Wednesday, 21 June 2023 [Volume 769] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility, for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Jian Guo Yang requesting that the House impose harsher penalties for criminal offences for criminal offences Petition of Sunny Kaushal requesting the House urge the Government to act on what we believe is a retail crime emergency. SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Hutt Valley District Health Board, Annual Report 2021-22 Lotto New Zealand, Statement of Performance Expectations for the Financial Year Ending 30 June 2024 Government response to the report of the Regulations Review Committee on its interim report on its briefing about orders made under section 70 of the Health Act 1956. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, introduction Regulatory Systems (Climate Change Response) Amendment Bill, introduction Corrections Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. Christopher Luxon: How are Kiwis expected to believe that Michael Wood, Kiri Allan, and Stuart Nash are all just one-off bad eggs instead of a repeated failure by his Government to follow and enforce the rules? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't believe that those people are bad eggs. I believe that in two of those cases they made a mistake. In terms of Kiri Allan's inclusion in that, the reason that we're having that discussion is that she did disclose and manage conflicts of interest. Christopher Luxon: Why did he say just two weeks ago that he had trust and confidence in Michael Wood and how can Kiwis trust him or his Government? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, I have to rely on the information that I'm given at the time. The information that I was given was incorrect and there has been a consequence for that. Christopher Luxon: Did he seek or receive assurances from Michael Wood that there were no other conflicts of interest after it was disclosed that he had failed to sell his airport shares? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Christopher Luxon: Why does that keep happening with his Ministers; when he asks for clarity of whether they've got conflicts of interest, they keep saying, "No, no, no, I don't.", and then they do? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In this case, the Minister indicated there was nothing further I needed to know. There clearly was information further that I needed to know. He is no longer a Minister. Christopher Luxon: If his own Ministers don't take him seriously enough to tell him the truth when he asked them, how on earth should New Zealanders take him seriously as Prime Minister? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe in this case Michael Wood failed to identify and manage his conflicts of interest appropriately. I think New Zealanders can trust me because in that circumstance I have accepted his resignation as a Minister. Christopher Luxon: Why does it always take him so long, whether it's Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, or Kiri Allan, to actually hold his Ministers to account for their rule breaking? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject that. I found out about this yesterday. I took action almost immediately. These processes take a period of time. Someone is entitled to a process of natural justice. He has made mistakes and there have been consequences for those. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept New Zealanders are frustrated with crime on the streets and potholes on the roads, and, if so, can he assure them that those problems have not been caused by Ministers in charge of their portfolios who can't even keep within the basic rules of being a Minister? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do accept that New Zealanders are concerned about crime and they are also concerned about potholes on the roads. In terms of their last part of that, potholes on the roads, had there not been such a woeful under-investment in road maintenance we might not be in this position. Christopher Luxon: Is this Government so incompetent that it can't follow the rules, or so arrogant that it doesn't believe that the rules apply to them? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ministers who don't follow the rules face consequences for that. David Seymour: Would it be helpful, does the Prime Minister suppose, if he stopped blaming the last Government that went out of office nearly six years ago and started holding accountable the Ministers in his Government now for their performance or lack thereof? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm very proud of the fact that under this Government the budget for road maintenance has increased significantly. The number of potholes being repaired has increased significantly. I do note the previous Government decided not to invest in those things so that it can invest in roads of national significance. The reality is we need to build new roads and maintain the roads that we have at the moment. The last Government chose to prioritise one over the other when we need to be doing both. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he accept that living in poverty is one of the biggest drivers of health inequities for Māori and Pacific families; if so, will he commit to ending poverty for all families by introducing an income guarantee and a tax-free threshold of the first 10 K? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no. Christopher Luxon: Is he confident none of his other Ministers have undisclosed conflicts, undeclared shares, unreported links to donors, undeclared donations, or any other violation of the rules? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have confidence in the Cabinet Office processes to identify those things and I've just outlined further steps that are being taken to strengthen those processes. Christopher Luxon: How many more Ministers does he expect will resign or be sacked before the election? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that's a ridiculous question. I would have thought the member should be more concerned about the conflicts of interest in his own team, which he doesn't seem particularly focused on. Question No. 2—Finance 2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Is he concerned at the findings in the Productivity Commission's A fair chance for all report that nearly 1 in 5 New Zealanders experience persistent disadvantage; if so, will he commit to making the changes needed to end persistent disadvantage in New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. I believe that all parties in this House should be concerned when segments of our population lack economic opportunities, social connections, or experience economic hardship, particularly when those patterns of disadvantage are intergenerational. In answer to the second part of the question, I believe that ending persistent disadvantage is something that all Governments should be committed to. The Productivity Commission's recent report is a useful contribution to the debate as to what changes are necessary to reduce persistent disadvantage. I look forward to engaging with that work more fully and, as with previous Productivity Commission reports, there will be a full Government response as to some of the specific measures that the Government might want to take forward. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he acknowledge that an income guarantee could be a central pillar of the social floor recommended in the report, ensuring that communities and whānau have basic public supports and incomes when they are experiencing disadvantage? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I congratulate the member on shoehorning into that question the Green Party's policy. I do think it is important that we provide support for people when they need it and in the ways that they need it, and ensure that every New Zealander can live with dignity. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept findings that institutional racism and discrimination against Māori and Pacific peoples is contributing to poor health outcomes and disadvantage for these communities, and, if so, will he prioritise equity in healthcare? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely we will, and are indeed prioritising equity in healthcare. The creation, through the health reforms, of Te Aka Whai Ora was an important moment, I think, in how we can take steps forward on that—and actually significantly in line with the report's recommendations, because the report focuses particularly on institutional arrangements and systemic changes, and I think that's exactly what we're doing in healthcare. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Aotearoa will be unable to meet its 10-year target to halve child poverty without significant investment to end persistent disadvantage affecting 1 in 5 New Zealanders? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don't. I think that is a goal that will require a lot of effort from the Government over the next few years to be able to reach it, but it is one that we have committed ourselves to. I note that in the latest Budget, around material hardship—which is the closest thing, in terms of a proxy, for what we measure at the moment, to persistent disadvantage—we have seen a reduction by 3 percentage points since 2017-18 of children living in those circumstances. Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to the recommendations made in this report and to ending persistent disadvantage so all whānau have warm, dry homes, enough food on the table to feed tamariki, and so our young people can go to school instead to working 20 or 30 hours a week to support their families? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I noted in my primary answer, we will work our way through the specific recommendations that have been made in the report. So, rather than responding to that part of the question directly, I would say that the themes in the report are ones that this Government has been working on. We know that there is always more to do, and we commit to working on those issues. Question No. 3—Finance 3. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week, Statistics New Zealand reported that GDP edged down by 0.1 percent for the March quarter, following a 0.7 percent decline in the previous December quarter. On an annual basis, the economy was 2.9 percent larger than a year ago and is 6.7 percent bigger than before the start of the pandemic, ahead of most of the countries with which we compare ourselves. We know that 2023 is a challenging year for the New Zealand economy and New Zealand households as global growth slows and the North Island weather events disrupt households and businesses. The decline in growth over the last two quarters is characterised as a technical recession. It does need to be viewed in the context of a record number of New Zealanders in work and wages rising at a faster pace than inflation, which is not typical of recession conditions. We are well positioned to support New Zealanders through this tough time, with cost of living support and dealing with the impacts of weather events. Unemployment, however, does remain low, there has been a rebound in tourism and international students, and public debt levels are among the lowest in the OECD. Ingrid Leary: What was the impact of the North Island weather events on the GDP numbers in the March quarter? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The impact of the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle saw declines in primary production, manufacturing and transport, postal, and warehousing activity. New Zealand's economists have said that headline growth would likely have been positive in the March quarter if it wasn't for the cyclone. They said that the rise in immigration and fiscal support could support momentum and growth in the economy over the second half of the year. Westpac's economists said the results show that the economy "is in a transition phase rather than in outright recession." Ingrid Leary: How will the Government manage the response to the economic outlook? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Economic activity has been affected by the North Island weather events. Looking ahead, the Reserve Bank is forecasting that the recovery and rebuild from these events will add about 1.5 percent to GDP spread over a number of years. The Government will have a part to play in the recovery, as New Zealanders would expect us to. The cost of asset damage from the weather events is estimated at between $9 billion and $14.5 billion, with half of that related to infrastructure owned by central government or local government, such as roads. We are committed to supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living pressures and to investing in essential public services, as well as the work we need to do to help these regions recover and rebuild. Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do see reports that show the resilience of the New Zealand economy. This week it was the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index, or the PSI, with a reading of 53.1 in May, close to the long-term average for the survey. A reading above 50 indicates that the sector is generally expanding, while below 50 indicates that it is declining. Sales, new orders, and employment all expanded. BNZ's economists said the result indicated that the economy would grow modestly in the June quarter. As I've said previously, this is a tough period for New Zealanders, but our economy is resilient and we are building for the long term to deliver higher-wage jobs and lower emissions. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has he sought from Treasury in the past six months on specific matters relating to New Zealand's current tax settings, and what specific tax changes, if any, were considered as part of the Budget process? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government seeks and receives a range of tax policy advice during the parliamentary term, including in the past six months on New Zealand's current tax settings. That advice varies from agency to agency and is reflected, for example, in the decision in the Budget to lift the trustee tax rate. In answer to the second part of the question, the Budget process for 2023 began around August of last year, and, as at all Budgets, it considered whether specific tax changes were appropriate. That was the subject of Cabinet discussion. Cabinet discussions are confidential until such time as announcements are made. Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of the question was very specific: what specific tax changes, if any, were considered as part of the Budget process? I don't believe the Minister has addressed that part of the question. SPEAKER: No, I think he has. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Perhaps I can help here—speaking to that point, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well, how can you? I've already made a ruling. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, the issue is a question of Cabinet. The Minister is using Cabinet confidentiality to not address the second part of the question, but the question does not refer to Cabinet. SPEAKER: That's the point of having further supplementaries—you can explore that. David Seymour: Mr Speaker, can I speak to that? SPEAKER: No. As I said, I've already ruled on it. Go back and read Hansard, read the question, and listen to the answer. It's been addressed. David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A new point of order? David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker. I think it is something that bears some consideration. You've often said that the member has more supplementaries to further explore the answer. SPEAKER: Order! You're now disputing my ruling— David Seymour: No, I'm not; I'm just trying to be helpful. SPEAKER: —and interjecting while I'm on my feet. I mean, one person has been elected to be the judge of what happens in here. Either you're going to allow me to do that under the rules, or not. Nicola Willis: Has he used his public office to obtain advice on possible changes to the tax system that have not yet been made public? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to my primary answer. I did note in my primary answer that at this Budget, as at all Budgets, consideration has been given to specific tax changes. Those are the subject of Cabinet's discussions. They are confidential until such time as announcements are made. Nicola Willis: Why doesn't the public have a right to know what policies his Government is considering on tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have answered a number of times in this House that the extent of the Government's work on tax was outlined after the 2020 election. That has been the work programme for tax. In respect of the Budget, we had the announcement on the trustee tax rate. In respect of this Government, those are the actions on tax that we are taking. Nicola Willis: Can he can he rule out the possibility that tax changes rejected by Cabinet will re-emerge in the Labour Party manifesto? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Labour Party manifesto is not my ministerial responsibility, but I can indicate to the member that it has not yet been finalised. Nicola Willis: Has the finance Minister, or has he not, sought and received advice on possible options for reducing or increasing income tax? If he won't answer that question, why doesn't he believe the public have a right to know? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have answered that question, and that's exactly what my primary answer suggested. I would refer the member, if she wants further advice on this, to an answer given by Bill English on 5 June 2015 with respect to questions about support for children in hardship, where he acknowledged that Treasury had given him a range of advice and said that that advice would be released as part of Treasury's Budget 2015 proactive release in early July. Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This line of questioning is one that I have now attempted via written question and via the Finance and Expenditure Committee process, and it relates to Ministers' responsibility to the House to account for the advice that they receive. This has been a matter of many Speakers' rulings throughout the years and I would direct you specifically to Speaker's ruling 187/2, which notes that the Official Information Act does not exempt Ministers from their accountability to the House through question procedures, and I would simply ask that you direct the Minister that he cannot use the later release of information—the planned later release of information—as a reason to not fully address questions asked in parliamentary written or oral question form. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't want to prolong others because I have addressed the question. I don't want to comment on your rulings, but that is what you ruled. In my last answer, I was simply referring to a practice that has occurred in the past as far back as 2015, but I believe I have addressed all the questions I have been asked today. SPEAKER: So the Minister must answer, if they can, consistently with public interest, but it's up to the Minister to judge that. So you can ask further questions, if you wish. Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, is there any chance I could have an extra supplementary to do so? SPEAKER: I can't grant you one, but you can— Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just make the point that the answers given by the Minister of Finance did not refuse to provide information in the public interest. He refused to provide it because it would be later available, and, as Nicola Willis has pointed out, Speaker's ruling 187/2 is very clear that that's not an appropriate answer. SPEAKER: Well, I'll invite all members to do what I will do and go back and look at the Hansard about exactly what has been said, and check whether or not my rulings are correct. If it's not, I'll come back and correct it. Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A new point of order? Nicola Willis: Yes. I just seek leave to table a document. The document is the letter I have received from you, Mr Speaker, on 20 June, which sets out your concerns that you have written to the Minister of Finance on the matter discussed in the letter, advising him he should not be using the Official Information Act to consider whether to release information requested in the written question. You have— SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Question No. 5—Energy and Resources 5. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is the Government taking to drive the uptake of hydrogen? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In Budget 2023, our Government introduced a $100 million contract for difference to stimulate the production of hydrogen at point of consumption. This will allow the growth of a hydrogen industry in New Zealand. Naisi Chen: How will the $100 million hydrogen rebate support the uptake of green hydrogen? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government's green hydrogen consumption rebate will bridge the price gap between fossil fuels and green hydrogen to support the early adopters to reduce their emissions by 150,000 tonnes of carbon, equivalent to cancelling out the emissions of hundreds of trucks. This initiative will help make green hydrogen a financially viable option as the industry develops and drives down emissions in our hard-to-abate sectors as part of the Government's broader plan to decarbonise the New Zealand economy. Naisi Chen: How will the Government's hydrogen rebate support New Zealand's just transition regions? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our just transitions regions, Southland and Taranaki, will directly benefit from the Government's hydrogen rebate. Hydrogen businesses will be required to build partnerships in these regions to create good jobs, build skills, and develop local supply chains. This will support regional resilience. It will also enable decarbonisation in hard-to-abate sectors and the development of new renewable generation, supporting a just transition. Naisi Chen: How else is the Government driving the uptake of green hydrogen? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is committed to working closely with innovative New Zealand businesses to test, trial, and build out the kit needed for a hydrogen economy. Examples of these partnerships include working with HW Richardson to convert six trucks to dual-fuel hydrogen vehicles and supporting Hiringa Energy to develop a hydrogen refuelling network covering the routes taken by 80 percent of freight volume. Question No. 6—Health 6. BROOKE van VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: What are the subspecialties to which the wait-list equity adjuster was being rolled out in the wider northern region, and how, if at all, is ethnicity being used as a factor in prioritising access to health treatment outside of the equity adjuster tool? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question, aside from the Auckland District defined by the former district health board (DHB) boundary, I am advised that Te Tai Tokerau District has implemented the tool for urology, and orthopaedic wait-lists, and Waitematā has recently implemented the tool in gynaecology. I am advised that the equity adjuster is not used for acute care or cancer treatment. The equity adjuster is applied to planned care, previously referred to as elective care. In answer to the second part of the question, I am advised that Te Whatu Ora considers all factors when assessing people's needs for care. Most importantly, this is primarily based on clinical need, as determined by the clinicians involved, but other factors are taken into account, including ethnicity from time to time. Brooke van Velden: Is she aware that in November 2020, cancer and blood services at Auckland DHB had a policy to "reduce inequity for Māori and Pacific peoples by putting them at the front of the prioritisation queue", and can she give a guarantee that ethnicity is not being used to prioritise the queue for cancer services in any Auckland hospitals? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I thank the member for that question. The document that that member is referring to incorrectly said that that programme of work has started; it in fact never occurred. Brooke van Velden: What, then, does she say to the medical professionals confidentially telling ACT that the practice is still going on, and staff know about it? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, those medical professionals have avenues for raising their concerns, if any, within Te Whatu Ora, and I note that a number of health leaders, including the Royal College of Surgeons, have come out in support of the equity adjuster as applied to planned care. Brooke van Velden: Is the Minister aware that medical practitioners are afraid of speaking up on this issue, such as the surgeon who texted to say, "My concern is the lack of consultation from Te Whatu Ora, and we are unable to express our concerns to the powers. Many of us feel this is wrong but there is no avenue to express it, let alone change it."? However, this person refuses to be identified for fear of retribution. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have worked with surgeons for multiple years of my professional life, and the courage it takes to be a surgeon is the courage to stand up for your conviction. So I encourage that person if they've got an issue to bring it forward, and to take it up also with the professional leaders who have come out in support of that process for planned care. Teanau Tuiono: What advice has she received on the most effective ways to improve Māori and Pasifika life expectancy so that it is in line with the Pākehā life expectancy, and is she committed to action on the best evidence available to address health inequities? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes, I am committed to evidence-based action to address health inequalities, and the advice that I have received is that the strongest thing we could do to address health inequities—the seven-year life expectancy gap between Māori and Pasifika—was to vote for the smoke-free legislation, something the other side of the House showed a remarkable lack of moral courage to do so. Brooke van Velden: Is she aware that in February 2022 Auckland DHB said, "Our focus for planned care is prioritisation of long-waiting patients over 200 days, and long-waiting Māori and Pacific patients over 120 days", or did this also not happen? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: At Auckland Hospital, that approach would have been replaced with the equity adjuster. Question No. 7—Health 7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many people on surgical waiting lists have had the equity adjuster applied, and how many received an improved prioritisation with a contribution from the ethnicity component? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that all specialities in the Auckland district have been using the algorithm tool since February 2023 for treatments. It is estimated that over 10,000 patients will have add the equity adjuster applied. I am also advised that due to the complexity of the algorithm being made up of clinical priority and time spent on the wait-list, rurality, ethnicity, and deprivation level, Te Whatu Ora is unable to estimate how many patients have received an improved prioritisation just due to the ethnicity component alone. However, it is important to note, as we canvassed in the House yesterday, that the most influential factor on how a patient is scheduled is how sick they are, as determined by their doctor, and clinical priority remains a primary element. Dr Shane Reti: Have clinicians discriminated against Māori and Pasifika on surgical waiting lists, given the Prime Minister's assertions that for the same clinical need, Māori and Pasifika have waited longer, and "that is discrimination"? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I refer that member to the press release put on yesterday by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons who are, obviously, intimately involved in this area, and it does mention that unconscious bias can affect how patients are assessed and how long they spend on the wait-list. Dr Shane Reti: Are wait times, deprivation levels, and rurality collectively better measures of inequity than ethnicity; if not, why not? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe there is decades of evidence that shows that ethnicity is an independent predictor of health outcome in New Zealand. Dr Shane Reti: What factors will she take into account to determine if the equity adjuster is creating new discrimination, as requested of her by the Prime Minister? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have asked officials to prepare a plan for how that evaluation will be undertaken. Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she agree with the statement that "to the entitled, equity looks like discrimination"? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is clear to me that, for decades, we have had inequitable healthcare in this country and that we have been working on this problem for decades. In fact, multiple Governments have been working on this problem, and yet, we have not been able to fix the issue, and more needs to be done. Hon Marama Davidson: What is the Minister's response to a quote from a health expert who says, "But more to the point, some of the health gaps are not explained by socio-economic status or any other factor other than ethnicity. Māori experience systematic health disadvantage because of their ethnicity."? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is also my understanding of the evidence, and that is what I mean by my response to the previous question—that ethnicity is an independent and strong predictor of your outcome in the New Zealand health system. Question No. 8—Defence 8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Defence: What recent defence arrangements has New Zealand made with Fiji? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Bula vinaka, Mr Speaker. New Zealand and Fiji are close friends and military partners, and we share a view that it is for the Pacific Island countries to determine the security arrangements for our own region. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces—or RFMF—have a long history of exercising together and partnering on regional security, climate response, and humanitarian challenges. This recently included Fiji's vital assistance to us following Cyclone Gabrielle. Last week in Suva, I joined with Fiji's Minister of Home Affairs and Immigration, Pio Tikoduadua, to sign two arrangements: a Status of Forces Agreement—or SOFA—which sets out the legal framework for closer military cooperation within our respective territories; and secondly, a statement of intent to outline priorities for closer defence cooperation. These two arrangements complement the strength and spirit of New Zealand and Fiji's broad relationship as outlined in the Duavata Relationship Statement of Partnership. Vanushi Walters: Minister, what are the areas for closer cooperation set out in the statement of intent? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The statement of intent reaffirms New Zealand and Fiji's joint commitment as security partners in our region, based on a shared vision for a secure, stable, and resilient Pacific for current and future generations. It's been agreed that between 2022 and 2025, we will include a joint focus on training, maritime security, and coordination of disaster and humanitarian responses. It also includes specific initiatives such as boosting personnel exchanges and secondments, more formalised dialogue between our civilian agencies—such as the Ministry of Defence and Manatū Kaupapa Waonga—and between Ministers bilaterally and multilaterally within our region. Vanushi Walters: What's the purpose of the Status of Forces Agreement? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Status of Forces Agreement provides a clear legal framework for cooperation between our two militaries in accordance with our respective laws and regulations. It will strengthen cooperation and good conduct of joint or unilateral visits; exchanges; maritime, air-, and land-based exercises; and other activities between the NZDF and the RFMF. Because we know that climate change is the most pressing security threat for island countries, the agreement also commits both parties to minimise adverse effects of activities on the environment. Vanushi Walters: Is this the first Status of Forces Agreement we've entered into with a Pacific country? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No; we have a range of agreements to strengthen our partnerships with Pacific countries. This includes Status of Forces Agreements with the Cook Islands, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Tonga, Australia, and France. It's a positive development for New Zealand and the region to now have agreed a SOFA with Fiji. Vanushi Walters: How do these defence arrangements contribute to the overall relationship between New Zealand and Fiji? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As the Prime Minister said earlier this month, our countries—Fiji and New Zealand—"are connected by a kinship forged in Pacific culture, identity, and interests founded on our long history, friendship, and mutual respect." Building on our longstanding military cooperation reaffirms the strength and spirit of New Zealand and Fiji's relationship, as outlined in the Duavata Relationship Statement of Partnership and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. It sits alongside other contributions this Government has recently announced, such as the $11.1 million of climate change support for Fiji to respond to the impacts of climate change. Question No. 9—Police 9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at the time it was given: "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra Police." This includes approximately 270 authorised officers who work in specialist areas tackling crime. Authorised officers have been counted in constabulary numbers since the introduction of a Policing Act in 2008. The inclusion of authorised officers in the 1,800 was made by the police Minister at the time of the announcement and was included in the proactively released Cabinet paper. To the second part of the member's question, I quote the National Party: "Authorised officers in the right areas will speed up and make our criminal justice system more effective, efficient, and put the right resources in the right places at the right time." Hon Mark Mitchell: So in light of that answer, does the Minister now want to correct her answer to the House that there were 1,800 new front-line beat officers? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I refer the member to my primary question. SPEAKER: Do you want to correct that? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry. I refer the member to my primary answer. Hon Mark Mitchell: How does the Minister define a "beat officer"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The front line of crime has changed over time, and I consider chasing the money, taking assets off criminals, and crippling criminal networks to be an effective tool; and that is exactly what these authorised officers are able to do. I'm sure it's for this reason that National propose to expand and increase the use of authorised officers in this document [Holds up document]. Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister tell us where she found the definition of a beat officer, or is it her own definition? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: If the member would like to refer to the Policing Act, where constabulary numbers were defined and counted for the nine years that member was in Government, under the same definition. Question No. 10—Forestry 10. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Forestry: How is the Government empowering communities when it comes to the planting of forests? Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Last week, this Government delivered on its 2020 election commitment to tighten up rules on farm to forestry conversions by giving communities greater control over the planting of forests. We are empowering local councils, who will work alongside their community to decide which land can be used for plantation forests, which are forests that are intended to be harvested, or carbon forests, which are forests that the landowner intends to farm for carbon. This moves away from a system where councils and communities had limited tools to deal with farms being purchased explicitly for conversion into forestry. I believe forestry has a role in our economy, and environmental measures to address climate change, and this announcement ensures that the forestry sector maintains its social licence working alongside our communities. Angela Roberts: What's the significance of this announcement for rural communities? Hon PEENI HENARE: The devastation that unfolded at Te Tai Rāwhiti and Hawke's Bay during Cyclone Gabrielle was a stark reminder of what can happen if we get land-use settings wrong. Today's changes help us towards addressing the findings and recommendations of the recent ministerial inquiry into land use, and these changes are about getting the right tree in the right place for the right reason. I have seen fewer pine forests planted on high-productivity farmland and more pine forests being planted on less productive land. It is the view of this Government that we have got the balance right. This Government acknowledges that both farming and forestry have a bright future under this Government. Angela Roberts: How will this change benefit the environment? Hon PEENI HENARE: Climate change is here. Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry, otherwise known as the NES-PF, will see the environmental effects of carbon forests being managed the same way as plantation forests. This means many standards such as ensuring rules around riparian planting will now be required for any new forestry conversions, which will include carbon forests. We have heard and acted on the real concerns, especially from regions such as Te Tai Rāwhiti, Wairoa, and the Tararua district about the scale of exotic carbon forestry happening and the potential impact to the environment and on rural communities. Angela Roberts: How is this announcement being received around the country? Hon PEENI HENARE: On Wednesday last week, I attended Fieldays 2023 at Mystery Creek, where the general response to the announcement was very positive. In fact, in their words, we took the wind out of National's sails, and they're looking forward to National revisiting their policy on forestry— SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister ought to know that he can't use supplementaries to criticise the Opposition. Question No.11—Education 11. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of Education: Is she confident that the Government's early childhood education announcement on Monday has adequately responded to the concerns of the sector, who had previously described it as "unworkable", and, if so, why? Hon JO LUXTON (Associate Minister of Education): Yes, I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. They made clear that the funding condition of particular concern was the requirement for services to allow enrolment for only 20 early childhood hours if parents requested this. This has now been removed. Penny Simmonds: Is Early Childhood NZ chief executive Kathy Wolfe correct when she said of the Government's alleged solution on Monday that "their solution is partial and clear as mud.", and the sector needs "certainty not vagueness,"; if not, why is Ms Wolfe incorrect? Hon JO LUXTON: As I said in my answer to the first question, I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. At the second meeting, I asked them to clarify to me what the particular sticky issue for them was, and it was the requirement to enrol for 20 hours if requested by parents. They said that some of them already do publicly provide their fees, and they were willing to work with the ministry to allow greater transparency around that. So it was purely the 20 hours that was the main sticking point for them, and they confirmed this to me at the second meeting I attended. Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister understand that the 20 hours free policy has never worked for home-based early childhood education (ECE) providers, as it directly contradicts the role of an educator as a self-employed contractor and it leaves their income level not viable without optional charges? Hon JO LUXTON: I've also met with the home-based sector, who shared their concerns with me, and have asked officials to go away and do some work on that, which the Minister and I will be taking into consideration. Penny Simmonds: Why is the Minister ploughing on, imposing this ill-thought-through policy that 90 percent of the ECE sectors opposes, at a time the sector is chronically short-staffed, thousands of children are stuck on wait-lists, and many ECE providers are on the brink of closure? Hon JO LUXTON: This Government is committed to reducing financial pressures on families during this tough economic time and the way to do that was to reduce fees in the early childhood sector and reduce barriers to early childhood education. Question No. 12—Digital Economy and Communications 12. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What progress has been made on the Game Development Sector Rebate? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): This Government and the game development sector are gearing up to roll out the support of the announcement from Budget 2023. The Government is providing certainty to the growing and important game development sector with a $40 million per annum funding boost through the Budget. We're now shifting focus into delivering that scheme. Consultation on the scheme's design opened last week and closes on 6 July, with the scheme's outline expected to be announced by October and successful applicants receiving year 1 funding in mid-2024. I've also announced that NZ On Air has been selected to administer the scheme. It has considerable experience in administering contestable funds and has developed a good relationship with the game development sector. Glen Bennett: What support will the rebate provide the game development sector? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There will be good support in place for the gaming development sector. The scheme will provide a 20 percent rebate that is designed to help grow and retain game studios here in New Zealand, up to $40 million a year across the industry. Studios that meet that threshold will be able to receive up to $3 million a year in rebate funding. The scheme will be backdated to 1 April of this year, meaning that businesses will already be able to receive support. It will offer huge potential for our young people entering into the sector. I've been thrilled to see the strong responses from the game development sector to this investment and hear that this will enable them to grow further and contribute to our economy. Glen Bennett: What are the main design features in the consultation document? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government is proposing the rebate will apply to eligible expenditure on digital games that are intended for public release for entertainment or educational purposes. Eligible expenditure would include expenditure related to developing and commercialising digital games, research, game design, including adaptation to new platforms. Over the past few years, the Government has been working very closely alongside the gaming development sector as one of the key focus areas in the digital industry transformation plan. This consultation is yet another step in this process and I want to get good feedback from the sector on the detailed design of the new scheme so it sets us up for success. Glen Bennett: How important is the game development sector to New Zealand's economy? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Really important. New Zealand's game development sector is a small but fast-growing part of our tech sector, bringing in $400 million in revenue in 2022. Our firms enjoy international success—around 96 percent of the sector's output is exported. The digital economy and the digital technology sector contributed $7 billion in GDP in 2021 and since 2016 it has grown at twice the annual rate of the economy. As a Government, we are committed to making the best investments for the future of the economy and the game development sector rebate will help build the New Zealand we want for the future. That's a high wage, low emissions economy and one that has high skills, innovation, resilience, and sustainability. I'm looking forward to seeing the scheme progress and achieve the Government's ambitions of a promising new sector. URGENT DEBATES Oranga Tamariki—Allegations of Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour by Staff in Oranga Tamariki Residences SPEAKER: I have received letters from Karen Chhour and Jan Logie seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government's response to allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by staff towards young people in Oranga Tamariki residences. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Children in Oranga Tamariki residences are in a vulnerable position, and the State has a duty of care towards them. A potential failure of that duty, and the Government's response to it, warrants the attention of the House. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Hon Michael Wood—Resignation SPEAKER: I have also received letters from David Seymour and Christopher Luxon on the resignation of the Hon Michael Wood as a Minister. This is also a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. As Speaker, I have to decide which is the most urgent of the two requests, and I have considered that the Oranga Tamariki matter meets those criteria. However, I am prepared to consider the Wood resignation applications again tomorrow if parties would like me to do so. URGENT DEBATES Oranga Tamariki—Allegations of Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour by Staff in Oranga Tamariki Residences SPEAKER: Karen Chhour's letter was received first; therefore, I call on her to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. At 11 a.m., we were shocked with an emergency media stand-up from Oranga Tamariki to talk about an issue that has arisen. There were allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour from two staff members of Oranga Tamariki—this is just coming to light. These are two separate facilities, one facility is where children who have committed crimes are in a facility that should be protecting them from harming themselves or harming anybody else who is not safe, and then the other facility is a care and protection facility. The words "care" and "protection" become a bit of a joke when they are not being protected within that very facility. We have had so many incidences, since I've become an MP in this House, where Oranga Tamariki has come into a bad light with the way that they are running the organisation. We had humongous debates around watering down the oversight of Oranga Tamariki last year, and in September last year I stood up and I even had a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) for this very issue with youth justice facilities and facilities run by Oranga Tamariki. I had an SOP that I put forward and I asked for the Labour Government to accept that SOP that would allow somebody to go unannounced into a youth justice facility, or any organisation that was run by Oranga Tamariki, if a child felt they were not safe within that organisation and needed somebody there to represent them—and that SOP was shot down. We had two young people that sat and spilled their guts on national TV, begging this Government to make sure their children within youth justice facilities and Oranga Tamariki - run facilities were kept safe and had advocates that could come in and advocate for them. But we watered down that Oranga Tamariki oversight. We split it into three separate organisations and we said children would fall between these cracks, young people would fall between these cracks, and we're seeing it happen already. Where were the people that were supposed to protect these young people? Five young people so far have come forward to say that they have been inappropriately touched and inappropriate sexual behaviour has happened within these facilities—from what I can tell. You know, there's not much information right now, but this is a sign that Oranga Tamariki is not fit to run these facilities. They're even having to hand it over to somebody else now, because they're not fit to run these facilities. How can we call them "care and protection facilities" when we're not protecting these kids. They've been traumatised most of their life, probably; they've been put in a facility where we're meant to take care of them and provide them with the services and what they need, and we're traumatising them all over again. We had this argument last year—that children were not being listened to, children were not being heard, and children were being sent into places where they were not safe. They felt like they were not being heard, and now it's come to fruition. It's not that long ago that we were having this discussion, and nobody over in the Labour corner would listen to these young people. Nobody would listen to every other party in this House that said we're getting this wrong. And now we've got five children—that we know of—that have been harmed and hurt. I am so angry on behalf of these kids. We cannot take that harm back. We cannot fix this problem. We already had just finished an inquiry of abuse in care. We've pushed that inquiry report-back to next year. We haven't even finished apologising for past abuse, and the abuse is still happening. Apologies mean nothing if it is still happening. And nobody wants to stand up and actually take responsibility for this. These are children that rely on us. These are children that rely on us to protect them, and we are not doing it. Where were the people that were meant to be there for these kids, to say, "Hey, something's not right." Where were the social workers? Where were the counsellors? Where were the staff that were meant to protect these kids? If these facilities are overcrowded, if they are understaffed, why hasn't something been put in place to make sure that these kids are protected? These facilities are lock-up facilities with CCTV cameras. How is this happening? Why is nobody speaking up? And why has it taken so long for this to come out and for us to actually be able to debate this? We can't keep doing this. And I've stood in this House and said this on my very first day. I know I'll have to have these uncomfortable conversations, but I keep having these uncomfortable conversations—and it shouldn't be the case. We should be getting it right by now. How many millions of dollars have we spent on an inquiry into past abuse; have we not learnt? Have we not put processes in place to make sure this doesn't keep happening? To stand up and say "This is not good enough, it shouldn't have happened. We're going to have another inquiry." I'm sick of reading inquiries. They say the same thing over and over again for years, and nothing's changed. It's another generation that's so broken they can't be fixed. Where is the outrage for these kids? Where are the people that are standing up and saying, "This is not OK"? Because these kids need a voice and they need to be heard. I don't want to have to stand up here again and be apologising next year for the next five kids that haven't been protected—what are we doing? We need to get this right. We need to take the politics out of this and put the kids at the front, to work together—all parties—to make sure that we're not standing here in 20 years' time apologising for another 20 years of abuse in care, because I am not going to take responsibility for that. But this Government needs to take some responsibility for lightening the oversight of Oranga Tamariki a year ago and not taking it seriously enough. And now we're finding that the advocacy for these young people was not there. That's not their fault; it is partly the Government's fault for taking away that advocacy. It's OK to admit when you're wrong; what's not OK is to keep making excuses. I'll keep standing here if I have to, and yelling from the rooftops until not one more child is let down by an organisation that's meant to protect them. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): First of all, I'd like to say that nobody is making excuses. I found out on 8 June about the first instance of alleged inappropriate behaviour, Oranga Tamariki (OT) did address it, and then, just last Friday, I heard of the second instance. So Oranga Tamariki has said that the second instance shows a bit of a pattern and that we need to get to the bottom of this, and so the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki has appointed Mike Bush, a former Commissioner of Police, to act as deputy chief executive and to have authority over the Oranga Tamariki residences. This decision has been made in response to these serious allegations involving young people. Now, while the news of the allegations today is incredibly disappointing, appointing Mike to get to the bottom of these issues and ensure residences and community homes are safe is the right thing to do. It is the Government's expectation that children should feel safe and supported while in these facilities—no ifs or buts—and the Minister for Children has made that clear to Oranga Tamariki. Most staff are committed to just that, and it is frustrating and disappointing that a small number of individuals have overshadowed the work that Oranga Tamariki has done. But the safety of young people must always come first, and this move will ensure that. The two staff have been stood down immediately. As I said, the first instance I heard of on 8 June—that staff member was stood down immediately then, so I can't go any more into that because there is a police investigation. Mike Bush's first task will lead an independent rapid assessment across residences. This will then widen to all care and protection in community homes, as there are also wider issues including facility security and staff retention to consider. This will take four weeks. Focus will then shift to Mike Bush implementing a new operating model, building off work already under way. Shannon Pakura, a member of the Minister's advisory board and former chief social worker, will work alongside Mike Bush. All residence staff will be re-vetted during this process. This is common practice in New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections, but does not happen currently in Oranga Tamariki residences. These actions are the right thing to do, and the safety of the children must come first. The absolute priority is the safety and wellbeing of these tamariki. Oranga Tamariki residences should be safe, should be supportive, and should be rehabilitative places for some of New Zealand's most vulnerable young people. We are working hard to ensure the whānau of the young people at the centre of this are kept informed and included as we support police to complete their investigations. It is no secret that Oranga Tamariki residences have their problems. We know that there is a need for significant improvement, and that improvement needs to be led by someone who is coming in fresh but with significant experience, which is why Mike Bush has been appointed. Mike is here to make sure that all our residences are operating safely and that they are fit for purpose. We have legal obligations to maintain residences for young people who commit crimes. We are already working towards moving away from care and protection residences towards community-based care. The Government's expectation is that these places are safe, supportive, and rehabilitative, and we need to understand the full picture to understand what work is needed. As I've said, the allegations raised today are very concerning, and I am pleased that OT has acted swiftly to address them. There is significant work under way to transform Oranga Tamariki. It knows it has work to do, and myself, as the Minister for Children, I have made my expectations clear. We are starting to see the results, but it's not a fast or easy road, and we know children must come first. There will never ever be an urgent debate asked for to discuss the tens of thousands of children that Oranga Tamariki helps every single year to stay out of care. One area of change has been to start transferring decision making to communities. We know communities have the solutions. A key part of the change under way at Oranga Tamariki is to enable communities to support tamariki and rangatahi to stay with family wherever possible. Oranga Tamariki continues to make fundamental changes in its approach to practice to better meet the needs of children and families, and to allow social workers to work in complementary ways to iwi-, Māori-, and community-led approaches. Trials under way across the country to test out a new practice framework have been met with positive results and feedback from social workers, and there are early reports of whānau and communities noticing changes in the way social workers are working with them. Funding shifts have also begun to reflect this approach. Iwi and Māori organisations received $155 million last year, up from $55 million in 2017. Funding from recent Budgets has allowed Oranga Tamariki to be flexible and innovative in the partnerships space, setting up the foundations for transformational change. So far, nine prototypes across Waikato, Taumarunui, Ōtautahi, Te Tai Tokerau, and Heretaunga are participating in the Enabling Communities initiative. They are developing, planning, and leading their own prevention and early support prototype, rather than Oranga Tamariki making the decisions. Of the nine prototypes, six are at the stage where they are actively undertaking service design. Te Ara Mātua was launched in Hawke's Bay in April and is a Ngāti Kahungunu-led approach to provide support and care for tamariki and their whānau living in Te Matau-a-Māui. It is about putting resources and decision making at the hands of communities so they can lead the solutions for their tamariki and whānau. An example of this transformation is the prototype of the Enabling Communities work within Hawke's Bay. Te Ara Mātua aims to provide services and support to keep tamariki and their whānau out of the Oranga Tamariki system and to return those tamariki currently in the system to the protection of the whānau, hapū, and iwi. Under the korowai of Ngāti Kahungunu, whānau with lived experience of Oranga Tamariki continue to guide the design and the development of the model. OT is also working closely with other agencies, and we're making changes in the youth offending space. Late last year, the Government announced the "circuit-breaker" response to address serious repeat offending by a small group of children aged 10 to 13. The fast-tracked intervention means that when police apprehend a child, information must be shared with Oranga Tamariki within 24 hours and a plan for the child confirmed in 48 hours. Hopefully this will keep those young people out of residences. The fast track involves establishing local coordination teams working across Government, community organisations, and iwi, which take over receiving police referrals once set up. The response was launched in West Auckland and South Auckland, with an expansion to central Auckland, Hamilton, and Christchurch announced as part of this year's Budget. This evidence-based approach works. In South Auckland and West Auckland, only 26 percent of children have been re-referred by police. It is initiatives like this that will help transform the way we care for our children in need across the country. The Government is committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of tamariki across the country, both in and out of Oranga Tamariki residences. The decision Chappie Te Kani has made to appoint Mike Bush and get to the bottom of what's going on was the right one, but there is no quick fix. In 2022-23, Oranga Tamariki responded to over 50,000 reports of concern. Between the 2018 financial year and the 2022 financial year, the number of children in care reduced by 25 percent, from 6,316 to 4,722. We now have the lowest number of children and young people entering care since 2004—the lowest since the inception of Oranga Tamariki. In the last four years, the number of tamariki in care, as I've said, has reduced by over 25 percent. Between the 2018 financial year and the 2022 financial year, the number of uplifts has reduced by 73 percent, from 1,473 to 402. In the last five years, the total funding given to Māori providers increased by 168 percent, from $54.5 million to $146.1 million. [Interruption] They're asking what we have done. We have found out about the allegations. We have appointed Mike Bush to get to the bottom of these things. Now, they'd be sitting there screaming if nothing was done; the fact that something has been done immediately— Matt Doocey: Well, you haven't told us what you've done. Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, you didn't listen to the first half of the speech, and that's your problem. The National and the ACT Government established Oranga Tamariki, and it was failing right from the outset. It has taken me, as Minister, to actually start making the changes. It's taken me, as Minister, to start handing over resources and decision making to communities. Every single day—every single day—we were hearing complaints about Oranga Tamariki, and now that's dried up. That was dried up carefully, but there will be every now and then something like this, where a staff member lets the rest of the team down. But that party over there had no answers when they were in Government—absolutely no answers. They changed the system, but it failed. Christopher Luxon: Going political on a day like today? No, not good enough. Hon KELVIN DAVIS: "Mr Tesla" there—"Mr Tesla" is pointing the finger— SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Yeah, I'm going to make a ruling. When you're referring to another member in the House, you need to refer to them in their correct name. You can't have nicknames. Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I withdraw and apologise. This Government has been turning around what was a disgrace set up by the National Government in 2017. This Government—this Government—has reduced the numbers— Nicola Willis: On your watch—six years. Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —of offences. She can sit there screaming as much as she wants at me, but the reality is that Oranga Tamariki is a better organisation than it was under the National Government when they established it. The numbers I've just said about the reduced numbers of children entering care—that's evidence. Matt Doocey: This isn't about that. It's about when they are in care, how you keep them safe. Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is evidence—yeah, but the best way to care for children in residences is to make sure they don't get to the residences in the first place. But you are the Government that wants to arrest more and throw more people into residences, into prison. That's the problem—that is the problem. The more children you put in there, the worse things are going to be, not just now but into the future. It is a disgrace that the National Party is sitting there and they are saying that they can do things better when their history is about failing children— Nicola Willis: You failed them. Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —failing young people. Nicola Willis' party is the party that failed young people, and this is the party that is making the improvements to Oranga Tamariki. They can say what they want as much as they want. The reality is that their track record has been a record of failure in terms of protecting children. One final point I'd like to make: there has been a reference to the royal commission of inquiry and saying that we are repeating the things that have happened in the royal commission of inquiry. What happened over the 50 years of the royal commission of inquiry was systemic and it was enduring. This shows, because the incidents happened very recently, Oranga Tamariki has acted immediately. It shows that this is not systemic, this is not enduring, and this is not long-going. Oranga Tamariki has taken steps to get to the bottom of this problem, and that's what Mike Bush will do. I commend the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, Chappie Te Kani, for acting quickly, for acting swiftly to make sure that we get to the bottom of it and these sorts of things do not happen again. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am sure that every member in this House when the news broke this morning of five children in the care of the State being taken advantage of and sexually abused—your heart drops to the floor. But having been in the House and listened to the Minister responsible, I feel as if my heart has been ripped out, squashed, and torn apart, because not once did that Minister take responsibility. Not once. And not once did he apologise or show any inclination of the care and protection and the duty he has to every single child in a youth justice facility or in State care. Not once—not once. Instead, he turns around and makes the lowest form of defensive attack. And that's exactly what we saw. Instead, what we should have is humanity for those five children, and I am deeply concerned that there are others to come. And I want to say why I'm even more concerned about it—because the first thing the Minister said was he knew about it on 8 June. What's the date today? It's the 21st. How many sleeps have children in care been at risk because the Minister waited until the spin was lined up before being willing to be held accountable for his job, which is to protect—to protect—the children in State care? Now, I want to acknowledge my colleague Karen Chhour for her address to this House, because she more than anyone in this Chamber knows exactly what she is talking about, and for every child that has been in or is in State care, Oranga Tamariki has one job—one job—and that is to keep them safe from harm. Let's just for a moment have a think about those children. The Minister wants to crow about numbers. He wants to crow about the fact that there are fewer children in State care than there were when Labour came in. Actually, I don't care about the numbers. I care about those children being safe. So is it that they are safer because they have been taken into State care, or is that they are being safe while they are in State care? Both of those things matter—the numbers don't. The primary purpose has to be for Oranga Tamariki children's safety and their safety from harm. So it's about care and protection. It is crazy—the words "care and protection" is what the care and protection units are. I know there will be many New Zealanders who, like many on the side, feel absolutely crushed right now to know that we have a Minister for Children who doesn't see his top priority as the safety of children. And I want to reflect back on the work that Paula Bennett did. I went to multiple public meetings with the green paper, with the white paper. Some of my colleagues who were in Parliament at that time remembered how harrowing—how harrowing—those discussions were. That's what led to the creation of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. So these five children are the most vulnerable. And a child in State care, any child in a youth justice facility has a level of vulnerability that most of us cannot even imagine. And we know that there is a Minister who is responsible who spent most of his 15 minutes—well, a big chunk of it; the last five—attacking this side of the House—bizarre—and the majority of the rest of it talking about process and systems. No, Minister, we want to know and New Zealand wants to know that you have a heart, that you have a commitment, and that you take responsibility for the children who are in State care. But, unfortunately, some of this could have been predicted. When every party in Parliament other than Labour vehemently opposed changes to the oversight of Oranga Tamariki, unfortunately the writing was on the wall. But you do hope. You do hope that what you are most afraid of isn't realised. But that's what's happened. That's what happened on 8 June, when the Minister was first alerted. But no, we wait until the 21st, because then they've got their ducks lined up and they've got someone investigating and it makes it look as if they've got it under control. Well, guess what! They haven't got it under control. I have not heard that we have a Minister who is taking the care and protection of those children seriously, and I think that should be deeply, deeply alarming to New Zealanders. I want to reflect back on the oversight of Oranga Tamariki legislation. One of the organisations that was set up in Paula Bennett's time and then transferred to Anne Tolley was VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, to make sure that those children and young people who were care-experienced had a voice and that we made sure that they were at the heart of any changes to the system. Well, guess what! When the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system legislation was before Parliament, they were ignored. And so, unfortunately, what we have now seen is more harm to a group of children who are already incredibly vulnerable and who have experienced more in their short lifetimes than most of us will ever experience in our entire lifetimes. We have a duty of care of the highest level to those children, and so it is frustrating to be in the House today and to have heard completely and utterly empty words from the Minister. Not once did I get a glimpse of his heart and his care, and I want to just actually point out that the values of Oranga Tamariki are "We put tamariki first." I didn't hear that today. I didn't hear that in 15 minutes. Not once. So where are the priorities? The Minister for Children should focus on care and protection, and the first job—the first job—of the Minister for Children is to do no harm to the children in his care. I'll say that again. They are in his care. And whether there's 1,000 or 5,000 is irrelevant. Every single child counts and is owed a duty of care from the Minister, to the chief executive, to every single staff member. And when there is an issue, the expectation of those young people, of their families, of our communities, of our country is it will be dealt with urgency, not however many days later. And for those who have heard some of stories from the royal commission into the abuse in State care, they are harrowing. They are absolutely harrowing, and it is unacceptable to the public of New Zealand that harm continues to exist. So here we go again. Here we go again. We are focused on the children, but instead what happens? The Government uses it as an opportunity to attack. Not once did the Minister say sorry. Not once. The priority should be on each and every one of those children in State care, and whether they are in the care and protection units or whether they are in a youth justice facility is irrelevant. They deserve the highest level of care and protection. And under this Government yet again, it is an area Labour has failed to deliver to our most vulnerable. It is appalling and a disgrace. JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm finding this debate actually quite difficult to listen to, to be honest. I genuinely believe that this has been distressing news for everybody in this House. I recognise that it's unacceptable and a breach of the Crown's responsibilities to young people in our care and protection system, which includes youth justice, and that, actually, we all have a role in terms of that oversight. I want to be very clear that a harm to those children and to their whānau is a harm to all of us, and I want to communicate that to the people who caused this harm that we are standing with those children while due process, of course, is followed. I really just want to say my love to those kids and their families, because this is a really, really hard time. I also want to acknowledge that this will be a really triggering event for people who have been submitting to the royal commission, who have been telling us really clearly that they are standing up and sharing their stories to prevent this happening to any more kids. Our words in this discussion matter in terms of the message that we are sending to everybody who is being impacted right now and historically. I just wish we could ensure that our kids were safe. It's our job to do that, right? When they've been removed from unsafe environments into our care, it's our job to make sure that they are safe. And this isn't the first time—I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour and her impassioned speech and acknowledging that we've all been part of this debate more than once. I have been part of this debate with different parties in Government. This is not the first time, but every time I want it to be the last time, because I do not want our kids to have to keep experiencing this. And while one case of violence in a residence is too many, there has been a pattern of abuse in youth justice residences. And, you know, today, we're finding out about five children who've been abused by Oranga Tamariki staff working in youth justice and care protection residences at two different residences within the last year. That is my understanding of what we know at the moment. In 2021, we found out that staff were using excessive force and assaulting children at Te Oranga in Christchurch, which resulted in Sir Wira Gardiner, who was head of Oranga Tamariki at that time, closing the facility down and details from an Office of the Children's Commissioner report into Palmerston North youth justice home Te Au rere a te Tonga showed young residents had made serious allegations and complaints about staff there, too, including disproportionate excessive force during restraints; inciting young people to fight with staff members; bullying, swearing, humiliating, and yelling at young people; hitting them in secure units and their bedrooms. So this is all within recent times. We know that part of the problem is the set-up of these institutions that are legacy institutions and that the incredibly vulnerable young people and they may be young people who have been removed from homes for their safety or from young people—who we so often hear vilified in this House as being a risk to others; usually there is significant overlap of those young offenders who go into youth justice residences almost always have histories of abuse where they have been taught their violence as an essential way of trying to survive in a very violent world—that we also have responsibility for. And you put those young people into residences, away from connection and community and external eyes. We know from international evidence that there is a higher risk of people going to work in those places, actually, without really strong protections in place, there is a higher potential for abuse of power and for violence being done to those children. It was pleasing to hear that we were going to be closing these residences. I do have questions that I do need answered at some point because, you know, almost—in 2021, I had a conversation with the Minister about the closing of those residencies and the time frame for that and an acknowledgment that those residencies are really badly designed and problematic and a safety risk in themselves. We are seeing that that work—I really want to know what actions been have taken to provide more supervision, oversight, and support for staff working in those residences and what investment, if any, has been made into those youth justice residences to make them safer and to enhance the wellbeing of children there. Because the reports from Treasury last year indicated that there was an under spend of 43 percent of Budget 2019 funding for youth justice resilience upgrades. It may seem like I'm talking about something other than the immediate safety of those children, but the design of those buildings actually can enable abuse or they can protect against it. So those upgrades are an important part of this conversation and there does need to be direct accountability for that as there is accountability in terms of investigating of these. We've also heard that Judge Eivers, the Children's Commissioner, said that events under investigation came to light from an unannounced visit to her office. I really want to know if this is true, and, if yes, what does this say about our system of protection for young people that they have to go to the Office of the Children's Commissioner to report rather than other members of or managers in those residences? Because that when I think on that too much, it just really, honestly, disturbs me that these kids who were experiencing this harm did not feel that anybody in those residences would protect them. That that is disturbing to me, and I hope that that is a part of the investigation about actually what do we need to do to ensure that all of those people are seen as safe people for our young people if something happens. It also speaks to an issue that has been raised about the opposition to the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill and that splintering of oversight and the removal of the multiple roles of protection from the Office of the Children's Commissioner. I think the fact that these young people went to the Children's Commissioner is another evidence to me of why we were opposing that bill, because, actually, the Children's Commissioner, again and again, we've been told is trusted by whānau and our kids. We've seen here, if we are to ensure that there's a protection and a backup and that we do not ever get into a situation where the royal commission is examining at the moment of the failure to protect and take action when harm has been done, we need trusted people and we need our system to be set up around the people that our children tell us they trust, that our whānau tell us they trust. And so this feels to me as if it is more evidence about us needing to relook at that policy. I also want to know whether the claims of sexual violence experienced by young people within residences are filtering up through the system and what the process for that is and where in the Oranga Tamariki future direction planned actions which will prevent and eliminate sexual violence and physical violence within the residences—because we need it. And I don't accept that this should continue. I do not accept, either, that the Government is showing they don't care, because there actually was a response, and I do want to acknowledge that—the royal commission told us that that hasn't been happening. We need it, but we need all of the questions to be answered and for all of us to be accountable. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It gives me no pleasure to stand today to talk on this matter. I want to first of all acknowledge Karen Chhour for the mamae that she has brought to this House today, for the pain and the distress that I heard in her voice, and also for all of us here who are experiencing that because no one—let me be 100 percent clear—ever wants a child to be harmed. No one ever, ever wants a child to be harmed. I want to also acknowledge Jan Logie for her speech as well. I think it was reasoned and I think it brought some more decorum to the House at a time that I think we need to not play politics. This is a serious matter—five children—and we need to, quite simply, acknowledge that this has happened, to ensure that it never happens again, and in that circumstance what I have to say is that I am very pleased that Mike Bush has been appointed and will be working through this process. There is a process to be worked through. It is serious. I understand the children, the young people at the heart of this have been given support to deal with this matter. Something they should never have had to deal with, but I understand there has been wraparound support services for those children. I also understand that Mike Bush is doing a wide-ranging inquiry into this matter. I also understand, and my apologies, I was not aware of the circumstance until the debate was called, so my understanding is that it was actually two staff members who whistle-blew this matter, who actually raised issues and concerns about their work colleagues, and that was how this matter was raised and identified. We all want to ensure the safety of children. We all want to make sure that children are safe and there are, as boring and unfortunate as it sounds, there must be policies, procedures, and processes that are set in place in these organisations that ensure our children are safe. I can't say it any more plainly than that. There must be systems in place, and I have to say that in this instance it appears very much so that they were not, and I am incredibly sorry for that. And I know that we all are incredibly sorry for that. I want to also just acknowledge that these places that we put these young people are not places that we would want any of our children to go. These are not the places that we should aspire for our children to end up. The Minister spoke today about the things that we are doing with Oranga Tamariki, the community response that we are having. It is my hope, in the future, that we don't have youth justice facilities for our young people and that we don't have these facilities where these young people are put. But it is community that uplifts and wraps around our children and protects them, and it is a community response that we have as opposed to the State needing to intervene. And so I do say that I am so very sorry that I am here as the member Jan Logie said, speaking again on a matter of this nature, but I think that we need quite simply to do better and that we should do better. There is nothing more to say, quite frankly, except that this House, and I believe I speak on behalf of all members of this House, are incredibly sorry that this has happened to these children, to their whānau, and to our community, and I ask that we, each and every one of us, respond in a way that is fitting for the House at a time when this awful event has occurred. HARETE HIPANGO (National): First of all, Mr Speaker, I acknowledge you for allowing the House to address this under urgent debate; recognising the importance of this and the priority that not just this House, but New Zealand and New Zealanders must give to the importance of the care and protection of all of our children—but most especially our children who are the most vulnerable, who have been abused, traumatised, damaged, institutionalised and put into the care of the State. We've heard today that the State has failed in its duty of care to five vulnerable, abused, traumatised, and damaged children. They aren't the first—the question is, will they be the last? Mr Speaker, I acknowledge you for the dignity that you have allowed the importance of this debate to be addressed and raised in the House under urgency. Like the former speaker, Angie Warren-Clark, I heard of this news belatedly. A number of us have been in the Social Services and Community Committee since early this morning, and it was on leaving that that news broke and we became aware of this event, and that these allegations that the Minister for Children disclosed in the House today came to his knowledge on 8 June: this month; this year. According to the news media reports, Chappie Te Kani, the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, has said that ion Wednesday, two staff members have been removed in relation to the alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour. And it's reported that he said the allegations, which he was informed of in the past week—in the past week—yet we have a Minister for Children disclosing in the House that he became aware of these allegations on 8 June 2023; today is 21 June 2023. I pose the question: will this be the last time that our most vulnerable, who are placed into the care and protection of the State to care and protect them? Will this be the last time? On 30 June 2021, the then chief executive, Sir Wira Gardiner, commenced an investigation into excessive force in youth justice residences, and here we are, two years later, almost to the day—there are further victims of abuse in our State agency. I'm particularly perturbed—it's not just significantly important and it's not just five children who have been subjected to further abuse. I know, and a number of us know, that these kids go into these institutions because they have been damaged. Having been a youth advocate, going into those institutions and working alongside our children, I know the trauma that many of them have suffered before going into the very place that should provide that blanket of protection for them. But I am seriously concerned and perturbed that we have a Minister for Children standing in this House, devoid of compassion for those children, pointing the finger across the House, playing the politics. The politics must be taken out of this, and the priority has to be about how we collectively—not just as a Parliament, but as a society, as New Zealanders—put the priority and shift the culture of our country to cherish our children; tiaki our tamariki. They are taonga; why are they continually subjected to this ongoing culture of being treated as second- and third- class citizens? Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing and indulging us the opportunity to raise and to lift the importance of this issue under this debate of urgency. Distressing; appalling; repugnant; repulsive; abusive; despicable. And I speak not just as a member of Parliament, I speak not just as a former youth justice advocate, I speak as a mother, and if that was one of my children—but they are the children of five whānau, of a community; they are children that were in the State care and protection, and this continues to happen. Had it not been for the Children's Commissioner having the power and authority to visit unannounced into a youth justice residence—or residences, it's not known how many; it is known that there are five children where allegations have been made and disclosed as a result of the Children's Commission Office going in unannounced, conducting inquiries and investigations. I look over and I see my colleague, Matt Doocey, spokesperson for mental health. I know as a former district inspector of mental health, having the power and the authority to go in to these institutions unannounced, to conduct investigations and inquiries is so very important to keep the balance of power there, because we have people, we have children in these institutions where they are powerless. They are in the protection—supposedly—of the State, of the authority; all the more reason that the Minister for Children should be acting with a measure of compassion, a measure of care, a measure of articulating that the State has a responsibility and duty of care and a legal responsibility to ensure our children are protected. Instead, I bore witness—along with everybody else in this House and those who are watching from the TV world—to a Minister who stood there and pointed the finger across the House. Where is the compassion in that? Where is the accountability? Where is the acceptance of responsibility? A Minister is in that position, irrespective of which Government or which party. Let's take the politics out of this and position and put our children at the forefront. We had legislation in this House earlier this year and last year, called the Oversight of the Oranga Tamariki System—Act—it now is. This Government has failed to act in putting the priority, in putting the best interests and welfare of our children at the front, first, and foremost. And I continue to advocate in this House, as I've always done, on child welfare legislation or bills proposed in this House that the Government has overlooked. It has had oversight and put its politics before the welfare, the best interests, the paramountcy of those principles and legal responsibilities for our children. What must come out of this is accountability, and for this Government—for the Minister for Children—to stop standing there pointing the finger and remonstrating and saying "we need to look inwards; we need to make things better." In closing, Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to debate this, because it is urgent; it is a priority, and we collectively, as parliamentarians, must ensure that the welfare, best interests, care, and protection of all children—but especially those who are in the State institutions of care—are first, front, and foremost protected and cared for. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I open, this afternoon, by acknowledging the situation that has happened. It is a national travesty when our tamariki aren't protected within a system that we all collectively in this House are trying to improve. I reflect on the debate this afternoon and, while I think you do a wonderful job in this House, it must be a difficult decision at times whether a debate in this House on such a topic, one that is so sensitive, is the best way to air the challenges and issues at hand. I reflect— SPEAKER: You shouldn't bring me into the debate. SHANAN HALBERT: And I reflect on the contributions in this House today and ask ourselves: is this the best contribution that we can make as politicians when we think about the future of our tamariki, when we think about the future of Oranga Tamariki, and an issue that over generations and decades this country has tried to resolve? I've listened to the contributions from across the room this afternoon, and I ask every politician in this House to take a step back, to humble ourselves for just a moment, albeit the political excitement of the day. I hear from across the House calling out a Minister for pointing his finger. Yet, at that part of his speech, 11 minutes into it—11 minutes—the Opposition had shouted over him; had shouted over him, acknowledging the issue, talking about what action had been taken by Oranga Tamariki on a very, very serious allegation. Politicians in this House did not listen, and I am going to hold you to account for that. If you want to hear an answer, if you want to hear an explanation, then as politicians we have to listen in this House. We must listen, because, on such national travesty in this country, collectively we've got to work together to address it. I hold the Opposition to account when they were the Government. They didn't deliver for these tamariki—they did not deliver for these tamariki. And, no, we haven't got everything right, but the steps that we have made while in Government are progressive. When I went to visit a youth justice home, just last week, in my electorate, I met with young people, met with people who are doing work to get our rangatahi on the right pathway—people that see them as Māori, people that see them as Pasifika, people that see them for who they are, not people that the Opposition is encouraging to be colour-blind. We want our tamariki to be who they are, but, most of all, we want them to be protected. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge all the staff that are working at Oranga Tamariki—that, collectively, take ownership of protecting our tamariki in their care—every person that works with young people in this country, in our youth justice system, that works and strives and slogs their guts out to protect every young person that is in State care. And absolutely there is more work to do, but anyone in this House that thinks this is easy or wants to run down the staff of Oranga Tamariki is inappropriate. Harete Hipango, you need to listen to people's speeches, because the Opposition ran down staff. I want to acknowledge every staff member that supports children and rangatahi in State care, because they are the people that matter. Our young people and our children rely on them. Let's work together. Let's humble ourselves. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I have a lot of respect for Shanan Halbert— Harete Hipango: Shanan, me whakamā koe [you should be ashamed]. Shanan Halbert: Kei a koe. Kei a koe. Whakarongo ki te kōrero. [That's up to you. That's up to you. Listen to the statement.] SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt. This is not question time, OK. Members who have spoken in this debate about the volume and the type of interjections and then participate in it, should think again about it. MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I have a lot of respect for Shanan Halbert, but I must say he is better than that, and he will regret that speech on Hansard. That was absolutely appalling, and a common theme of the Government speakers in this urgent debate this afternoon. I'd like to start by acknowledging Karen Chhour for bringing this urgent debate to the House. What is more important of Parliament's time to be highlighting an issue that we learnt about today. Because the reality is these young people are our young people. As a parent, we do not know what's ahead of us in our lives. Any of our young people through unfortunate life experiences can end up in State care, and it's paramount that Parliament, and that the Government, and that State make sure that their best interests are at heart. And that's why it's important today that we have this urgent debate. Because in my view the importance of an urgent debate is to ensure New Zealanders that this issue is being taken seriously—there is accountability, there is responsibility, that we give this country confidence that issues like this are being addressed, and we work hard to ensure that they're prevented from happening again. So here we had the Minister responsible—and let's be very clear because it will be recorded on Hansard—that during a time that he was there to assure the public, to give them confidence that he understood the issues that we are debating today, and he was taking action and being accountable and responsible, he took the opportunity to take political hotshots—wanted to raise the political issue of maybe the Leader of the Opposition potentially buying a Tesla under the Clean Car Discount. Harete Hipango: Despicable. MATT DOOCEY: Disgusting. Indefensible that the Minister responsible took the opportunity to take the time off the eye off the ball of this debate to get into the weeds, and get into the gutter of political hotshots. Because what this urgent debate has shown today is that Minister has absolutely failed his Ministerial role. He gives the young people in Oranga Tamariki care—he gives actually the staff in Oranga Tamariki care absolutely no confidence in his Ministerial responsibility and accountability. It was his time as a Minister to step up and let people of New Zealand know that he understood the issues. Go back to that speech and tell me, where was the compassion? Where was the understanding? Where did he demonstrate that he knew what was happening on the ground for those young people? Where did the Minister articulate the actions that he had taken? He was very quick to talk about expectations but didn't outline what expectations he has. When did he talk about what instructions he had given the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki? Nothing. Where was the plan going forward? This is the role of an urgent debate, to highlight an issue. For the people responsible to step up, be held to account, and give New Zealanders confidence that this is being prevented from happening in the future. Because there is real concern here today. We learn of inappropriate sexual behaviour for two young people, but we find out over the year: five young people. This is concerning, yet we had a Minister get up, show no real compassion to the issue, and then read a script out from the bureaucrats. Mr Speaker, those young people deserve better. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour): It is everybody's expectation that every child and young person in the care of Oranga Tamariki should be safe, should feel safe, and be supported. I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour, who brought this urgent debate to the House, but I want to take this opportunity to cover three things. One, I will talk about the people that are involved; secondly, the steps that have taken place; and, third, learn from these experiences. I have worked in Oranga Tamariki for quite some time—30 years—as a social worker, as a supervisor of social workers, as a youth justice manager, as an adviser, and I found myself here in 2017. The process, the people involved—so I want to acknowledge the young people and their families who are involved. I want to acknowledge the staff who saw that something wasn't quite right and reported it. Incidents that happen like this involve interviewing the young people along with the police, because it then becomes an evidential police interview. So I want to acknowledge everyone that is involved—the staff, the social workers that have to inform the parents that this has happened. I want to acknowledge all the residents. Even though five young people have been identified as being affected, even though there were five, two staff members, the whole residents, the whole community are affected. Every one of those people who started work last week, today, last month, last year has the same expectation as we all have, that every child and young person in their care should feel safe, be safe, and supported. I want to acknowledge the leadership that has taken the steps that have been taken so far. The former commissioner, Mike Bush, I met him when he was leading the Prevention First programme in South Auckland, which led to the whole of the changes in the Police. I want to acknowledge the leadership that have chosen the right people to look at this because, as I mentioned before, police and Oranga Tamariki have to work together and have been working together. I want to acknowledge the former chief social worker, Shannon Pakura, who is working alongside Mike Bush to get to a place that we can identify without all these emotions that we hear in the House, who can actually take a clear head and come back to the fact that children should be safe and should feel safe when in the care of the State. We've listened to all the experiences in this House and from the member herself, Karen Chhour, and to former lawyers. We've listened to everybody's contribution in this House. But we will take comfort that the people who are now in charge of reviewing the residences have been given a time frame of four to six weeks to begin implementing any outcomes they get from this review. I want to acknowledge that I take peace from that. But I go back to the first part of my contribution about the young people, about the people involved in the residences, the young people that will be interviewed by more than one person, will be interviewed by an evidential video interviewer. Well, that's what happened when I was last in Oranga Tamariki in 2017. I want to acknowledge the families who received the news that this has happened to their young people, because they, just like us, expect their children to be safe. I want to acknowledge the staff who are involved in this, their supervisors. I pray that they have the right guidance to be able to support their staff so that they're able to serve the children and young people in their care. Social work is a calling and those in this profession do not for one minute start the day thinking that they would be harming children. In the rare moments that—we are now receiving—this has happened, I just want to acknowledge the spirit that these staff are in when they attend work, that they go to work and that they're fully supported. For our children and young people to feel safe and be safe in the care of Oranga Tamariki, we must also make sure that the staff providing the services feel safe and are supported. What I've seen today from the chief social worker, Chappie Te Kani, the steps that he has taken, he has chosen the right people to lead this—Mike Bush, Shannon Pakura—and they have made every intention in what we've read in the media that they're going to consult everybody who needs to be consulted. I want to end my speech saying that I'm comforted in reading what the chief executive had said, that he has provided the support to ensure that the young people in care feel safe and are being provided with the right support. Again, I want to acknowledge and thank Karen Chhour for bringing this matter for urgent debate in the House, and acknowledge every young person, child and young person that's been taken into care, has been removed from their family. I, as a person who has never had to be removed from my family will never understand that. I want to say that I will never understand it, but we will try our best to do that. As I started my speech, like everybody in this House and like all of New Zealand, we expect our children, young people who are in the care of the State, Oranga Tamariki, to feel safe and be safe and be supported. I look forward to the review by Mike Bush and supported by Shannon Pakura. Mālō 'aupito. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to now move to Government order of the day No. 1, the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill, and that this be followed by the general debate, and for the House to then return to Government orders of the day as listed in the Order Paper. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There appears to be none. NGĀTI PAOA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL First Reading Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Tākiri mai ana te ata ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi, kōrihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauri ora. E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tatou. Tēnei au, tēnei mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi ana ki te kaupapa o te wā. Ngāti Paoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. [Dawn breaks upon a resolute heart, the bird chorus of this issue now sings, a new dawn leads to the full light of day. Vitality and health to all. Thanks and greetings to you all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed, may you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all. I, indeed we the Government acknowledge the present issue. Ngāti Paoa, greetings and thanks to you, indeed to us all.] It was just over two years ago that I was welcomed on to Wharekawa Marae in Kaiaua to sign the Ngāti Paoa deed of settlement. I'm very pleased that this settlement is now making progress through that House and that I'm able to speak in support of this bill today at its first reading. I'd like to welcome members of Ngāti Paoa who have travelled to be present at Parliament for this occasion of the first reading of their bill. And it has been my great pleasure to host you here today. I'd like to begin by acknowledging and paying tribute to the generations of Ngāti Paoa who have sought justice for their people and the many members of Ngāti Paoa who have passed away and could not witness today's event. In particular, I pay tribute to Morehu Wilson, a negotiator from Ngāti Paoa who, alongside his close friend and whanaunga, Hauāuru Eugene Rawiri, led this settlement until he sadly passed away after deed signing. I acknowledge Morehu's whānau, in particular his wife Louise and sons Caleb and Josh. Moe mai rā, e te rangatira. [Rest in peace, noble leader.] I also want to acknowledge the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust as the post-settlement governance entity for Ngāti Paoa, who have been entrusted with taking this settlement forward on behalf of the iwi to realise their aspirations for the future. On the Crown's side, I acknowledge the leadership of the chief Crown negotiators, Michael Dreaver and the Hon Rick Barker. I acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for his significant contribution to the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement. I also want to thank my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies, and local authorities for the support that they have given to this agreement, to this settlement, and, indeed, to this day. Negotiations with Ngāti Paoa began in 2011, when iwi members gave a mandate to negotiators to progress a comprehensive historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement with the Crown on behalf of Ngāti Paoa. An agreement in principle was reached in July 2011. Following approval by Ngāti Paoa iwi members, the Ngāti Paoa deed of settlement was signed in March 2021. Reaching this milestone hasn't been without its many challenges. Ngāti Paoa, you have demonstrated perseverance and much patience on this difficult journey. In 1840, Ngāti Paoa rangatira signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—in Tāmaki Makaurau and Coromandel. In those years Ngāti Paoa saw opportunities to trade with Pākehā, and, after Auckland was established as the capital in 1841, Ngāti Paoa supplied that settlement with produce. However, the Crown didn't live up to its obligations under the Treaty nor the promises of that sacred document. From as early as 1841, the Crown acquired Ngāti Paoa land without payment, did not set aside reserves for Ngāti Paoa to live on, and did not fulfil promises to set aside lands for schools and hospitals. During the wars of the 1860s, the Crown invaded Ngāti Paoa lands. In 1863, the Crown caused the death of Ngāti Paoa people when the HMS Miranda shelled the village of Pūkorokoro and Crown forces attacked a number of Ngāti Paoa people without warning. Following the conflict, the Crown confiscated lands in which Ngāti Paoa had interests in the Waikato, east Wairoa, and the Tauranga confiscation district. Subsequent Crown land acquisition, the operation and effects of the native land laws, and public works takings led to the alienation of much of Ngāti Paoa's remaining land, mounga, and awa, and the destruction of pā and wāhi tapu. Crown actions severed connections with ancestral whenua and left Ngāti Paoa virtually landless. A decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori contributed to a loss of Ngāti Paoa mātauranga. That responsibility for those things sits at the feet of the Crown. This settlement is grounded in the Crown's acknowledgment of this history and the Crown's apology for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill will give effect to the Ngāti Paoa settlement package. This settlement includes total financial and commercial redress of $23.5 million; cultural redress, including the return of 12 sites of traditional historical and cultural significance to Ngāti Paoa; an overlay classification which acknowledges the traditional cultural, spiritual, and historical association of Ngāti Paoa with certain sites of significance; agreements with a number of Crown agencies; and statements of association acknowledging Ngāti Paoa's association with and asserting spiritual, cultural, historical, and traditional values in relation to 13 areas of significance to Ngāti Paoa. While no settlement can ever fully compensate for the injustices Ngāti Paoa has experienced, today marks a new beginning in the restoration of the relationship between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown based on mutual trust, cooperation, and partnership. I sincerely hope that this settlement will support a prosperous future for Ngāti Paoa for many generations to come. I propose the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is a pleasure to rise as the Opposition's spokesperson for Treaty negotiations to speak on this bill. My apologies to those in the gallery that I wasn't able to meet earlier, there was fog in the South Island, which delayed me getting here until a very short time ago, but I'm pleased that I'm able to be here now for this auspicious occasion. The Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill is intended to be the final settlement of all historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Paoa resulting from Acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992, and is made up of a package that includes an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments which form the basis of a Crown apology to Ngāti Paoa—cultural redress, including the vesting of 12 sites in the Ngāti Paoa area of interest, financial redress of a total of $23.5 million, and a commercial redress involving the purchase of some Crown properties. Ngāti Paoa are a maritime people who trace their origins to the Te Arawa and Tainui waka. Their area of interest includes Mahurangi, Tāmaki Makaurau, the Hauraki Plains and Gulf Islands, and parts of the Waikato. The 2018 census estimated that Ngāti Paoa had 4,800 members. Back in 2009, the Crown proposed a regional approach to four Treaty settlements to iwi and hapū, including Ngāti Paoa, with interests in the Kaipara, Tāmaki Makaurau, and Hauraki regions—and I want to acknowledge the work done is that of the Minister before me, the Hon Christopher Finlayson; the work that was done previously, over different terms of Government to come to this moment we are here at today. I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little, who has also done a lot of work to get this bill to where it is today, and the officials, Crown agencies, local authorities, and of course Ngāti Paoa—all the members. It is a big moment for them today. Between 2009 and May 2010, the Ngāti Paoa claimants elected two interim negotiators to enter into Treaty settlement negotiations on their behalf. In 2011, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board to negotiate the settlement of their historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Paoa. The Tāmaki and Hauraki collectives were established with the purpose of negotiating collective redress, their shared interests in Tāmaki Makaurau and the Hauraki regions, respectively. The third collective, the Marutūāhu collective, was also established to negotiate collective redress in Tāmaki Makaurau for the shared interests of five of the 12 iwi of Hauraki. In 2012, the Crown and Tāmaki collective signed the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Deed; and in 2018, the Crown and four of the five Marutūāhu iwi initialled the Marutūāhu Iwi Collective Redress Deed. The purpose of this bill is to recognise that in 1840 a number of rangatira of Ngāti Paoa signed the Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, and Tāmaki Makaurau and the Coromandel, after Auckland was established as the capital in 1841, Ngāti Paoa supplied that settlement with produce. In 1841, the Crown purchased 6,000 acres at Kohimarama and 220,000 acres at Mahurangi and Omaha from Ngāti Paoa and other iwi. No reserves were made in those lands. In the 1840s and 1850s, the Crown retained approximately 90,000 acres of land in which Ngāti Paoa had interests as surplus from pre-Treaty transactions and pre-emption waiver transactions. This included approximately 78,000 acres in South Tāmaki, which had been purchased by a missionary in 1836 and 1837. In July 1863, the Crown invaded the Waikato when its forces crossed the Mangatāwhiri. Some Ngāti Paoa rangatira expressed their loyalty to the Crown and other Ngāti Paoa resisted the occupation of their lands. In October 1863, the HMS Miranda shelled the Ngāti Paoa village Pūkorokoro, and in December, a Crown militia made a surprise attack on a group of 40 to 50 Māori, including some Ngāti Paoa, near Paparata in East Wairoa. In December 1864, the Crown proclaimed confiscation blocks in Waikato and Pokeno, and in East Wairoa in January 1865. Ngāti Paoa had interests in the 51,000-acre East Wairoa confiscation block and in the Central Waikato confiscation district which included Maramarua and Pūkorokoro. The confiscated lands included Kohukohunui and Rataroa, Ngāti Paoa's sacred maunga. No land was returned to Ngāti Paoa in that confiscation block. Between April and June 1864, the Crown conducted military operations against Māori in Tauranga Moana. After the conflict ended, the Crown proclaimed a confiscation district of 214,000 acres, and in 1868, a further 76,000 acres were added to that district. Ngāti Paoa had interests in lands which were included in the confiscation district. In 1865, the Crown promoted legislation which introduced the native land laws, under which title much Māori land was individualised. The individualisation of title made Ngāti Paoa lands more susceptible to alienation. Much of their land on Waiheke and on the Wharekawa Coast was sold to private purchasers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Crown purchasing activity from the 1870s also led to the alienation of much of Ngāti Paoa's land, including 45,000 acres at Piako. Over the course of the 20th century, almost all of Ngāti Paoa's remaining land was alienated to private purchasers and the Crown. Some land was taken under the Public Works Act. Those public work takings sometimes resulted in the destruction of pā and wāhi tapu. In 1908, the Crown authorised a project to drain and develop the Hauraki wetlands. Over the following decades, the Crown altered the waterways, drowned the wetlands, and changed the course of the Waihou and Piako rivers. By the end of the 20th century, only 27 percent of Ngāti Paoa spoke Te Reo Māori. The decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori contributed to a loss of Ngāti Paoa mātauranga Māori. In the 20th and 21st centuries, Ngāti Paoa generally experienced poorer health, including lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality. Ngāti Paoa also experienced higher unemployment than the general population, and a lower median annual income. This bill cannot solve all of those things that have happened in the past. What they can do, though, is return to Ngāti Paoa the relationship between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown, which is incredibly important. Return to them the acknowledgment of their mana, and return a future for their children and those who come after who we all want to have a better life. I do acknowledge there have been some who have contacted me, as others, with some concerns about this bill. They will have an opportunity at the select committee hearing to voice those concerns and they will be given a fair hearing at that point. So with that, I support this bill at this first reading and I commend the bill to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tuia ki te rangi, tuia ki te papa, tuia te ira atua, te ira tangata. Ka rongo te pō, ka rongo te ao, Paoa ki uta, Paoa ki tai. Kia pono, kia tika, kia aroha, kia tau iho mai ngā manaakitanga ki runga i a tātou. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e. Tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou, ngā uri o Ngāti Paoa i te Whare, te Whare o tātou. [Bind the heavens and the earth, bind divinity and humanity. It is heard by night and by day, Paoa on the land, Paoa at sea. Be honest, be fair, be compassionate, so that we are safe and protected. It coalesces, it comes together, it is done. Greetings to all of you. Warm regard to you, the descendants of Ngāti Paoa in the House, this House of ours.] It is my privilege to stand and to mihi to Ngāti Paoa, who are in the gallery today, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. It is that committee that will begin this important process of examining this bill, of hearing from submitters about their concerns around it and about the specific parts of it which give effect to the Ngāti Paoa settlement deed, but most of all—and the privilege of being a member of that committee—hearing about the aspirations and the hopes of generations to come of Ngāti Paoa who will benefit from this settlement. I began with that takutaku, which acknowledges first the canoe of Ngāti Paoa, Kotūiti. It provides the conceptual framework for the deed of settlement which this legislation gives effect to, and it's been a long time coming. These negotiations have been going on for many, many years, and before that they have a complex history, which always should have been acknowledged. As an Aucklander, may I say that I am glad that we have a piece of legislation here which acknowledges the complexity, the overlapping interests, and the depth of history in Tāmaki-makau-rau and those other regions that Ngāti Paoa has an interest in. I look forward to examining those interests in the committee, as my colleague Joseph Mooney across the House has alluded to. But for today, can we say that those interests that Ngāti Paoa has in Tāmaki-makau-rau needed always to be acknowledged by the Crown, and in this piece of legislation they are given their mana and they are given acknowledgment, and in the shared history that will become law, may we acknowledge those associations that your tūpuna have had with our whenua. I want to acknowledge some of the people who have been involved in this. The Minister was right to first acknowledge Morehu Wilson, the negotiator who, very sadly, we lost before the passing of this legislation. Can I also acknowledge others who have contributed much to this work, including Hauaru Rawiri—thank you for your contribution. It is a contribution that will be felt by generations of not only your uri but those who live in Auckland, in Tauranga, and in the islands who will benefit from the contribution to public life that Ngāti Paoa has to give. Can I also acknowledge the newly elected trustees since September 2022, and I will name you: chair Herearoha Francis Skipper, deputy chair Mihingarangi Forbes—kia ora kōrua—and councillors Kerrin Leone, James Ratahi, Tania Tarawa, Tui Tawera, and Mystique Townsend. What an all-star cast of governors who have been elected to the trust board, and can I say that I look forward to watching Ngāti Paoa's developments that come from the ability, with this settlement legislation, to develop those regional relationships that you need to advance the interests of the iwi within the North Island. May I also offer congratulations for the developments and the new office and Panmure ō Mokoia, where on that whenua, in 1780, the chiefs Te Putu, Ngaro ki te Uru, Rongomaurikura, and Nohowaka established themselves on the Tāmaki River. Those are important sites for all Aucklanders, but it seems just and right to me that Ngāti Paoa should have a base there in which to conduct its operations in Auckland. All Aucklanders can be proud of that and proud of the achievements that are to come from the office. I wanted also to touch on, for the House's interest, the settlement negotiation history that it has taken to come to this point. My colleague Joseph Mooney began by talking about June 2009, when the Crown proposed a regional approach to Treaty settlements in Tāmaki-makau-rau, but, as you all know, the work has gone on for much longer than that. When we look back on the recent history of Treaty settlement development and Treaty jurisprudence, Ngāti Paoa has had a huge role in developing our law and the way that the Crown should progress Treaty settlements is a good and honest partner. In 2009, that agreement by the Crown to progress a collective settlement came out of many years of Marutūāhu, of nga iwi o Hauraki, and many others who have an interest in Tāmaki-makau-rau, coming together and asking the Crown to consider how it dealt with whenua and not just commercial redress but cultural redress that goes along with it when many iwi have an interest. Tāmaki-makau-rau has always been the precious jewel in Aotearoa. As a proud South Aucklander, I can say it is the best whenua. It is the whenua that are tūpuna wanted us to occupy, and yours did, around many different places around the rohe, as did many other iwi and tūpuna who have been recognised there for many, many years. It's important to acknowledge that when the Crown approached those settlements that it was considering in the early 2000s, it had a very different approach to how it would do collective redress, how it would do negotiations with smaller iwi, and how it would get those voices of the people who would largely benefit from the settlements to the table. The Minister reflected upon this very recently in his Estimates hearings, which my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee were privileged to be a part of. He said that he was the beneficiary of many years of jurisprudence that has led a different way of Crown engagement, and that that Tāmaki collective redress process, which at the time drove division within iwi, has contributed to a different kind of approach from Te Arawhiti. The approach now that we see is a crossing of the bridge between the Crown and Māori. I am proud of the work that Te Arawhiti does today, and much of that is informed by the way that in those years iwi like Ngāti Paoa came to the table and said that it's not good enough to advance only an outcome, but we have to do the process right. So thank you for the contribution that Ngāti Paoa has made to that. I want to finish by saying there are many, many parts of this settlement which are important to the House, but I will pick just one. In the 1920s, Awataha urupā was occupied by a small number of Ngāti Paoa members—that's on the North Shore of Auckland—and it was a place that the Crown saw as suitable for an arrangement with the Roman Catholic Church for education purposes. In 1924, a dispute arose over the land and in March 1925, seven members of the iwi were arrested and imprisoned in Mt Eden jail. Later, the Crown decided to acquire a section of that land for an oil storage facility, and the poet Hone Tuwhare—who was a good friend of my father—wrote this poem to acknowledge the disgust and the hurt that he felt in seeing the disinterment of that urupā and the removal of the bodies to make way for development by the Crown, in his lifetime. He wrote, In a splendid sheath of polished wood and glass with shiny appurtenances lay he fitly blue-knuckled and serene: hurry rain and trail him to the bottom of the grave Flowers beyond budding will not soften the gravel's beat of solemn words and hard sod thudding: hurry rain and trail him to the bottom of the grave Through a broken window inanely looks he up; his face glass-gouged and bloodless his mouth engorging clay for all the world uncaring Cover him quickly, earth! Let the inexorable seep of rain finger his greening bones, deftly. Those moments in our history where we acknowledge that the Crown has done wrong are important in our history as New Zealanders, as we understand the way that we can do better now. That was a poem from 1960. These things aren't ancient history for us, and it's important for this House, when we acknowledge the hara, the mamae, that people of Ngāti Paoa today still feel and the atonement that we can all make for those, that they are real and present in people's minds, just like that poem. Tēnā tatou. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a pleasure and a privilege it is to welcome representatives of Ngāti Paoa who have travelled a long distance here to the Parliament to experience and witness the first reading of this special piece of legislation that has been so long in getting to this place, and I want to set the record straight at the outset. Usually when we have Treaty settlement debates, there is consensus across the House, but the last speaker, Arena Williams, got it wrong. She got it very wrong, and as the member of Parliament for Coromandel I need to say that the very best part of the Ngāti Paoa rohe is actually on the Firth of Thames, in the fine part of the Coromandel electorate. So, wearing that hat as the member of Parliament for Coromandel, I welcome you once, twice, thrice to this place. It's an important and historic day for you all no matter which part of the rohe you consider to be the best part of the rohe. This has been a long journey and I regret to advise there are actually still several steps yet to go. But the first reading of a Treaty bill is an important marker, because it brings to this House, the House that represents the Crown as Treaty partner, a process that will now go to the Māori Affairs Committee, and you've just heard from the select committee chair. So the issues, the history, the mana, and the drama that is both historic, current, and aspirational for the future will be debated, discussed in detail by the members of that committee, and that's a good and appropriate process. It's a slower process than I think any of us would want, but it's an important part of the process because that's where we get to open up to the issues that still confront some members of the Ngāti Paoa whānau that still are unresolved, that still are the cause of some angst and do need further discussion and further resolution. So I know that my colleagues who sit on that select committee will be listening carefully, will be wanting to hear debate, discussion, and history about what has happened and how it's happened and where it's gone and, what's more important, where it is going. Even as recently as today, I've received correspondence—as my colleague Joseph Mooney has indicated—from people wanting to litigate and to discuss and to debate the issues that are outstanding. Well, those issues will be debated and discussed and they will be, I hope, resolved satisfactorily, because it's important that after so long and after such a long journey that this piece of legislation gets passed by this House and I would hope sooner rather than later. I well recall as a relatively new MP visiting the Mangatarata volunteer fire brigade. It wasn't the fire brigade, it was just a public meeting that happened to be held in the fire brigade building, so what I'm about to say was not reflective of the fire brigade let me assure you of that; those volunteers do a particularly good job for our community. But there was a public meeting in the brigade station house and there was public concern that I needed to hear because I had been invited as the member of Parliament because there had been a decision by I think it's the Geographic Board to allow the name Pūkorokoro to be used instead of Miranda. There were some people in the local community who were upset by that decision and said, "Why is that so? It's always been called Miranda. Why can't we keep calling it Miranda?", and it wasn't until I was able to describe to some of those people present who felt somehow uncomfortable and awkward about the use of the term and the name Pūkorokoro rather than Miranda, and to explain the history of that and to explain the history of the terrible act that was inflicted upon Ngāti Paoa people at Pūkorokoro, at the pā, at the marae, by HMS Miranda, where a vessel of the Crown, of the Royal Navy, came into the Firth of Thames and then fired cannon into the marae and into the pā. There was death, there was desecration, and there was harm and damage that was done, and then they had the audacity to sail away, having inflicted that terrible crime, to sail away then and rename that area Miranda in the name of that vessel. That was wrong. So today I often, and whenever I can, proudly use the term Pūkorokoro, because those of us that know that history and who did not know that history until relatively recent times need to understand that that is just one, just one of the issues that I hope will be—it will never be put right completely. It can't be put right completely, but through a process of a Treaty settlement legislative action will, I hope, bring at least some cause for reflection and some cause for an ability to move on. So, acknowledging that there are still some unresolved issues but acknowledging also that this has been a long journey, not today just physically, but it's been a long journey emotionally, and it's been a long journey historically. Some of those people that embarked on that journey so long ago are no longer with us and as other speakers and colleagues around the House have acknowledged, I wish also to acknowledge their passing and their contribution to getting us to where we are today. But there's still more work to do. We still have some way to go. There are still steps to be taken, and I know that today marks an important and historic step along that pathway. So it's with very great pleasure that as the member of Parliament for the best part of the rohe of Ngāti Paoa, I welcome representatives here today, wish you well, safe travels home, but be very proud of the fact that you are here for this auspicious, historic, momentous proceeding in this Parliament. Kia ora. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you, Mr Simpson, for that great speech. Maybe now you can support the bilingual signs strategy that we all talked about and that you forgot about two weeks ago—engari, that's probably not in the spirit of the occasion. But I probably could go on about your nonsense in terms of health also, but I might leave that for my mate Rawiri Waititi over there. Engari e mihi ana ki a koutou, Ngāti Paoa, i tae mai nei ki te whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Rawe! Rawe ki te kite i a koutou, mihi nui ki a koutou. [But I acknowledge you, Ngāti Paoa, who have arrived here to honour us at this time. Awesome! Awesome to see you, many thanks to you.] Lovely to have you all here today, and my apologies for missing the pō'hiri and the whakatau. You've already heard some of the statistics and some of the background. I only want to take a short call, because I'll talk more in the second and third readings, but I do want to acknowledge some of the kōrero that apparently was put out earlier. Apparently, one of the koroua said that this is only peanuts in terms of a settlement. That will be true—that will be true—and the reality is, and I talk about this quite often, our people are put into a real bind during the Treaty settlement process. When it was first put in place, as we will remember, back around 1995, I recall our mate Tāme Iti and the protests that were going on with regards to whether the settlements really reflected a justice in terms of the loss in terms of Māori. As we all knew then, we were clear that the settlements would not be, because $1 billion was the figure put on the table, and we knew that could never reflect the loss. So, to our koroua who said it's about peanuts, that would be true. But, despite that, we had learned koroua like Tā Tipene and Tā Robert Mahuta, who knew there wasn't much choice—you know, you either take the deal or you get nothing. If you look back at where they were at, it was $170 million on the table even though the loss was $15 billion to $18 billion in terms of Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. That was the actual loss—$15 billion to $18 billion. Those rangatira, I think, as we all know, thought, "Well, you take the money or you get nothing." They took the money, and look where those two tribes are today. So it's a bind for us as a people, because the Crown comes to the table with all the negotiating power and our people are in a bind. We've got our whānau—my own whānau—who said, "No, no, no, you don't settle." Then you get our pragmatists and our other rangatira, like Tā Robert and Tā Tipene, who said, "No, we have to get on with this. We have to make a start.", and look where Tainui and Ngāi Tahu are today. So, yeah, no, Māoridom is used to settling on peanuts—that's the reality. That's how those tribes became so fantastic today. That's why kōhanga reo is strong. That's why iwi radio is strong. That's why Whakaata Māori is strong. It's just the reality— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, Mr Jackson, if you could now be strong on the bill, please. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That's all part of the bill, Mr Speaker—that's all part of the bill—and what I am trying to say to our people up here is learn the lessons of what happened in the past. Let's come to the bill, and let's also realise the amount of problems that the tribe had to go through, with Ngāti Whātua opposing this tribe, to start off with. I remember well Rēnata Blair opposing this—Ngāti Whātua have got to have everything, you know, and it was good that things were worked out. Things all worked out, because other people have interests, as this group do, and in the end we saw those two groups coming together and forging a strategy going forward. So I am pleased that that was worked out with Ngāti Whātua. So that's opposing groups, and then, of course, we have to deal with our whanaunga within the tribe, which I think is going on now. Again, that's the flaw with our Treaty settlement process, but until we have something else, we have to forge on with what we've got. So I mihi to all the whanaunga who have come here today to tautoko this kaupapa, even though they might not be ecstatic about it. It's $23 million, and I'm sure that they can build on that but—even more importantly—work with their own to find a way and find a rautaki, find a strategy, where people can work out where they're going, how they can contribute, and how everybody can be part of the settlement going forward. Those are a lot of challenges in front of our group today, and I'm looking forward to following up on this and to seeing whether we're being fair as a partner, in terms of this kaupapa. I want to work alongside Andrew Little to make sure that we fulfil some of our obligations. So mihi nui ki a koutou. Good to see you all here today. Tēnā anō tātou katoa. NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill, standing in support of the deed of settlement reached on 20 March 2021 between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown. I'd like to acknowledge at the beginning of my speech the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement negotiators Morehu Wilson, who I understand tragically passed away two years ago; his wife Louise Wilson, who is in the gallery representing him and the whānau; Te Hauaru Rawiri, who may also be in the gallery today; the current Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust chair Herearoha Francis Skipper; and deputy chair Mihingarangi Forbes. I also acknowledge the representative body for Ngāti Paoa in the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, who are here today in Parliament. Ngāti Paoa are a maritime people, a waka people, whose customary territory is connected more by water than by land. Their rohe runs from Te Hoe o Tainui near the Piako River, as it runs northwards through the Hauraki Plains to Wharekawa and Kaiaua on the western firth of the Thames to Kawakawa Bay, north of the Hunua Ranges and the nearby Waiheke and Ponui islands. Ngāti Paoa occupied the lands around the Tāmaki estuary and Auckland; in particular, an area from Panmure to Kōhimarama. They also had lands on the North Shore and up the Mahurangi Coast, including at Tiritiri Mātangi Island, all connected by water. Ngāti Paoa chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi on 4 March 1840. Immediately afterwards, Ngāti Paoa engaged closely with the new Government, which was established in Auckland in 1841. Like other Auckland iwi such as Ngāti Whatua, Ngāti Paoa transacted lands which allowed for European settlement and ultimately the growth of Auckland as a city. However, the Crown failed to set aside sufficient reserves for Ngāti Paoa, which in time made it very difficult for iwi to maintain a physical presence in the growing city. Later, during the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s, Ngāti Paoa had lands confiscated both in the Hunua Ranges and as part of the Waikato confiscation. One notable event during the war was the naval bombardment and attack on a Ngāti Paoa village at Pūkorokoro, situated at the south-west coast of the firth of Thames. After they landed, colonial forces built a redoubt there and named it Miranda after the naval vessel. In time, the name Miranda stuck. It is certainly fitting that in 2015 the New Zealand Geographic Board recommended a change to dualise the name to Pūkorokoro/Miranda. All Treaty settlements do have a unique aspect to them, reflecting the negotiation priorities of the iwi, the specific nature of the grievances, and what the Crown is able to offer. For Ngāti Paoa, I'm told that the standout feature of the settlement is the provision of cultural redress of land for a marae and papa kāinga at Point England on the Tamaki River. As I said, Ngāti Paoa transacted lands with the Crown after signing the Treaty in 1841, but no reserves were created for them and their physical presence as part of the growing city of Auckland was largely denied. This redress allows Ngāti Paoa to re-establish themselves as an active part of the Auckland community today, and there will also be a benefit of increased housing supply, which we all know is much needed. The settlement includes other cultural redress that helps reconnect Ngāti Paoa with their wider customary territory, including the transfer of lands at Kaiaua, Waiheke Island, and Tiritiri Mātangi Island. Importantly, the settlement includes an apology from the Crown for its failure to protect Ngāti Paoa from the rapid alienation from their land in the decades following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi—an apology for the loss of life and the devastation that was caused by hostilities. Commercial aspects of the settlement should provide opportunities for Ngāti Paoa to grow their financial position. They will have returned to them 12 culturally significant sites, along with financial and commercial redress valued at $23.5 million. There will also be a wide range of other commercial, cultural, and relationship items making up the redress package. I understand that 90 percent of those who voted for this deed of settlement from Ngāti Paoa voted in support. They may still be some issues. ACT's hope is that any unresolved issues are addressed during the select committee process, which will begin after this first reading is completed. And with that in mind, ACT supports the first reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement bill and wish our whānau all the best in getting this redress sorted. Kia ora. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I begin by also correcting the record, like many MPs around the House. Yes, Coromandel is beautiful and there are beautiful places in Tāmaki-makau-rau—but Chlöe Swarbrick assures that the most beautiful place within the Ngāti Paoa roho is the mighty Waiheke Island. I just wanted to place that on the record. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Pīka o tēnei Whare. Tūtawa mai i runga, tūtawa mai i raro, tūtawa mai i roto, tūtawa mai i waho kia tau ai te mauri tū, te mauri ora ki te katoa. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e. He mihi tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāti Paoa kua huihui mai nei i tēnei rā ki te hāpai i tēnei kaupapa, i tā koutou kaupapa. Anei tētehi uri o Te Ātiawa, o Te Arawa waka, o Te Aitanga a Hauiti e mihi atu nei ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa. [My thanks to the Speaker of this House. Materialise from above, from below, from within, and from the environment so that vitality and wellbeing settle upon everyone. Unified, connected, and bound together. This is an acknowledgment of you from Ngāti Paoa who have assembled here today to support this initiative, your initiative. Here is a descendant of Te Ātiawa, the Arawa canoe, and of Te Aitanga a Hauiti that greets you. Thanks, greetings, and wellbeing to all of us.] I've been thinking a lot, and things change in this House like you wouldn't believe. I've been thinking a lot this week about the subject of race and the subject of ethnicity. It's been a hot topic. We have talked yesterday quite a bit in the media, and in our own conversations. Maybe some of our whānau at home have been talking about the plight of Māori, actually, and whether or not the bad health statistics that we have are a result of us drinking too much, too much KFC, that kind of stuff. There is actually a demographic of the population out there that believe that it's true. They don't like hearing the uncomfortable truth about the history of Aotearoa—the really uncomfortable truth that the Crown set up systems and structures and courts and laws to completely marginalise Māori. For that reason, it's really sad, because there's a whole demographic of New Zealanders out there that believe that Māori get too much. They think that Māori shouldn't be put to the front of the queue to be able to deal with health inequities. They believe that Māori should jump in the line when it comes to housing and all those things that Government here attempt to try and do for Māori. But, unfortunately, sometimes in this House, especially, things get politicised and it's kind of gross. It's kind of gross, because, actually, what happens is that these kinds of conversations end up being like political footballs. They get kicked around, and especially in these years, like election years. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can we come back to the bill. TĀMATI COFFEY: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the bill. I want to refer to page 11, actually, of the bill, which talks to Ngāti Paoa's plight. It says, in clause 8(8), "By the end of the twentieth century, only 27% of Ngāti Paoa spoke te reo Māori. The decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori contributed to a loss of Ngāti Paoa mātauranga Māori. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Ngāti Paoa, like other Hauraki Māori, generally experienced poorer health, including lower life expectancy … higher infant mortality, than Pākehā [as well]. Ngāti Paoa also experienced higher unemployment than the general population, and a lower median annual income." It's really the point of all of this, because we heard in the whaikōrero earlier from the koroua from Ngāti Paoa who got up and addressed the room, and he spoke of the fact that what we're talking about in terms of redress on this settlement is very, very small. Heck, there are houses in in the plush parts of South Auckland and the Coromandel that cost as much as the settlement that you're going to get as a result of the Crown trying to address this past wrong—there are. You know, again, it's an absolutely uncomfortable truth, but I want to acknowledge you for still, despite that, despite the history, despite the historical account that my colleague Joseph Mooney read out before, despite all of that, despite the Crown taking your land, you're still willing to go through this. You're still willing to go through this, because there's a sense of social justice that needs to take place in this. The Crown, as represented by those of us in this House right now, we need to hear your story. It's lovely that it's written down here, and we need to talk about it a bit more, and we need New Zealanders to talk about it too, so that they have a deeper understanding of exactly what happened to Ngāti Paoa in the story of the history of Aotearoa. I often say that in this place that Treaty settlements are one thing, and when we finally get this out of the House and enable you to go on and start your journey post-settlement, I often ask myself, "What more can we do? What more can we do over and above the quantum? Over and above that, what more can we do to be able to help iwi such as Ngāti Paoa to be able to achieve their tino rangatiratanga?" To some of us, especially on this side, we believe that there are lots of opportunities, whether it's in housing or health or co-governance opportunities, that the Opposition get really freaked out about. But there are opportunities in that, none the less, and I hope that through that— Hon Willie Jackson: Disgraceful, really. TĀMATI COFFEY: —over and above—my colleague down here, you just can't turn him off. But there are opportunities. There are opportunities that are coming up. As long as I'm a Labour member, which isn't for that much longer, but as long as I'm a member of the New Zealand Labour Party, actually I'll continue to ask that question: what more can we do post-settlement for our iwi to be able to achieve their own tino rangatiratanga? So I leave that today. I look forward to listening to some of the kōrero. I, too, sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, at least for the next three months. Then I look forward to watching one day, maybe from home with my little boy and my little girl in my arms, watching the third reading of your bill through this House, turning it into an Act and allowing you to move forward so that you can create a better future for Ngāti Paoa [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tama Potaka—a five-minute call. TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Rawiri Waititi—a five minute call. RAWIRI WAITITI (Te Paati Māori—Waiariki): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Tēnā tatou, tēnā tatou e te Whare. Otirā tēnā koutou, e hika mā. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Paoa. Haere mai nei, whakapiri mai nei ki roto i tēnei Whare. Āe, he tika tonu ngā kōrero a taku hoa, a te rangatira nei, a Tama, nā koutou tēnei Whare, whakatau mai rā. Tēnā te tira ka tū, ko te tira nā Tūrora, nā Rereahu, nā Kōrehe, nā Tūrongo. Tēnā te tira e oti ana, tira ka tū, tēnā toetoe nā Haka, nā Hauā, tira ka tū, tēnā oti. Ko Kohukohunui te maunga, ko Piako te awa, ko Tīkapa te moana, ko Te Haupā te tangata, nei rā te mihi, nei rā te mihi. Tēnā rawa atu koutou. Kua oti katoa te whakahuahua ingoa i tēnei rā. Tēnei ka tautoko, tēnei ka tau. Tēnei rā anō hoki te mihi atu i runga i te āhuatanga o ō tātou mate. Tika tonu kia mihi rā ki a Mōrehu, te nui o ngā pakeke kua riro tītapu ki te pō. Kāre e kite i te whakatinanatanga o tēnei āhuatanga, engari mā rātou e kawe ngā kōrero ki ngā mātua tīpuna i te pō, kei konei tonu koutou e whawhai mō tō koutou mana motuhake me tō rangatiratanga. Rātou i mate, i rere te toto ki runga i tō koutou whenua, hei aha? Hei oranga mō ngā whakatipuranga, mō ngā mokopuna e haere ake nei. Nō reira rātou ki a rātou. Ka hoki mai rā ki a tātou, mōrehu tangata kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā, haramai, haramai, haramai. E kore e tarea tēnei tū āhuatanga te whakawātea i ngā mamaetanga, i ngā tāmitanga, i ngā patunga a te Karauna i a koutou, i a tātou. E kore rawa, e kore rawa. Engari me pēnei pea taku kōrero, kei te ngau tonu tērā āhuatanga, tērā taniwha i a tātou i tēnei rangi tonu. Kei te kite atu awahau i roto i te pepa nei, i te pire nei, kei te ngau tonu, kei te ngau tonu, kei te ngau tonu. Arā i roto i ngā pakanga o te motu i roto i ngā tau 1860, arā i kitea ngā tāmitanga ki runga i tō koutou pā, ki Pūkorokoro. Hika, ka mau te wehi! Ka mau te wehi! Ka whakaingoatia tērā whenua ki te poti i pū i a koutou, ngā pūrepo, whakamutu atu! Whakamutu atu! I taraingia e rātou te tango i tō koutou mana, i tō koutou reo, i tō koutou mana motuhake, me tō koutou rangatiratanga, i tō koutou whakatangata i a koutou ki runga i tō koutou whenua, engari auare ake! Kei konei koutou i tēnei rā, kei te ora tonu. Kei te ora tonu. Kei te kite tēnei Whare i tō kanohi, kei te rongo i tō wairua, arā anō hoki kei te rongo i tō mauri. E kore e tarea tēnei tū āhuatanga te whakatikatika i roto i te kotahi paihēneti o ngā moni ka riro i a koutou, kotahi paihēneti. Me waiho mā ā tātou tamariki mokopuna te iwa tekau mā iwa paihēneti e whawhai kei ngā rā e haere ake nei. Me pērā pea te kōrero. Nō reira kia kaha ki a tātou ki te whakatō i te kākano ki roto i ā tātou tamariki mokopuna he iwa tekau mā iwa paihēneti e toe ana mā rātou e whawhai. Mā rātou hei whawhai. Kaua e mea he "full and final settlement", whakamutua atu tēnā kōrero. Arā me te mea anō hoki, e hika mā, tēnei tū āhuatanga he mea whakawehewehe, whakawehewehe i a tātou i roto i a tātou. Whakawehewehe iwi i te iwi, hapū i te hapū, whānau i te whānau. Tēnei tū āhuatanga ehara nā tātou, nō reira e te Pīka, kua tonoa mai tētahi reta e tētahi ki au. Pīrangi au ki te whakawātea i te Whare kia whakatēpungia tēnei pepa i tēnei wā. Ki te kore, hika, e kore e tarea e tātou te whakatutuki i ngā mahi kei mua i a tātou. Nō reira koia hoki tāku i tēnei wā. E hika mā, he rima miniti noa iho ki au, engari kei te mōhio au hāwhe pāhi i te rima karaka kei te wehe atu te nuinga o koutou. Nō reira, ā, kua mutu te wāhi ki a au, engari tēnei rā te mihi atu rā ki a koutou. Kia kaha koutou ki a koutou, kia kaha koutou anō hoki ki te whakawhirinaki ki ērā atu iwi e raruraru nei i roto i ngā whakahaere a tēnei Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou. [Thank you. Greetings to all of us, greetings to all of us in this House. Indeed greetings to you, friends. Greetings, Ngāti Paoa. Welcome, welcome into this House. Yes, the statements of my colleague, the noble leader Tama, this House is yours, welcome. That is the party that stands, the party belonging to Tūrora, Rereahu, Kōrehe and Tūrongo. That is the party the concludes, the party that stands, the rushes belonging to Haka and Hauā, the party that stands, it is concluded. Kohukohunui is the ancestral mountain, Piako is the ancestral river, Tīkapa is the ancestral sea, Te Haupā is the illustrious leader, I greet you, I acknowledge you. Many greetings to you. The mentioning of names has absolutely been completed today. I support that, it is resolved. I would also like to make acknowledgments with respect to our deceased. It is appropriate to acknowledge Mōrehu, and the many elders who have passed into the night. They will not see the realisation of this phenomenon, but they will carry word of it to the forebears in the night, that you are here fighting for your autonomy and sovereignty. Those who died, whose blood flowed on your land, for what? For the wellbeing of the generations, of the grandchildren that are to come. So they have joined their peers. I return now to us, to the remnants that have arrived here today, welcome, welcome, welcome. This phenomenon is not able to relieve the anguish, the suppression, and the assaults of the Crown on you, on us. Never, not ever. But perhaps I should put it like this, that thing, that beast continues to bit us this very day. I see it in this paper, in this bill, it continues to bit, to chew, to lacerate. In particular in the wars of the nation in the 1860s, the oppression of your fortified stronghold, Pūkorokoro, was seen. Golly, it's unbelievable! It's unbelievable! That land was named after the ship that fired on you, the cannons, cut it out! Stop it! They tried to take your authority, your language, your autonomy, and your sovereignty, your very ability to flourish on your own land, but no such luck! Here you are today, you yet live. You yet live. This House sees your face, feels your spirit, and also feels your power. This phenomenon cannot be rectified with the 1 percent of the funding that you will receive, 1 percent. We should leave it up to our children and grandchildren to fight for the 99 percent in the coming days. Perhaps that is how it should be put. So let's all be determined to plant the seed in our children and grandchildren that there is a remaining 99 percent for them to fight for. For them to fight for. Don't call it a "full and final settlement", stop it with that statement. And furthermore, my friends, these proceedings are divisive, they alienate us from each other. Alienating tribe from tribe, subtribe from subtribe, family from family. This phenomenon is nothing of ours, so Madam Speaker, a letter has been sent by someone to me. I wish to seek the leave of the House to table this paper at this time. If not, golly, we will not be able to conclude the work that is before us. So that's all from me that this time. My friends, I only have five minutes, but I know that at half past five, the majority of you will depart. So, my contribution has ended, but I'd like to acknowledge you. Be strong among yourselves, and also be steadfast in relying on other iwi that are distressed by the proceedings of this House. Greetings, greetings and thanks to all.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry, with apologies to the member, if the member who just spoke wished to table a document— RAWIRI WAITITI: Oh yes, sorry. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Would he like to take a point of order and seek leave to do that? RAWIRI WAITITI: Aroha mai, e te Pīka. I did say it in Māori that I'd move a motion to take leave to table this document, so do I have to move a point of order? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yes. RAWIRI WAITITI: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I'd like to take leave from the House to table this document. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is requested for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. HARETE HIPANGO (National): Ngāti Paoa, nau mai, haere mai i tēnei wā. E tū au, e karanga ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. [Ngāti Paoa, welcome, welcome at this time. I stand to take a call on the first reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill.] I take a brief call, mindful that Ngāti Paoa will be taking flight very shortly, so we are on a limited time span for our kōrero, our karanga to all gathered here in the gallery. Importantly, this is an opportunity. Ngāti Paoa, this is the journey that your people have been on, but this is televised so it's an opportunity for we in the Chamber to put out to Aotearoa New Zealand, for New Zealanders to join in part of what your journey and your story has been, which will be captured in this legislation. In the short call that I take, Madam Speaker, and to New Zealanders who are listening in—the stories that many of we as Māori have traversed through the course of generations—a number of us in the Chamber here have sat where Ngāti Paoa are, with our people, our tribal peoples, with the passage of legislation through to the completion. My parliamentary colleague Rawiri Waititi, we share that journey when we sit on the Māori Affairs Committee with other members in this House. So, we know the mamae. We are aware of the grievance. We are aware also of the heaviness, but the hope, that comes with these settlements. There is contention about it being full and final, and that is korero that we are subject and we listen to on the Māori Affairs Committee—always cognisant of this. But what has been captured in the Bill? And I will keep this brief. Importantly, my eye is drawn to clause 8, the summary of historical account, and I invite New Zealanders to go to this bill to read the story of Ngāti Paoa; clause 9, which is the acknowledgment from the Crown in terms of those transgressions and what the redress will be; and clause 10, the formal Crown apology. In this bill, what's particularly noted is that it is captured in te reo Tauiwi, in te reo Māori, te reo o ngā mita o Ngāti Paoa [in the English language, in the Māori language, the language of the regional variations of Ngāti Paoa], and that is so important because this is the journey, the story, of Ngāti Paoa. And I invite New Zealanders to take the time to read this, to take the time to listen, to take the time to feel. So we will have the opportunity and the privilege, sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee to listen to the further submissions from the interested parties, the stakeholders, Ngāti Paoa. And it is our duty and responsibility of care to take cognisant of those concerns further to what has been inscribed here. Also, my eye is drawn to the interpretation section where there is an acknowledgment of those of you gathered here and those who have gone before. In terms of the hand, the imprint, and what will be inscribed and captured on parchment—in paper for time to come. So it is with a sense of heaviness that many of us do stand here, but it is with a sense of hope in the journey moving forward. And I see our young ones, our future. Today as a present—it is a gift to the future, bearing in mind the journey that Ngāti Paoa have carried through the generations from the past to arrive here today. It is a privilege that I stand as the last speaker of the National Party to commend this bill to the House. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): He ika ki te moana, ko au ki te whenua, Tīkapa oneone hokinga kāinga. Ko aku whatu e huri ana ki Te Kohukohunui, Te Kotuiti, ka tae mai koe ki te takoto o Te Whanganui-a-Tara. Turuki turuki, paneke paneke, haramai te toki, haumi e, hui e, tāiki e. Kua hipa te wā. Kua hipa te wā nō reira tēnei te tautoko i ngā kōrero kua whārikihia ki mua i tō koutou nei aroaro, Ngāti Paoa. Tērā tangi apakura ki a Mōrehu, tatū atu rā ki a rātou katoa i ngā tau kua whai ake i tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Nō reira koutou ngā mōrehu, ngā mahuetanga iho, Hauāuru, te pai o te kite i a koe, koutou katoa. Ka noho tūturu ngā kōrero i waihotia e koro ki waenganui i a mātou, ngā mema o tēnei Whare Pāremata, he tīmatatanga tēnei. He maha ngā piki me ngā heke engari he tīmata tēnei. Ko tā rātou wero ki a tātou, te Pāremata, ahakoa ko wai e noho ki tēwhea o ngā tūru, he tīmatatanga tēnei. Me mahi ngātahi kia taea e Ngāti Paoa ki te tutuki i ā rātou nei wawata mō nāianei, mō ngā uri whakatupu. Nō reira, Ngāti Paoa, kei a koutou tēnei wā, nō koutou te mana. Tēnā koutou. [As fish in the sea, I am on the land, the sands of Tīkapa, the home I return to. My eyes turn to Te Kohukohunui, to Te Kotuiti, you arrive at the topography of Wellington. Advance, advance, progress, progress, take up the sceptre, it coalesces, it comes together, it is done. The time has passed. The time has passed so I support the statements that have been laid before all of you, Ngāti Paoa. The song of grief for Mōrehu, and also to those who pursued this initiative over the years. So to you, the survivors, the remnants, Hauāuru, it's good to see you, all of you. The statements left by your grandsire among us, the members of this House of Parliament, this is a beginning. There are many ups and downs, but this is a beginning. Their challenge to us, to Parliament, regardless of who is sitting in which seat, this is a beginning. We must work together so that Ngāti Paoa is able to accomplish the dreams for today, and for descendants to come.] Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, I can tell the House that permission has been now granted for a waiata. Pao Te rangi e tū nei, te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koutou e. Te Ātiawa nō runga i te rangi, tēnei mātou o Ngāti Paoa e mihi atu nei ki a koutou e. Aku [Indistinct] kohukohu, tēnā koutou. [Indistinct] o Tangi te Keo. Tēnā koutou ngā Minita i tautoko i a mātou e, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e. Ehara ko te pūtea te mea nui ki a mātou, engari whakahokia te mana whakatau, te mana motuhake me te tino rangatiratanga ki a mātou e, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā koutou o te Pāremata e tū ana nei e. [The skies above, the earth below, I acknowledge you. Te Ātiawa who descended from the heavens, we, Ngāti Paoa, greet you. My [Indistinct], I acknowledge you. [Indistinct] of the peak of Mount Victoria. Greetings to the Ministers that supported us, thanks and greetings. Finances are not the most important thing to us, but instead the return of the decision-making authority, autonomy and sovereignty back to us, thanks and greetings to you all of the Parliament that stands here.] Waiata Rimurimu teretere Tere ki te moana E tere ana ki te ripo I waho e Tirohia ki waho E marino ana e Kei roto i ahau E marangai ana e Ko koe [Indistinct] Te kaitiaki māku O aku maunga, tōku whenua Tōku moana e Kua tau te kohu Ki runga i ngā tihi Ka moe te tinana, te wairua e Rite tonu taku hanga Ki ngā wai tangi Waiho ki ahau kia tangi tīkapa e Ko koe [Indistinct] Te kaitiaki māku O aku maunga, tōku whenua Tōku moana e Ko Ngāti Paoa e ngunguru nei I au au aue ha Marangai mai rā, Ngāti Paoa e Hikitia te mana o tō iwi Kaua e tukuna kia hīnana ki Te mauri o tōku whenua e Maranga mai rā, Ngāti Paoa e Hikitia te mana o tō iwi Kaua e tukuna kia hīnana ki Te mauri o tōku whenua e [Like floating seaweed Drifting out to sea Drifting out to the whirlpool Offshore Look outwardly It is calm Within me A storm rages You are [Indistinct] The guardian for me Of my mountains, my land And my ocean The mist has settled Upon the summits The body and spirit sleep My demeanour is like The weeping waters Leave the mournful cries to me You are [Indistinct] The guardian for me Of my mountains, my land And my ocean Ngāti Paoa is raging I au au aue ha Arise, Ngāti Paoa Raise up the mana of your people Don't allow the wellbeing of my land To be looked upon with anger] Karanga GENERAL DEBATE Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. When I arrived in Parliament 15 years ago, I arrived at the beginning of the National Government and I sat on the opposite side of the House from what I do now. And there were many occasions during those nine years where I was upset, frustrated, annoyed, and angry with the policy changes that I saw taking place. I obviously understood that it was part of the democratic process that Governments change from time to time and that things that I might have held very dear to me were no longer the priority of the Government of the day. And I'm a passionate debater, as people know in this House, and I certainly made my points about that. One thing I knew, however, during those nine years was that when John Key was the Prime Minister, whatever I might have thought of what he was doing to the country and the policies that he was putting in place, the politics of race had been put on the back burner. Like many in this House, I vividly remember the period of time in the run up to the 2005 election where the politics of race took centre stage in New Zealand, under the leadership of a different leader of the National Party and under a different Government where Helen Clark was the Prime Minister. That period of time where we saw that—and I acknowledge the likes of the Hon Chris Finlayson, who I think did an enormous amount. And we've just seen a Treaty settlement bill have its first reading in here, and I acknowledge the work that he did. I acknowledge the work that, as I say, the then Prime Minister did. To see the politics of race return in the way they are to our political discourse distresses me. Chris Hipkins, when he spoke at the Labour Party's congress in May, used a line that I think is very important: "Only the weakest of leaders seek to use race relations as a wedge to stoke fear and division." For me, I consider that to be a statement that I genuinely believe in. We can disagree on many topics in this House, and we do and it is healthy for democracy that we do, but when we find yet again that the politics of race have found their way to the top of the agenda, we as a Parliament are weaker and worse for that, and we as a country are far more divided from that than we should be. The latest example of that over the course of the last week or two has been the question around the equity adjuster within the northern district health boards. It's really interesting to me that there's not been so much attention within that on the ridiculousness and the outrageousness that whether you live in a rural community is counted in an equity adjuster or whether your socio-economic status should be counted. We don't hear that raised. We don't hear that being a major concern. We just hear about issues of race. I believe—and I know that the members' opposite may not be enjoying this contribution, but I actually believe the vast majority of the members opposite are better than that. I actually do believe that, because I believe they are here for the reasons that brought them to politics to put in place the things that they believed in, just as John Key and his Government did. And we will disagree on those things, but my personal view is that we diminish this House and we diminish the political debate by the focus and the division being stoked on the basis of race in New Zealand. As a country, we have come so far, and yet we have so far to go. We celebrate moments like the one we just saw in the House now as a Parliament, and that is tremendous that we have the ability to do that, but we've got to look again at our politics. The kind of politics of division and fear that are stoked by those that put race at the top of the agenda and seek to divide us on that will only put people off engaging with us. So I want to commit again to the kind of leadership that I see coming from Chris Hipkins, which is that we are unifying our country, we are finding the ways that we can work together to move ahead as a country, and that we don't fall into the trap of the lazy politics of division on the basis of race and stoking fear where that fear does not exist because, as we lift up the aspirations of Māori, of Pasifika, or of rural New Zealanders, as we lift up and remove the inequities that those groups face in our health system, our whole country is stronger and better. That should be our focus, not stoking fear and division. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Grant Robertson says it's a lazy form of politics to talk about race. The laziest form of politics is actually to accuse the other side of politics of racism, and that's what Grant Robertson spent much of his speech doing. We have to be grown-ups in this country, and this is a grown-up House of Representatives. We need to be able to talk about issues of race in this Parliament. And, to paraphrase the Chief Justice of the United States, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. So we are not going to apologise for having robust discussions in this Parliament and in wider society, and we would be doing a disservice to the people of this country if we did not raise legitimate issues about race-based funding and discrimination on the basis of race in this Parliament. But the real issue today is actually about the Government falling apart, because, in the last five months, five Ministers have shuffled off the political mortal coil: Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, Meka Whaitiri, and, I predict, soon Jan Tinetti, because Jan Tinetti, in some ways, has done worse than Michael Wood has done, and there will be more words to be said about that. But let's talk about Michael Wood, because Michael Wood today resigned as a Cabinet Minister, and it turns out Michael Wood should be a member of the National Party, because Michael Wood is the biggest capitalist socialist I've ever seen! Michael Wood, back when he was a young whippersnapper, coming up through the ranks of the Labour youth movement, decided, as a youngster, that he would participate in the privatisation of Contact Energy in the late 1990s, which was done by the National Government as a trade sale and a partial float. It was the forerunner to the mixed-ownership model of the John Key and Bill English Government, and Michael Wood, the cloth cap, hard-Left unionist leader of the Labour Left movement decided back then "I'm actually going to put up some of my own capital. I'm going to buy a few shares." Not only that—not only Contact Energy—but Auckland International Airport; another privatisation by the National Government back in 1999 to 2008. And it turns out, we learn today, he owns shares all over the sharemarket: National Australia Bank, Chorus—there's a whole bunch of different shares. So it turns out that the cloth cap, hard-Left unionist is actually a dirty little capitalist! And we welcome him to the cause of a shareholding democracy. We just wish he'd been slightly more upfront about the fact that he owned those shares for all those years. And, after 12 times being told by the officials and his staff, "Hey, mate, you'd better sell these shares, because you've got to disclose them", he didn't do it. So Michael Wood has left the ministry. And, of course, we've had Stuart Nash in recent weeks as well, who thought it was OK to leak confidential information out of Cabinet to his political donors. Then, of course, we get to the awful saga of Jan Tinetti, who decided to not be upfront with the public and the Parliament about her dirty little deal to conspire with her officials to make sure that announcements about attendance data were released at the same time as the Government was making some PR puffery about announcements to take care of it. What we see is a Government in disarray, and what I've just talked about—Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, Kiri Allan—is characterised by three things. One is arrogance. Second is incompetence. And three is a lack of focus on what actually matters. Here we are, less than four months till the election, talking about everything other than the important issues: the 60 percent increase in spending in the last six years, for no outcomes; a health system falling apart; an education system falling apart; law and order in this country that is going from bad to worse. We're not talking about those important issues; instead, we're talking about this inept and tired and arrogant Government's last few months in office, with Ministers leaving left, right, and centre. New Zealanders deserve better, and on 14 October they'll get the chance to vote for it. Hon JO LUXTON (Minister of Customs): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand as a proud wahine Māori from a rural electorate to take the third call in this general debate and lift this tone out of gutter politics and talk about some positivity. I would like to talk about the Fieldays. I had a great time at the Fieldays last week—it was really positive, spirits were high, the sun was shining, and we had the pleasure of hearing the announcement that the primary industries exports are set to hit a record high of $56.2 billion by 30 June 2023. We are a proud primary-producing nation punching well above our weight, and I want to acknowledge our primary producers who have recently experienced really, really tough times with the weather events that we've seen some last year, but mostly this year. I want to acknowledge all of them and everything that they have been going through. Our primary producers have carried us through for the last few years through tough times, and I want to acknowledge all of them and thank them for that. I am proud of our primary industries and I want to congratulate them on this record achievement, which I note is set to move towards $62 billion by 2027. I am proud of the work that this Government is doing for our primary producers by opening doors for exports wherever we can, and build on the seven new or upgraded free trade agreements secured since we've been in office. The next really positive thing that I would like to talk about that this Government is doing is providing financial support for parents on paid parental leave. Those parents that take the full 26 weeks of paid parental leave are set to have an increase from $661.12 a week to $712.17. We know that the cost pressures of living are hitting our families hard at the moment, and anything that we can do as a Government to help support that is really important and valued. When a couple are expecting their first, second, third, whatever baby it might be, it's a time of joy. But it's also a time of stress; it is a time of sleeplessness—I know members across the House will know what I am talking about there because we've had recent conversations— Hon David Bennett: They're very good. Hon JO LUXTON: —Mr Bennett, about that. So anything that we can do to reduce the pressure and burden on parents is certainly helpful. From mid-2024, parents will also receive a 3 percent Government contribution to their KiwiSaver while on paid parental leave, so long as they also continue to contribute. Because we do know that when people are away on paid parental leave, traditionally there has been no money going to their KiwiSaver—so, therefore, depleting their wee nest egg going forward. So I think that that is a really great thing. Another thing that I want to talk about is the simplified path to residency. When I'm out talking to people in my electorate, often we hear—particularly in our rural and primary producers—the difficulties that they face in getting skilled migrants, given the workforce shortages that we do experience. We are making changes to the Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa as part of the immigration rebalance to help businesses be able to attract skilled migrants. We're going to provide these highly skilled people with a faster route to residency, and that ensures that people in families migrating to New Zealand for work—it gives those families stability and certainty, knowing that they are going to be able to have a pathway to residency. I want to finish up by talking about the milestone that we reached—and it was really good to reach this milestone yesterday, being World Refugee Day—where we celebrated the milestone of resettling 1,500 refugees this quota year. We have a really proud history, here in New Zealand, of helping people whose lives are at risk and are forced to flee their country. I am really proud that my electorate is one of the electorates where refugees can resettle—in Ashburton and Timaru—and we welcome these refugees to New Zealand knowing they make a fantastic contribution to our society. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour and the urgent debate that she brought to this House today in relation to the abuse that was happening inside Oranga Tamariki. She spoke from the heart. She spoke from her own experiences. And as her tears fell on the floor in this House, I was expecting the Minister responsible for Oranga Tamariki to honour her and at least stand and make some sort of an effort to respond to what is an extremely serious situation. Instead, he chose to stand and make cheap political shots at the Opposition. Totally inappropriate and I thought much higher of Kelvin Davis and I expected much more from him. I want to talk about the situation that we've had in Ōpōtiki recently with the Mongrel Mob deciding that they could come out in numbers and take over the town. I acknowledge the comments that were made by the mayor there, and I acknowledge the comments that were made by iwi leaders, but I personally believe that the people of Ōpōtiki don't want to be known as a gang town. They don't want to be known for gang violence. And by the way, we don't have two standards of citizenship in this country where one group gets to blatantly break the laws of our country when law-abiding Kiwis have to keep adhering to those laws. The police say that there was an adequate response. I completely, utterly reject that. When you have got gang members taking over public spaces and public roads, when you've got the police taking resources away from the communities that they should be protecting, to do traffic control and closing roads that members of the public should have free access to, that is not a success. When you have the justice Minister standing up and saying that of the eight vehicles that were stopped—eight vehicles; there were hundreds of gang vehicles involved in this procession—five of them had firearms in them, that's got to be a huge red flag. How many other firearms were actually part of that convoy? How many illegal firearms were still out in the public? There were two arrests. If we have reached a point in this country where our police stand up and say that's a great result, then we have plumbed the depths. Because in New Zealand we should put a line in the sand and we should be saying "Gangs, you don't get to come out and take over public spaces. You don't get to intimidate members of the public. You don't get special rules." No one else, when they're mourning a loved one or having a wake or having a funeral—no other group in this country gets the sort of response that they get in terms of traffic control, roads closed, negotiation around behaviour, what they can do and what they can't do. And by the way, half these negotiations that take place with the police and the gangs, they immediately go out and break the rules. So let's not stand in here and pretend that what we've seen is acceptable and normalised and we should accept that as a country. It's the complete opposite. I was very pleased this week to see that we made a new announcement around aggravating factors for gang members. Let's get this straight. If you're a gang member with the policy that we've put forward, if you commit a crime, then it's going to be an aggravating factor. The current law is so weak that you have to prove that they're part of a criminal group, and that's why it's not used. Hon Willie Jackson: It's already there, Mark—it's already there. Hon MARK MITCHELL: These guys don't understand it—they don't understand it. They say, "No, it's already on the books." It's not on the books. If it was on the books, it'd be getting used. We've stated very clearly that if you're a gang member now, if you're a member of a gang, it doesn't matter what crime you commit, whether it be some domestic violence, whether it be assaulting someone—if you're a gang member it's an aggravating factor. It's a new piece of policy and it's a good piece of policy, and it'll continue to put pressure on gang members. I'll tell you why. We don't want gang members in New Zealand. We want to get rid of gang members. Yes, I admit—I concede that they've been here for decades. Harry Tam—Harry Tam was on the TV this week. Harry Tam's got some genuine leadership skills. He's got some say inside the gangs. Why doesn't he take a stand and say, "I want you to leave."? If he comes and says to me, "We'll have a meeting. Let's sit down and talk.", I'm happy to do that. But the conversation's got to be this: how do we help, how do we work to allow your gang members to leave the gang and rejoin society? Because very sadly, Steven Taiatini, who was killed in Ōpōtiki—and it is a loss and I'm sorry to his family—his father was killed as well with gang violence. The question is this: do you want the sons or the sons after that to be killed because of gang violence? For me, no; it's not acceptable and we have to do something about it. And we do have to work together to do that. So Harry Tam needs to step forward and say "How do we stop this? How do we work with Government rather than getting up and criticising?" ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): I think that member made a reasonable point at the end; I'm happy to concede that, having worked with gangs through my life and work with someone like Harry Tam. So I would accept that, as a House, we do have a responsibility in working through what Mr Mitchell talks about. I want to support our finance Minister. I think it's a sad indictment on this House that the right have brought the race debate, in terms of health. The reality is, patients get a score of 100 to determine their surgery; being Māori or Pasifika adds one or two points to the equation—one or two points. The way the right, particularly the National Party, have seized upon using ethnicity as a factor in deciding healthcare dollars and spun into a story of "reverse racism"—and that's what they're implying—and that is somehow equal to apartheid is disgusting. I agree with Grant Robertson, I believe that most of the National Party are better than that. I'm not sure about Mr Seymour, who seems to be using this all the time. Including ethnicity in health decisions has not been a racist policy; it's an attempt to ensure that not just Māori but Pasifika, rural Kiwis, and Kiwis living in poverty who have waited on the waiting list for too long—and Māori—gain outcomes that are comparable to the majority experience and positive health outcomes. Having small steps in ensuring a positive health outcome for Pasifika, rural Kiwis, and Māori is just the right way to go. It was sad listening to the Leader of the Opposition on National Radio this morning. His refusal to accept what most experts are saying—great doctors, like Dr Rawiri Jansen, Anthony Jordan, Mataroria Lyndon, Hinemoa Elder, Lily Freeman, Papaarangi Reid. These doctors have said for years—experts who the National Party have engaged—that clearly Māori have suffered under the health system. The National Party of Bill English has acknowledged this. This is a disgrace what is happening in this House. It's a disgrace that the National Party are going down a track that people before them would have rejected. We're going back to the old Don Brash days, instead of acknowledging and working together. As our Minister of Finance said so eloquently today, let's work towards reducing the problem, rather than using the race argument, as Mr Seymour's constantly and Mr Luxon is afraid to oppose, because he's so worried now about the election coming a few months down the track. Despite all the facts that were given this morning on National Radio by the interviewer, at the time, Mr Luxon refuses to accept that Māori and rural people and Pasifika have been hurt by the system. It's not something we should be worried about; we should show courage here. Why is the National Party showing no courage? That's the big question. We know the ACT Party are just a group of opportunists. We know that that's going to be used constantly until the election comes around, that the race card will be pulled on us. It's sad, and it's an indictment on the ACT Party that they keep utilising that strategy. The realities are clear for everyone: Māori die earlier than our European brothers and sisters—seven years earlier. Pasifika die earlier. Poorer people die earlier. Why don't you want to help them? Why do we have rural people die earlier? Why do we have to pull the race card? I'll tell you why, Madam Speaker—you won't be here, I don't think; I think you're moving on, which is a shame, because you're one of the better members. But the reality is: it's all about the votes. It's all about their votes. The National Party are too scared to say what the truth is, and the truth is that a number of people in this country are suffering under the current system and need support. So, well done to all our health professionals out there, all the doctors out there. Don't listen to the rubbish that is coming from the ACT Party and the National Party, and keep at it. Our people—all people, right across the different communities—need our support. Kia ora tātou katoa. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Lovely to be the last speaker before the dinner break. I actually thought I might be helpful to my Opposition colleagues, as a start, just in terms of understanding the concepts of discrimination but also affirmative action. I think one might think that they thought it was a new and wild concept that had never been used before if you listened to some of their speeches. But the idea of first asking "Where are we now?" and looking at the inequities in society is actually something that's quite embedded in much of our law. So just a helpful first suggestion: Opposition members might want to look at section 73 of the Human Rights Act, which allows affirmative action to achieve equity in the employment context. The former Equal Employment Officer Commissioner and, actually, former National Party member Jackie Blue's view was that without that sort of affirmative action New Zealand's progress towards gender equality in private sector leadership would remain abysmal. The concept of looking at where we are and looking at inequity is good governance. We do it through a lot of the areas of law. To say that affirmative action and looking at where we are now is a bad thing is horrifying. It is a failure to see who we all are to each other. So I would encourage the members just to do a little bit of homework in terms of understanding the history of that concept and its use in our law. But I was really wanting to focus on what we are doing in terms of helping address the bread and butter issues that New Zealanders are facing at the moment. I was a child growing up in the 1980s and I am sure, like many others in the room, remember walking into a Big Fresh and seeing the giant fruit, bananas, and veges dancing around. I remember going to the Foodtown, the Right Price, the Price Chopper as a child, but then of course, in the 1980s and 1990s we saw mergers and acquisitions which meant we, essentially, only had one major provider and that has led in many ways to the situation that we have now. It became so bad that you really had providers who were responsible and owned the production of fish right through to when that fish was sold to you, which was why we didn't end up seeing competition on our shelves. We are addressing the real issues. We are working to ensure that there is more competition in the grocery sector, which is why we have introduced legislation to ban restrictive land covenants as well. And I invite members, if you haven't been already, to come out to north-west Auckland, where we do also have the likes of Costco who are in the market and are absolutely making it more competitive with the supermarkets that are there as well. When we say we are addressing the bread and butter issues, we mean it. The real bread and butter issues. What principals will tell me in the Upper Harbour electorate is that it is a game-changer that kids can turn up to school and have free lunches—it's a game-changer, and this Budget is extending the provision of those free lunches in schools. They tell me the same thing about accessing free period products, where girls can come to school and not have to worry about bringing them from home. On this side of the House, we are a leadership who are focused on women. We are focused on women being in leadership roles in the House as well as women being in leadership roles on public sector boards. If you look at the voting record of this side of the House, we have voted to decriminalise abortion and we have voted to ensure abortion safe areas. We are all about looking after women's rights as well. If you look at what we've done through this Budget, we've made sure that young families can get back into the workforce, and that is largely women. After I had three kids who were all under about 5½ years old, the key discussion at every coffee group meeting was when is the tipping point? When can you go back to work? And for most people it was around the three-year mark. From here on in, those mums with under-three-year-olds will be able to re-enter the workforce. We are focused on the issues that matter, but we are also focused on the values that sit behind those issues. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.