it's come to. But we expect more from our Government and we expect more from our Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some of the comments that were made by the speaker who's just taken her seat, Brooke van Velden, I agree with. I think New Zealanders do expect high standards of their politicians and their Ministers, particularly, in a Government, and they are rightly disappointed when those high standards are not upheld. This is a clear case of where that has occurred. The Minister concerned, Stuart Nash, most clearly breached the duty of confidence that he owed to his Cabinet, in breach of the Cabinet Manual—although you don't really need a Cabinet manual to know what "duties of confidence" mean—and that breach of that duty means that he breached the trust of the Cabinet and the Government and the Prime Minister, and therefore the Prime Minister was quite right to dismiss him in his role. I heard David Seymour in an interview earlier in the week describe Stuart Nash as hapless, and I thought it was quite a good adjective to use because it's almost unbelievable that one would do this. And it's also incredibly naive that if one was going to do this you'd do it in an email that left a written trail. Brooke van Velden's comments that he was boastful in respect of his errors of judgment in respect of the interference and criticism of the judiciary and contacting the Commissioner of Police, it's of a similar vein, and it is incredibly disappointing to me and I'm sure all of my ministerial and parliamentary colleagues actually across the House that he could be so cavalier, and so obviously breached the standards that a Minister owes. I think that the standards that are expected by members of the public are being reflected in the Prime Minister's decision not just to dismiss Stuart Nash, but to cause the Secretary of the Cabinet to inquire into his communications with his donors more broadly and see if there is a pattern of conduct broader than this individual event. In respect of the assertions that were made earlier in this week that it was Stuart Nash that somehow intervened to prevent there being a change to the law to provide relief to tenants during COVID, I know that that is incorrect, as the Hon Andrew Little has said, using sources that are public, quoting interviews with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The change of position between the Cabinet committee that he reported on in his email exchange that was inappropriate, and the eventual Cabinet decision—what happened was that the coalition partner within the then Government decided that from their point of view it wasn't a wise thing to do. As the Hon Andrew Little has said, the reasoning that the Labour Party had applied to the situation was that although a lot of leases had a term—if they used the standard Auckland District Law Society form of lease that said that when you can't use the premises you don't have to pay rent, and you couldn't use the premises during COVID because of lockdown rules. There were a number of lease arrangements on other terms that weren't using the Auckland District Law Society form of lease, particularly quite a few of the malls where they had their own leases that didn't have that standard form clause. Now, from the point of view of the Government, a lot of the subsidies that were being paid—that were keeping people attached to their work—were in danger of not working, because the money was having to be applied to pay 100 percent of a rental bill, rather than there being some compromise with the landlord during that period when the premises couldn't be used, and that's why we wanted to make a change. Indeed, eventually, post the change of Government, we did make the change that it was required to imply the term into leases, similar to that of the Auckland District Law Society standard form of lease. So it is incorrect to say that it was Stuart Nash that caused that change of position. Indeed, I know that Stuart Nash wanted there to be an intervention for the benefit of small-business owners who were facing unreasonable landlords in the context of COVID. That doesn't forgive in any way the poor practice, the lapse of judgment, the breach of the Cabinet Manual, the breach of confidence, and the loss of trust that follows that sort of egregious conduct from Stuart Nash. In respect of allegations from the National Party and other parties that this is somehow evidence of some broad conspiracy on the part of the Government and that we've got lower standards than prior Governments, I would put on record a number of historical events that suggest otherwise. I'm actually not going to name individuals within the then National Government who were working in the National Party offices, but, you know, a shameful period of the National Party's time in Government is recorded in the book Dirty Politics. I've got a copy of it here with me— Chris Bishop: Yeah, it's fiction. It's largely fiction. Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, "It's largely fiction.", says— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Chris Bishop. Hon DAVID PARKER: Chris Bishop. There was a dump of emails, of course, that were obtained by Rawshark—who we don't know to this day—from the Cameron Slater computer, which showed activities between the Prime Minister's office of the day and Cameron Slater doing very disreputable things—manipulating the Official Information Act—in order to avoid political controversies that were befalling the National Party, absolutely proven by Dirty Politics, and led to the resignation of the person in the Prime Minister's department. I'm not going to name them—sort of a little bit ancient history here—but at the time it led to his being forced out of that office and sent somewhere else for a job. There was also collusion between Cameron Slater and a then Minister of the National Party. Again, I'm not going to name her—I don't need to be quite that personal. The same person that was involved in Oravida was providing confidential information to Cameron Slater in order to attack public servants, who, in the end, received death threats. So a terrible thing happened. Then, in respect of Oravida—terrible events that the Hon Grant Robertson actually prosecuted in this House and which led, after a long period of time, to the dismissal by John Key of the relevant Minister. I myself prosecuted for a number of years the Saudi sheep scandal. I was frustrated at every turn by refusals to make public information that should have been disclosed under the Official Information Act. There were also breaches of the Cabinet Manual by the relevant Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, who used misused conventions to stop old Cabinet papers being disclosed to the media. And those old Cabinet papers weren't disclosed to the media, because they disproved the excuses that the Minister was using in order to deflect responsibility for that Saudi sheep farm that was paid for by New Zealand taxpayers—literally in a Saudi desert—in order to influence someone over there who was blocking a trade deal in New Zealand. It was a terrible, unprincipled deal, and it was frustrated—getting to the bottom of that—through misuses of the Official Information Act and other conventions relating to old Cabinet papers. In the end, there was an inquiry by the Auditor-General, but it took years for us to get to that point, and of course that money was wasted. But, more importantly, that was an unprincipled thing to do, and that same Minister, through Cameron Slater again, provided information on critics of his reforms to the Foreign Affairs Department. Nonetheless, this is a shameful day for— DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The crocodile tears being cried by the Government are ludicrous and shameful. Grant Robertson spent five minutes of his contribution to this shameful episode—tawdry episode—in New Zealand's constitutional and political history, going on about how it was wrong for the National Party to mention, in question time, staff members in the then Prime Minister's office, who made, in his words, a mistake. He said—I can't believe he actually said this, but this is what he said—that it was the worst thing he's ever heard in Parliament. Well, Grant Robertson should look in a mirror, because when he was in Opposition, sitting, as he said, where I am sitting today, as a senior member of the Labour Opposition, it was him and his mates in Opposition who repeatedly, over and over again, named members of the National Government staff from 2008 to 2017. I'm not going to make the mistakes that he did at that time, which was to trawl through the various senior advisers and chief advisers to Ministers, but a cursory glance at Hansard will reveal that on more than one occasion—in fact, repeated occasions—Grant Robertson and other members of the Opposition named staff members in Parliament, over and over again. In fact, in relation to the chief of staff of the then Prime Minister, he was dragged to the Privileges Committee by Labour for questioning. So not only was he named in Parliament but he was dragged to the Privileges Committee. I remember being a junior staff member—and I'm loathe to bring myself into it, but I may as well, given we're here—working for the Hon Gerry Brownlee, looking up at question time one day, and being shocked to discover Charles Chauvel—the departure of whom, from this House, we do not lament, both Labour and National, I suspect—making mention of something that I had put on Facebook, on my personal Facebook account. Charles Chauvel got up in Parliament and asked the Hon Gerry Brownlee about something that I had put on my personal Facebook account, and held him to account for that. And then, he issued a press release about something that I had done as a junior 23-year-old staff member on my personal Facebook account. So Labour can come down here and say to the National Party, "Oh, you can't ask questions about what senior staff in the Prime Minister's office do."—to quote Grant Robertson, it's the worst thing he's ever seen in Parliament. Well, that is just ludicrous. The reason it's ludicrous is, firstly, the only people who named the relevant people that we're talking about were the Government. We've never mentioned their names; it was the chief press secretary—who, you might note, I'm not naming—to the Prime Minister who voluntarily came down and disclosed that information on the tiles, or, at least, a bit earlier before, on the way to the House. We've never named them. But is it legitimate to ask questions about what happened in relation to these matters? Of course it is—of course it is—because we are dealing with serious matters here. We're not naming their names, but it is important to get to the bottom of what happened. Ministers are responsible for their staff and the exercise of their ministerial responsibilities; that is important, and it goes to culture. We're not dealing with junior staff here; we're talking about the deputy chief of staff to the Prime Minister—the deputy chief of staff—and it goes to the culture that is created in the prime ministerial office—the former Prime Minister: in this case, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. So these questions are well within scope—they are well within scope. What was also in scope, was the email that was not released, and I think we all agree on that. And there's a bit of a question that we need to get to the bottom of, and there needs to be an inquiry into, as to why it was not released, because here's what happened—and it's worth recounting the facts. Stuart Nash sits in Cabinet, and Cabinet makes decisions in relation to commercial rent relief, and other members have canvassed exactly what happened there, and David Parker's just referred to it. Controversial issue, interesting issue being dealt with at the time. Stuart Nash then emails a blow-by-blow account of what happened in Cabinet, to someone outside of Cabinet. Now, that's bad in and of itself—that is a gross breach of the Cabinet Manual, I think everyone agrees on that. What makes it worse is that the people he emailed were donors to him and to the Labour Party. Double error, double mistake, and that is ultimately why he has been sacked as a Minister. What has been revealed in the last 24 hours or so is that the Prime Minister's office (PMO) knew about that email. And the reason they knew about that email is because when an Official Information Act request came in from Newsroom a year or so later, specifically naming the donors—it wasn't a kind of fishing expedition, a bit of a trawl with huge quantities of information—it was quite specific, quite a specific request from Newsroom. It comes in, and Stuart Nash's office sits down there and goes, "Righty-o, what have we got here?" And at some point this email gets identified, and at some point they decide, better check with the PMO about this. First red flag. And not only did they consult the PMO once, not twice, but thrice—three times there was consultation. This is all on the record. This has all been voluntarily disclosed by the Prime Minister's office. Three times they consult the Prime Minister's office, and in the end the email is not released. Now, is it within the scope of the request? Well, I've seen the request now, and I've seen the email, and it says basically: all correspondence from Minister Nash, with donors, to Mr Nash and then names the 19 people. Now— Chris Penk: Couldn't be clearer. CHRIS BISHOP: It could not be clearer—that's right, Mr Penk—it could not be clearer. Mr Nash's email to his donors specifically says, "Here's what happened in Cabinet." The only way he could know about that is because he was a Cabinet Minister. So the idea that he did this in his parliamentary capacity is frankly laughable. It is a ludicrous proposition. And what we now know, again—this is all voluntarily disclosed by the Prime Minister's office. Well done. Bit late, but well done. What we now know is that the Ombudsmen's office only saw a redacted copy of the email—so it was redacted. So presumably it was sent to the Ombudsman—because the complaint was made—who is the sort of arbiter of this, and presumably they said that the information was actually redacted, and I have enough respect for the Ombudsmen's office to know that if, in fact, if Mr Boshier and his staff had seen that they would have said, "Um, no, hang on a minute; excuse me, office of Mr Nash—unnamed Public Servant." An email to a donor that goes through a blow-by-blow account of what specific Ministers said in Cabinet that only you and the 19 other members of the Cabinet—plus the Cabinet secretary, I guess—so the 21 people in the room could know about. That is ministerial correspondence. It doesn't get much clearer. You know, it is harder to think of an example of something done in your ministerial capacity than information that you relay to someone outside the Cabinet that only you know about because you're a Minister. It's a slam dunk. It's an open and shut case. And that information was redacted. And so the Ombudsman presumably said, "Oh, well, it's out of scope. All good, fair enough, move on." Now we get to the nub of the issue. What went on between Mr Nash's office and the Prime Minister's office? And it goes to culture, because the staff that saw the email must have known that it was within scope, and they must have known that it should have been disclosed, and they must have known it had a stench about it. And they should have gone up the food chain and said, "Hang on a minute, something's going on here—something is going on here." So there is an ethical hole at the heart of this Government. There's been a breach of the Cabinet Manual. There has been a potential breach of the Official Information Act 1982, and there has certainly been a breach of the precepts of good government. That is just absolutely fundamental. And frankly, we in the National Opposition would far rather be talking about things like education, and infrastructure, and the costs of living. We would. No one actually come to Parliament to prosecute issues like we are talking about today. But at some level you have to make a stand. Like we did on the entrenchment stuff at the end of last year, at some level you have to stand up for good government in this country. This is a debating chamber which holds the Executive to account. We want to talk about policy. We want to talk about the things we want to do to take New Zealand forward. But actually, when push comes to shove, you have to stand up for principle. You have to stand up for what matters. You have to stand up for good government, and the rule of law, and ministerial accountability. Stuart Nash should have gone as a Minister, and he has gone. But there are unanswered questions about exactly what went on here, and we are not going to let this drop. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I think one thing that we can collectively agree in this House this afternoon is that New Zealanders can expect to have high expectations of those that have been privileged to be put into this role and hold ministerial warrants. What we've had this week, it's not an occasion that you want to rise in this House to speak to—the dismissal of one of your colleagues—but Minister Nash's actions, they were serious. They were a fundamental breach of the Prime Minister's trust, of Cabinet's trust, and, indeed, of the Parliament's trust. The Cabinet Manual clearly expresses the nature and the role of collective responsibility. Indeed, it goes so far as to say it underpins the system of our Cabinet Government. It reflects the democratic principle that the House expresses its confidence in the collective whole of Government rather than in individual Ministers, and we've seen over the course of this week where that principle of collective responsibility and, further, that principle of confidentiality have been undermined. To that point, the actions of the Prime Minister, they were swift. He acted within two hours of knowing, of having that knowledge of that breach of those two fundamental Cabinet Manual responsibilities, those actions of Stuart Nash. Swiftly thereafter, he directed the Cabinet secretary to undertake a review of all of the former Minister's correspondence with donors to be able to assure the New Zealand public that, yes, you are entitled to have those high expectations and standards upon us, and that he will ensure that whatever further steps need to be taken shall be done through that review. It's been an interesting afternoon in this House. Actually, I started earlier this morning with the member opposite, Christopher Bishop, speaking probably as the last parliamentarians on the show that was Today FM, with the host that was Tova. We had a discussion about these issues that arose with respect to the former Minister. One of the words that arose that struck me this morning was when the member inferred that there was perhaps some conspiracy. We heard that again today in the Deputy Leader of the National Party during question time, and allegations were put to this House around a conspiracy to cover. I find it so appalling that a substantive allegation such as that was made in a House such as this, in absence of any evidence, because what it does is it undermines the trust and confidence that New Zealanders should, rightly, have in this House. We have a series of events that the Prime Minister's office recorded that's been put out into the public domain because there simply is nothing to hide. In the course of that disclosure of all of the correspondence and the actions taken by those individuals to give New Zealanders the confidence of what happened, we had a person who cannot and does not have the right or the privilege to speak in this House, because they are a staff member—a person was named; she had to take responsibility for an error. The thing about this particular individual, for those that have had the opportunity to work with her, she's one of the most humble and honest people you'll ever have the chance to meet—a really good, good person—and I hate that her name has been tarred in this House by allegations that she was somehow imbued within a conspiracy. It makes me disdain politics. I pray that New Zealanders see through the dog-whistling to a constituency that seeks to find conspiracy in anything and everything. Let's reflect, all, on our own individual actions. We make mistakes. Sometimes they carry more weight than others, but we've all done it. And at the end of the day, we that are Ministers hold the warrant; we that are Ministers have the responsibility. In this instance, it was Minister Nash that had the responsibility to own those actions for breaching that Cabinet Manual—not anybody else. As a consequence, on finding out that information, the Prime Minister dismissed him. That is a sad day, no doubt, for his family, but it was the right thing to do. And that is all that happened. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.