Tuesday, 25 July 2023 [Volume 769] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker—National): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. VISITORS Philippines—Senate SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Senator Pia Cayetano from the Senate of the Philippines, and her accompanying delegation who are present in the gallery. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Louise Duffy requesting that the House implement a national register for standardised medical advance directives and mandate that those directives are followed petition of Ranjith De Silva requesting that the House urge the Government to encourage the Sri Lankan government to hold the Local Government election without further postponement, and to stop violent attacks on peaceful protesters. SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International Treaty Examination on the Framework Agreement on the establishment of the International Solar Alliance, Government response to the Privacy Commissioner's report on the Identity Verification Service information matching enabling provision protocol to the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, together with the national interest analysis statements of intent 2023-27: Criminal Cases Review Commission Education New Zealand, and the Privacy Commissioner statements of performance expectations 2023-24: Criminal Cases Review Commission Education New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority Privacy Commissioner, and Tourism New Zealand. SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament summary of amendments to annual returns, July 2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) reports of the Environment Committee on the 2023 Estimates for Vote Conservation and the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Defence and Vote Defence Force reports of the Justice Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Attorney-General and Vote Parliamentary Counsel, for Vote Corrections, for Vote Courts, for Vote Justice, and for Vote Police, Vote Serious Fraud, and appropriations within Vote Business, Science and Innovation Retail Crime Subsidy Scheme reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Barry Ramsay and the petition of Fiona Green reports of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Forestry, and report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Women. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. 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): This is a tough period for New Zealand and for the global economy. However, there are signs of the resilience of the New Zealand economy as we navigate a pathway through a difficult and uncertain environment. Stats NZ reported earlier this month that there was a net gain of 77,810 people arriving in the year to May. The number of arrivals stood at 181,100, the second-highest on record for an annual period since the March 2020 year. That more than offset the departures of 103,300. Of the 181,100 who arrived, 85 percent were non - New Zealand citizens. Our immigration reset is working, and it is attracting overseas workers with the skills that businesses require to rebuild the economy. Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on tourism and its impact on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats NZ also reported that overseas visitor arrivals were 160,300 in the month of May, up 87,600 from the same month a year earlier. That level was around 73 percent of the pre-COVID number in May 2019. On an annual basis, overseas visitor arrivals rose to 2.45 million. With the FIFA Women's World Cup now under way, the tournament is providing a boost to the tourism and hospitality industries during July and August, which are traditionally quieter months for the sectors. We expect to welcome more than 25,500 international visitors to New Zealand for the games being held here, with two-thirds of visitors coming from the United States. In addition to this, FIFA is estimating that around 70,000 New Zealanders are traveling around the country to attend matches. Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector expanded modestly in June, with the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index at 50.1—a reading above 50 indicating that the sector is generally expanding, while below 50 that it is declining. Sales and new orders expanded slightly, though employment declined for the first time since December 2022. As I said in my earlier answer, this is a tough period for many New Zealanders, but our economy is resilient, and we are building for the long term to deliver higher-wage jobs while also lowering emissions. Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on the export sector and its impact on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats NZ reported yesterday that exports rose 1.3 percent, to $6.3 billion in June, led by dairy products. On an annual basis, exports rose 8.2 percent, to $72.8 billion. Looking at New Zealand's key trading partners, exports rose by 11.3 percent annually to Australia, 11.7 percent to the US, and 2.9 percent to China. As I have said previously, 2023 is a difficult year for the global economy. However, there are reasons to be optimistic, including unemployment being at record lows, inflation heading in the right direction, and public debt levels well below those of the countries with which we compare ourselves. We will continue to carefully and responsibly prioritise our spending without unnecessarily adding to inflation, taking a balanced approach that gives New Zealanders choices and flexibility to respond through these testing times. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. 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, particularly the partnership with Fonterra to co-fund a range of projects to cut coal use at its dairy factories. This partnership will result in halving Fonterra's manufacturing emissions by 2030, equivalent to taking 120,000 cars off the road, and it will leverage up to $790 million worth of investment. This partnership sits within a backdrop of recent Stats New Zealand data showing New Zealand's emissions decreasing for a third successive year under this Government. I heard firsthand during my recent trade missions that New Zealand's climate credentials are crucial to our exports. This Government is committed to reaching our emissions reductions budgets, both for the sake of the environment but also because it benefits our exporters. Christopher Luxon: Was Treasury right that inflation has pushed tens of thousands of Kiwis into higher tax brackets over the last six years, and, if so, will he adjust tax brackets for inflation to let Kiwis keep more of what they earn? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, in answer to the first part of the question. I've been very clear that I don't think now is the right time for tax cuts in this—the magnitude of tax cuts proposed by the National Party would ultimately result in higher inflation for longer. Christopher Luxon: Isn't it a vote of no confidence in his tax policies that his Minister of Revenue was so disillusioned he resigned his portfolio instead of just serving until the election? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I imagine that the members opposite are feeling somewhat disillusioned by their party's tax policy, given they don't seem to be able to come up with a coherent one. The member himself has promised billions of dollars' worth of tax cuts that his finance spokesperson doesn't seem to know how he's going to pay for. Christopher Luxon: Why did he say, yesterday, that David Parker was passing on the revenue portfolio to "[free] him up to focus on [the] transport [role]", when David Parker said, today, that the real reason he quit was disagreement over tax policy making his position "untenable"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know full well from the conversations I've had with him that David Parker is enjoying the transport portfolio, is going to get his teeth into that, and I'm looking forward to working with him on it. Christopher Luxon: Was David Parker right to say that his position as revenue Minister was "untenable" due to his Government's disagreement over tax policy, and, if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: David Parker indicated that he wanted to move on from the revenue portfolio. I was doing a reshuffle and I indicated I was happy to accommodate that. Christopher Luxon: Why, then, despite the rules on collective Cabinet responsibility, has a Minister who has publicly defied the Prime Minister on tax policy retained his position in his Cabinet? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject that that's what David Parker has done. From time to time, Ministers put proposals before Cabinet that the Cabinet does not agree with and that do not proceed. Ministers do need to be able to explain that. I don't believe that David Parker has done anything other than that. Christopher Luxon: Is the real reason he keeps delaying his tax policy plan because he can't even convince his own Cabinet colleagues to get it over the line, let alone the public? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That might have more credibility if the National Party had come up with a tax plan that was credible and consistent. But given, even in the last year, they've had multiple variations of their tax plan and they're not actually even in the Government yet—and probably unlikely to be, given they can't come up with a tax plan that balances out. David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister's best explanation for losing four Ministers overboard in just seven months? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Each and every one of those cases is different, and there are extenuating circumstances. Particularly in the most recent case, I would expect the member to show a little more sensitivity than that. David Seymour: How can Kiwis trust a Prime Minister who didn't know a Minister was leaking Cabinet information to donors, didn't know a Minister was defecting to Te Paati Māori, didn't know a Minister had a major shareholding conflict of interest, and didn't know—or at least didn't do enough for a Minister who was facing serious challenges? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe that New Zealanders can trust me more than the party of privilege, as defined by the party's founder, Roger Douglas. David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that he's asked the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to do a review in light of last week's shooting in Auckland, and will that review consider whether the law makes it too easy for criminals, some of whom have committed violent offences, to get a sentence of home detention? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member has mischaracterised the statement that I made. What I indicated was that I had asked for advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on what reviews would be done into an event such as this and whether any additional review would be appropriate in the circumstances. There are a number of reviews under way at the moment. There is, of course, the fact that there is a police investigation still active. There is a police critical incident investigation. The Chief Probation Officer is conducting a review into Corrections' management of the offender, the potential for a coronial hearing. At this point, I don't think an additional review is required, but there may well be additional findings out of those other reviews that I just mentioned that the Government will need to give due consideration to. David Seymour: Doesn't the Prime Minister want to know how it's possible and whether it's acceptable that people on home detention carry out around 1,500 offences they're charged for every year, including 143 acts intending to cause injury last year? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't believe that that offending is appropriate. I don't believe that it—of course those are issues of concern. The number of people on home detention under this Government has stayed relatively static to what it was under the last National Government. There has not been an increase in the use of home detention. Those numbers have been relatively static. We are concerned about that sort of offending. I'm very concerned that the offender managed to get hold of a firearm, for example. It is one of the reasons why this Government is absolutely committed to implementing the firearms register. David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and the public why someone who broke the law by supplying a firearm to a person on home detention without a licence would have registered their firearm? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that the firearms register will do is it will allow police more ability to keep track of where firearms are ending up. I believe that creating the firearms register is the right thing to do. I think the member and, potentially, the Opposition should clarify what their position is as to whether the firearms register will go ahead if there is a change of Government. David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister going to change in his leadership after his first seven months to persuade New Zealanders that a Government that hitherto cannot manage itself is really capable of fixing the problems of inflation, lawlessness, and division that rive New Zealand under his leadership? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will be campaigning on the platform that this Government wants to support New Zealanders who worked hard to get ahead so they can create a better life for themselves and their families, and I endorse the sentiments of Roger Douglas that the ACT Party is the party of privilege. Christopher Luxon: Aren't his Cabinet Ministers right to be disillusioned when he spent six months stringing them along on the wealth tax only to nix it at the last minute in a desperate attempt to keep his failing Government re-elected? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject that. We will be announcing our tax policy shortly, and I can say to the member that we'll have no difficulty making our numbers add up. It's no wonder the member can't announce his policy, because (a), he doesn't have a consistent one, and (b), his finance spokesperson's got no idea how he's going to pay for it. Question No. 3—Energy and Resources 3. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to decarbonise New Zealand's energy sector? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Last week, we announced that the Government is partnering with Fonterra to cut their coal use in half for manufacturing emissions at sites across the country. This partnership will result in earlier emissions reductions of around 2.1 million tonnes by 2035 and will result in annual reductions of up to 328,000 tonnes of carbon. That's the same as removing 120,000 cars off the road. The deal demonstrates how the transition to a low-emission economy is not only good for the climate but also a win for our major export industries by producing low-carbon goods and improving New Zealand's economic resilience—a longed-for win New Zealand workers by futureproofing our economy and jobs. Glen Bennett: How will the Government's partnership with Fonterra help New Zealand meet its emissions reductions targets? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our partnership with Fonterra will drag the emissions reductions forward into earlier emissions budgets, meaning we invest in New Zealand's decarbonisation transition rather than buying expensive foreign carbon credits to offset their emissions. The agreement will deliver 1.2 million tonnes of the emissions reductions required in New Zealand's second emission budget and 830 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in budget 3. This also makes up around 7 percent of the energy and industry sector sub-target in emissions budget 2, and 4 percent in emissions budget 3. Christopher Luxon: Where does the money come from? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I challenge Mr Luxon to ask me a question rather than chipping in, and maybe he could explain what National will do instead. Glen Bennett: Why is the Government partnering with Fonterra to reduce their coal use? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The independent Climate Change Commission has been clear: the emissions trading scheme (ETS) alone is not sufficient for New Zealand to meet its climate goals, with the ETS needing to be significantly higher than it is today to justify fully funding projects. Some large industrial users have said that without complementary measures like Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry, the ETS would have to be up to $200 per tonne for these vital decarbonisation projects to stack up for their businesses. This would massively impact the economy, including driving up New Zealand's energy costs. For example, this would add more than 40c per litre to the cost of petrol; if that's what the National Party are suggesting, I suggest they release the policy. Glen Bennett: What other benefits will be delivered through the Government's partnership with Fonterra? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Prime Minister said last week, by partnering with Fonterra to reduce emissions, we're helping to maintain New Zealand dairy's competitive edge as international consumers and food manufacturers demand further climate commitments. I've heard first-hand the importance of New Zealand's climate credentials to our exports. This partnership is an investment in our future economic prosperity. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with tax advice provided to him by the Treasury that "fiscal drag has had the greatest impact on average full time wage earners. However, it is increasingly impacting lower income individuals over time", and will the Government adjust tax thresholds to address this? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes; as the member and I have discussed on a number of occasions, fiscal drag does have an impact on New Zealanders across the board. This is an issue that all Governments have faced, and as I have stated previously, adjusting tax thresholds is something that all Governments will need to consider over time. However, there are trade-offs involved in doing so, and in deciding that fiscal space should go towards changes to tax thresholds, that means deciding not to invest in other areas like critical public services such as education, health, and housing. In answer to the second part of the question, the Government has indicated its tax policies at the Budget, and this was not part of that. Nicola Willis: Is he concerned by advice he received in February that fiscal drag is likely to be most acute for those currently earning near the $48,000 threshold, which includes full-time earners on the minimum wage? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am aware of the advice that I was given, and all Governments—all political parties—have to work out how they balance together providing support to people, for example, earning around that $48,000 level. I do note that the member's party's policy would see those people getting $2 a week, and the trade-off for that would be significant cuts in health, education, and housing, and services they rely on. Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that the average wage is currently above the $70,000 tax threshold, so, according to his own advisers, is taxed at a marginal rate of 33 percent, whereas in 2010 it was just above the $48,000 threshold, taxed at a much lower rate? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, in answer to the first part of the question, no, because I want New Zealanders to earn higher wages. Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the advice he has received that having a higher proportion of earners with higher marginal tax rates may be expected to lead to lower incentives to work and save over time as the returns on these activities are reduced? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are clear that we want to see New Zealanders' wages rise. That is the thing that will continue to provide incentives for them to keep working harder and to be part of a more productive economy. What the member needs to be able to answer to New Zealanders is how does this all balance up, because offering tax cuts in the environment that we are in now means they have to be paid for from somewhere, and that, in the case of the National Party, would have to be cuts to services. Hon Damien O'Connor: Has the Minister any reports on what would be the impact of an increase in GST after the next election? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: An increase in GST obviously would need to be communicated by a political party, and there is a track record of a party in this House that raised GST and didn't communicate that. The impact would be significant. David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that the size of the core Public Service is 28 percent larger than when he first became the Minister of Finance, and, if so, can he point to an actual outcome such as kids learning more, or safer streets, or more operations that have resulted from all these extra people he's hired? SPEAKER: That doesn't really relate to the primary, but if you want to answer— Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was going to say that the question has been put to the Prime Minister last week and was answered for the member. The question around the growth of the Public Service should be put to the Public Service Minister, but what I can say is that I'm extremely proud, over the last few years, of the way that the Public Service has stepped up to support New Zealanders through the global pandemic; the work that they did saved tens of thousands of lives and thousands of businesses. That is a demonstrable result I am proud of. Nicola Willis: Isn't it in fact the case that the Minister is ignoring the advice about the overwhelming case for income tax reduction for working people because he continues to believe that he and his merry band of Ministers can spend New Zealanders' money better than they can, despite the clear evidence that they have been wasteful and have not delivered outcomes for that spending? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The reason why we believe that now is not the right time for tax cuts is because we are in very uncertain and volatile times and because we think New Zealanders deserve to have quality health and education services. Over the course of the last five years, we have been rebuilding from the underfunding of those services by a Government that prioritised tax cuts over investing in them. New Zealanders deserve quality public services. We are delivering them. They are at risk under a National Government. David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware that the pandemic is, for all intents and purposes, over; and, if so, will he commit to returning the size of the Public Service to pre-pandemic levels, and when? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As in terms of my responsibilities, as indicated to the member on a number of occasions, we are on a track to reduce Government spending as a percentage of GDP back towards the long-run average. If we clicked our fingers and did that right away, as I would acknowledge the member has at least put out a plan to do, it would cause significant damage to the New Zealand economy and to New Zealand society. At the moment, that is the economic plan of a potential alternative Government—because it's the only one that's out there—and it's massively damaging and risky. Nicola Willis: What conversations, if any, has he had with the Associate Minister of Finance delegated responsibility for assistance on tax policy, one David Parker, and has that to date included any discussions about their mutual disappointment they can't go on a wealth tax tax grab? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have many conversations with Mr Parker and usually in the middle of them the words "Tory" and "putting the country at risk" and "tearing up the social contract"—they tend to be the things that feature in those conversations. Nicola Willis: Do those conversations also feature discussions about their mutual disappointment that the Prime Minister kiboshed their plans for a wealth tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated, I'm more than happy to go through some of the other topics that Minister Parker and I discuss from time to time, but mostly they focus on the importance of continuing the excellent work of this Government to lift children out of poverty, to build more State houses, to make sure that our economy continues to grow sustainably, and to make sure that we get on with reforming the Resource Management Act—one of Mr Parker's other portfolios—which the Opposition singularly failed to do across nine years. Question No. 5—Justice 5. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: What was the total cost of cultural reports funded by the Ministry of Justice in October 2017, and what was the total cost of cultural reports funded by the Ministry of Justice in May 2023? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 allows an offender the right to request a report on their personal, family, and even community circumstances, and how it may have related to their offending. This could possibly include family history and mental health, for example. This Government has not made any changes to section 27 of the Sentencing Act. As released in written question No. 19765, I am advised that in October 2017, the cost of section 27 reports funded by the Ministry of Justice was $1,530; and that in May 2023, the total cost of section 27 reports funded by the Ministry of Justice was $806,022. Nicole McKee: Can she confirm that in the year to 30 June 2023, the average amount spent on cultural reports was over $630,000 a month, compared to an average of $3,333 a month in the year to 30 June 2018; and does she think this is a good use of taxpayer money? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As stated before, this Government has not made any changes to section 27 of the Sentencing Act. It is true that section 27 reports are being more frequently used by the defence, as the legal profession's awareness of them grows. Given the increased used, I'm expecting, and have requested, further advice in the coming weeks to understand whether changes to the system may well be needed. Nicole McKee: Will she adopted ACT's policy to repeal section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002, which allows criminals to get shorter sentences by requesting cultural background reports? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. Nicole McKee: What does she say to the victim of Stevie Taunoa, who was pregnant at the time that she was sexually assaulted in her home and continued to receive threats from her offender following the assault, and who watched as the judge presiding over his case noted his lack of cultural identity before sentencing him to 12 months' home detention? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That is a completely unacceptable circumstance for any person to be subjected to. As I've already stated to the member, I'm keen to get a fuller understanding of whether the use of section 27 reports remains fit for purpose, and I am not ruling out further changes at this point in time. Nicole McKee: Why should the victims of crime have any confidence in her ability to defend their rights when she suggests that offenders are like victims, by saying, "It's a sad indictment on our justice system that the best way to help te iwi Māori is to keep them out of our justice system,"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In terms of our focus on victims of crime, I am proud of our track record on supporting victims. Since National left office, our Government has tripled the funding for the Victims Assistance Scheme, and doubled the funding to Victim Support. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, established Te Aorerekura, and will introduce a bill to give greater protections and rights to victims of family and sexual violence. And we're establishing three new pilots in the courts to improve victim safety, to ensure they're heard at bail decisions, and to strengthen the support for child victims of sexual violence. My focus is a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered. Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs 6. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcement has she made about New Zealand's ongoing response to Russia's assault on Ukraine? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you for the question. In response to Russia's illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, I've recently announced a new tranche of 23 sanctions. These are an extension of our ongoing commitment to stand with Ukraine and to condemn the actions of those contributing to this ongoing crisis. Specifically, these sanctions are aimed at Russia's military industrial complex, the paramilitary group, and individuals who have played a part in unlawfully transporting and deporting Ukrainian children to Russia. These sanctions will also impact a number of Belarusian financial institutions due to their escalating support of Russia's war in Ukraine. This represents our staunch stand against the abhorrent actions we are witnessing. Since the passing of the Russia Sanctions Act in March 2022, New Zealand has adopted more than 20 rounds of sanctions targeting over 1,500 individuals and entities. We remain committed to aligning our actions with international sanctions efforts in response to Russia's aggression. Dan Rosewarne: How does she plan to address the actions of Russia concerning the deportation of Ukrainian children? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand categorically condemns the acts of unlawfully separating children from their families. This is a gross violation of human rights and a clear breach of international law. We have specifically included three individuals involved in these heinous actions in our recent sanctions. We are sending a strong message to Russia and the world that such actions are intolerable and will be met with decisive measures. Dan Rosewarne: What is the purpose of these sanctions on Russia's military industrial complex and Belarusian financial institutions? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The sanctions aimed at Russia's military industrial complex and Belarusian financial institutions are designed to disrupt their operations and reduce their ability to support military activities. Fourteen of these sanctions target individuals and entities of the Russian military industrial complex involved in the development, manufacture, and procurement of weapons and technology used against Ukraine. We expect these sanctions to have a significant impact and limit their capacity to continue their aggression. Dan Rosewarne: What is New Zealand's response to Russian nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand remains deeply concerned about Belarus hosting Russian tactical nuclear weapons on their territory. New Zealand has always been a strong advocate for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and any development that means nuclear weapons are sited in more countries is negative. We call on Russia to reverse this course of action, and on Belarus not to host nuclear weapons now or in the future. It represents a direct threat—not only to Ukraine but also to its neighbouring allies—and destabilises the region further. Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment 7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, "Dental care is something that can be put off due to affordability difficulties, especially for low-income households. We know that issues with dental health have a negative impact on people's general health, financial health, ability to work, and quality of life"; if so, does she have confidence people unable to afford dental care can access dental grants? Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, and yes. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think Ministry of Social Development (MSD) dental grants are meeting the level of unmet need for dental care amongst low-income households; and if so, why are 40 percent of adults and 50 percent of Māori still unable to afford dental care? Hon PEENI HENARE: We're proud of the work that we've done in this space. In fact, lifting the cap from $300 to $1,000 in the Budget of 2022 has seen a significant uptake of that particular service so that people can receive dental services. What I note, too, is the criteria that it wasn't only to be for emergency dental but also to allow people to access what would be considered normal dental appointments for fillings or for check-ups to make sure that they don't fall into the emergency dental criteria. We know that there's more work to do, but we've done a heck of a lot of work to make sure that we can support those who are currently low-income households to access dental services. Ricardo Menéndez March: Are enough beneficiaries in low-income households able to access dental grants when emergency department staff have reported still regularly seeing patients who have attempted DIY extractions with a screwdriver? Hon PEENI HENARE: Of course we don't want to see DIY on dental work in households. What we want to do is make sure that we have the right settings to allow people to access that, and we're confident that we have by lifting the cap and, of course, changing the criteria to make sure that those who do need it can access that support through MSD. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister support people having to get into debt to access expensive dental treatment, which then impacts their ability to meet weekly costs? Hon PEENI HENARE: That's why we lifted the cap from $300 to $1,000—to make sure that people don't fall into the emergency dental trap. We can ensure that they access services to get their kinds of appointments to make sure that they have regular oral health checks, to make sure their teeth get the treatment that they need. We know that there's more to do, but I am confident that by lifting the cap as well as changing the accessibility settings, more people are accessing these services. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister think that only allowing low-income adults to access dental grants where they have an "immediate or essential need"—such as when they're in pain or when their teeth are decayed—rather than for cleaning, check-ups, and other, broader prevention work is leading to good oral health outcomes for families? Hon PEENI HENARE: I've already explained that we've already changed the criteria to make this system a lot more flexible so that it isn't just for the emergency dental grant: it's to make sure that there's better oral health by ensuring that people can book appointments, have regular check-ups, even get a filling; and that it's not just a one-off—it is a cap of $1,000; you can visit a dentist on multiple occasions to that cap of $1,000. We're proud of the work that we've done in this space. We know that there's more we need to do to support low-income families, and we've done that across multiple portfolios as a Government. Question No. 8—Police 8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: What recent progress have Police made on tackling organised crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I was incredibly proud to announce last week that Operation Cobalt, Police's focus work to disrupt gangs and organised crime, has reached a significant new milestone. As of 6 July 2023, police have entered 43,460 charges and have issued a further 55,988 traffic-related infringement offence notices. These charges are supported by 1,235 search warrants conducted and 731 warrantless searches as part of Operation Cobalt. Police have also seized 449 firearms as part of this operation, which builds on the 1,804 firearms seized as part of Operation Tauwhiro. These charges demonstrate Police's absolute commitment to tackling organised crime and that this Government is backing police to keep our communities safe and to hold offenders to account. Vanushi Walters: Minister, are you aware of any recent actions taken by police in the past 24 hours? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This work never stops. In just the past 24 hours, police arrested a patched member of the Head Hunters gang who was observed travelling through the Manukau area. With assistance from the armed offenders squad, an armed vehicle stop was made that revealed a large quantity of methamphetamine, and a further search of the address the offender came from revealed a firearm, which was loaded; ammunition; and a large quantity of cash. The offender has been arrested and charged with possession and further supply of methamphetamine, and police are not ruling out further charges being laid. This is just one more concrete example of the incredible work that our police are doing to tackle organised crime. Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she seen on the success of Operation Cobalt? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The successes of Operation Cobalt are known well beyond the confines of this House. Operation Cobalt national controller Detective Superintendent Uraia Vakaruru recently spoke with One News and made it clear that Mongrel Mob, Barbarians, Mangu Kaha, Black Power, Mongols, Greasy Dogs, Comancheros, and Hells Angels members have all been caught in the crackdown, and a recent story in the Police Association magazine highlighted the success of Operation Cobalt, explaining that up to 200 staff were working on the operation over the 12 different police districts, alongside non-traditional groups such as road policing as well. With nearly 700 new police working on organised crime and a spate of new, useful legislation, it's clear we're empowering police to get on with the job. Vanushi Walters: How has new legislation assisted police in tackling organised crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Just this month, a front-line constable in Counties Manukau invoked the first ever use of the new provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act. This new power enabled the officer to seize nearly $24,000 in cash in suspicious circumstances from a gang member who was in breach of bail. The officer was not satisfied with the explanations given and had reasonable grounds to suspect the cash was not lawful. The District Court agreed and granted an order to retain the cash for 28 days, pending further inquiries. This follows previous successes of the use of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act 2023 in Ōpōtiki during gang conflict, and it demonstrated we're making sure police have the rules and the tools to get the job done. Question No. 9—Health 9. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many times has her office requested officials delay the release of information, as she described in the correction to her response to oral question No. 8 last Wednesday, and when did she first receive any communication suggesting the answers she gave to question No. 8 were not accurate? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question, my staff member did not request the delay to the release of the information; my staffer asked the publication not to occur in the week of 5 July. In early June, officials advised me that the due date for the release was to be 30 June. Towards the end of June, officials asked for an extension of time because they could not meet the due date of 30 June. When advised it would be 5 July, my staff member asked for it not to be that week. To the second part of the question, as I already said last week in this House, at approximately 4.30 p.m. Dr Shane Reti: Was one of the reasons the report was delayed because of observations that reporting of the performance data was "poorly thought out, badly executed and provided … little [information] … to the public anyway."? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. As we canvassed in the House on Thursday last week, it was because of the busy week of that week for which the release was—busy week that that office had in the week that the release was proposed for. Dr Shane Reti: Did other people in her office have knowledge of the request to delay the data release beyond the person she says contacted her at 4.30 p.m.; and, if so, how many people? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That relates to the delay in which that question was asked, and the response was corrected in the House. Other political staff in my office would have known about the reply—about the correction—as we prepared to make it. Dr Shane Reti: Has she or her office also worked on delaying the release of the Ernst & Young review into the Māori Health Authority that she received over two months ago, on 5 May? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. That report, as I have mentioned multiple times, is under consideration. It will be released shortly. Dr Shane Reti: Can she give an assurance that all health performance measures will be regularly and accurately reported as we move towards an election campaign? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. And that is why Te Whatu Ora went to such great lengths to make sure that their review into the issues that led to incorrect data being reported went into such detail and depth. It is a very good report, and I hope the member is reassured there is a better platform for the provision of health data now. Question No. 10—Prime Minister 10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by the comment of the Minister Responsible for the GCSB, who has said that "the white supremacist threat in this country began to get serious attention only since mid-2018"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have not seen that particular comment by the Minister, but I have no reason to disagree with it. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What has the Government done since then, if anything, to ensure that responding to the rising threat of white supremacy and anti-Māori hate is a priority for intelligence services and the police? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member will see that we'll shortly be releasing national security and intelligence priorities. That will set out some of the work that we have done and some of the work that we are prioritising ahead. That includes targeting those who seek to radicalise anybody for a variety of different reasons. It will also seek to combat mis- and disinformation, which, of course, we know is used in some of the techniques used by groups such as white supremacists. So it will set out quite a comprehensive strategy in those areas, but it will also canvas the things that we have done. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What concerns does he have, if any, that the recent anti – co-governance tour is contributing to a rise in racist rhetoric and violence against tangata whenua? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I strongly disagree with some of the sentiment that has been expressed during that particular tour. I do believe it's important that we always balance the right to free speech here. People are entitled to have controversial, unpopular opinions, and ones that I strongly disagree with. I happen to strongly disagree with some of the things that have been expressed by the group of people who are running that tour. Rawiri Waititi: Does he think that the social theory tactics creating moral panic and fear among many here in Aotearoa are being used by other political parties in this House—using words like "subhuman", a word used by the Nazis, a white supremacist group, when describing the Jews; "apartheid", a white supremacist tool used against Black African peoples; and "separatism", "segregation", and "Jim Crow laws", a white supremacist tool used against African Americans—is fuelling white supremacist anti-Māori tours disguised as anti – co-governance tours plaguing this country? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I don't think any human beings should be described as "subhuman". I think those sorts of expressions are reprehensible. I do regret that some phrases are now more commonly used, including the phrase "apartheid", completely out of context and with an apparent lack of understanding for what "apartheid" actually involves. Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that it is the role of the police to protect only one side of a political debate and allow white supremacists to assault tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti engaging in peaceful protest? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe it is the role of police to ensure that the right to free speech is protected, that the right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest is also respected, and that the right for people to hold uncontroversial opinions and express those is also protected. That needs to be done equally. Question No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries 11. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What recent announcement has she made regarding a new food industry for New Zealand? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): On a recent visit to Nelson, I was pleased to announce $750,000 to help scientists and businesses look at which strains of microalgae might be suitable for including in foods like protein bars and shakes. Microalgae include single-celled organisms such as diatoms and dinoflagellates. They have caught the attention of scientists around the world for their extraordinary properties and potential to create an abundant, high-quality natural protein source using only a fraction of the water, land, and time of other types of farming. Rachel Boyack: How will the funding announced by the Minister assist in development of this new industry? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This funding is going towards a $1.5 million project with the Cawthron Institute, marine engineering company Kernohan Engineering, and biotechnology nutrition start-up NewFish. The project will see around 100 strains of microalgae from Cawthron's globally significant culture collection investigated for nutritional properties and ease of production that could open up new, sustainable protein industries across Aotearoa New Zealand. NewFish will work with Kernohan Engineering to take the best microalgae strains and grow them at a commercial scale. Rachel Boyack: Why is this such an exciting announcement as a potential development for our food industry? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What is so great about this project is that it brings together science, food innovation, and engineering to develop future food solutions. This collaborative approach can help provide nutritional and accessible food for everyone. Global food demand is expected to increase by 60 percent by 2050, and food security is threatened by issues like climate change, geopolitics, and pests and diseases. The most exciting part of this announcement is that it is a low-carbon protein, which can be grown sustainably in bioreactors on land. It doesn't compete with other types of farming for arable land and grows fast, with some doubling in size every day. Rachel Boyack: How does this announcement fit within other Government initiatives currently under way? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The national Aquaculture Strategy aims to grow our aquaculture and to do more aquaculture on land. The Draft Fisheries Industry Transformation Plan highlights the importance of collaboration across the sector, environmental sustainability, and innovation. This project will be another step towards turning the industry transformation plan into action. The microalgae funding has come from the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund. It is the Ministry for Primary Industries' flagship fund for the food and fibre sector. Since the fund was established in late 2018, the Government and sector have collectively invested almost $560 million in 263 projects across the supply chain. Question No. 12—Justice 12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the Government has the correct priorities in justice? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Yes. This Government's focus on justice is clear: we're backing the police with the rules and the tools they need to tackle crime; we're putting victims at the centre of our work; and we're focused on youth offending and cracking down on organised crime. We will continue to create opportunities to break the cycle of offending through programmes that we know are working, and we'll ensure that there is strong accountability and consequences for those who don't take up the opportunities that they are provided. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will she drop the Government's target of reducing the prison population by 30 percent regardless of the level of crime in our communities? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. The two factors that we've seen in the reduction of main offences are for drug offences and traffic offences, according to the information received from Corrections. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Shouldn't the priority in justice be to reduce the number of victims of crime rather than the number of prisoners regardless of the level of crime in our communities? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The track record of this Government is far better than the previous one, who cut funding to Victim Support. Since National left office, this Government has tripled the funding to the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the funding to Victim Support. As already stated today, we have already passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act and also established Te Aorerekura, and we'll also introduce a bill to give greater protections and rights to the victims of family and sexual violence. My focus is on a justice system where victims are heard, and that is exactly what we are doing. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn't the thing that victims are most concerned about not to be a victim of crime, and how has her Government made progress when there are 33 percent more violent crimes being committed under her watch? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Under this Government, police numbers have soared to their highest levels in history. Operation Cobalt has cracked down on organised crime. New legislation has been passed that enabled police to search 26 vehicles, seize firearms, 11 other weapons, and make arrests in Ōpōtiki. National's track record on crime is not tough. They closed over 30 police stations, froze Police's budget, let numbers of police fall, and cut funding for Victim Support. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she confident the sentencing laws are right when convicted serious violent offenders routinely receive home detention, which, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean staying at home? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I agree that perpetrators of serious crimes need to be held to account. The Government has not lowered any penalties for individual offences since we have been in office, and decisions in sentences are a matter for the judiciary, something that members of the party opposite don't seem to understand and saw dangerously close to the very fabric of our democratic institutions. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asked about the sentencing laws; I was not asking about the sentencing decisions, and her comment was way off the beat in relation to that matter. SPEAKER: Well, I don't think so. Hon Paul Goldsmith: All right. Why does she believe no restriction should be placed on the ability of judges to reduce sentences? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government has not lowered any penalties for individual offences, and those decisions are made by the judiciary and are before the courts, and that is a matter for the judiciary, not a matter for these members in this House. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. She didn't answer my question. My question was: why does she believe no restrictions should be placed on the ability of judges? And she said—that's an appropriate question. That's not a way to answer a question. SPEAKER: I'll go back and check the Hansard, but in my mind it's been answered. David Seymour: Over what time period does the Minister claim that the first- and second-most prevalent reductions in offender type in prison were traffic and drug offences, and will she table the Corrections material she referred to as having given her that information in her earlier answer to a supplementary? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The specificity of the primary question—I have that information and I'm more than happy to make it available to that member. URGENT DEBATES Ministerial Resignation—Hon Kiritapu Allan SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the resignation of the Hon Kiritapu Allan as a Minister. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Not every ministerial resignation warrants an urgent debate, however debates have generally been allowed where the actions of a Minister have raised questions of probity. Therefore, I call on David Seymour to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. This resignation signifies a very human tragedy wrapped up in a Government in disarray. The events surrounding Kiri Allan's resignation are sad. She is a person who I think most members would agree was someone of great talent and promise, and yet something that few of us understand has gone wrong and led to these tragic events. It is critical that the public understands what has happened because for the probity of Ministers, and ultimately the respect of the public on this House, it's just not acceptable to have a Minister of the Crown who is breaking multiple laws on one night—who is driving while over the limit, or at least the infringement offence limit for alcohol consumption, and who has resisted arrest while serving as the Minister of Justice. Those are things that, despite the clear human tragedy at the centre of this resignation, the people deserve an explanation for in order to uphold the probity of ministerial warrants and this House. It is also absolutely critical that people understand the circumstances in which this person was put into this tragic position. Because, while it is a human tragedy, it is also the case that it comes after a cascade of missteps and administrative bungles by this Government that are accumulating—along with the costs and the frustration faced by New Zealanders who put their trust in this Government. We now have a Government that has no more gas left in the tank. It can't even field a full Cabinet. The fact that Kiri Allan will not be replaced in Cabinet raises questions over whether or not this Labour Party has the talent to field a full team, and whether or not she felt pressure to remain on the field because they simply did not have any subs on the bench capable of doing the job. It has led to one person holding the Justice portfolio and the Police portfolio. That is a real problem for New Zealand or any democratic nation, because the Minister of Justice is accountable for upholding those parts of the apparatus of States that uphold, in turn, the rule of law. The Minister of Police is responsible for advocating for the police who have to be restrained by that same rule of law. When a person is put in both positions, that creates a conflict of interest. And, unfortunately, conflicts of interest have led to much of the difficulty that this Government has. It might have been possible to find someone to replace Kiri Allan as the Justice Minister from within the Cabinet. An obvious choice would be somebody in the form of the Attorney-General, who is a lawyer. Perhaps that person could have helped. However, unfortunately, it was found that he was already busy with other jobs. Or perhaps he just doesn't want any job, but doesn't even want to be the Minister of Revenue. Perhaps if it wasn't for the Natural and Built Environment Bill, he would be off completely. You see, since the Prime Minister said she had "no gas in the tank" back in January, there have been a total of five ministerial departures or resignations in just seven months. First, there was our Prime Minister—which we can come back to—then there was Stuart Nash, who was found to be leaking information to donors in breach of Cabinet confidentiality. And then there was Meka Whaitiri, who was planning to jump ship to another political party and the Prime Minister knew nothing about it. And then there was Michael Wood, the guy who had a conflict of interest with his ministerial portfolios that he failed to declare—and when asked not once, not twice, but over a dozen times to resolve that conflict of interest, he didn't do it. So Michael Wood is gone. And now, sadly, we see the departure of Kiritapu Allan. This is a Government that simply cannot hold it together. And people are right to ask: how can a Government so incapable of managing itself be asked to manage the many problems that New Zealanders face, with the inflation that ravages the cost of living, the lawlessness that ravages our streets. It was astonishing, just a moment ago we had what's called a "patsy question": a backbench Labour MP asking the Minister of Justice—or was it Police? I think it was Justice. It's hard to know. Asking about what is being done about gangs. What the Minister may not have known is that just an hour earlier, Sylvia Park was stormed by armed police, followed by ambulance officers, because two gang— Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers' rulings and Standing Orders are clear around debates of matters of urgent public importance. They are specific to the matters that are in the letter for the debate. While I know there needs to be a time for context, I believe that my listening in the seven or so minutes that the member has been speaking—the vast bulk of his contribution—has not been about the resignation of the Minister. SPEAKER: Yes, I'd have to agree with that summation of the contribution so far. I will ask the member to speak to the topic of the urgent debate. That's why I granted it. We've had quite a bit of stuff in there that is not related, and the current topic certainly isn't a narration—unless he can bring it very quickly to the topic at hand, then he should do so. DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note that my letter did include the conflict created by one person holding both positions, and my letter also pointed to the— SPEAKER: Yeah, I just warn the member: he's having a habit of really commenting on the ruling I've just made. I'm well aware of what the application was. You don't need to—in a way which I think is disrespectful to this House—comment on that, and I'd ask him to stop doing it. DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The resignation of Kiritapu Allan has occurred in a context. It's occurred in a context of the management of people. It has occurred in a context where a person facing serious challenges was asked to work at full tilt. Having been under question for the challenges that she was personally facing, she was returned to work where she carried out a heavy schedule of announcements in the run up to an election, which amounted to reversing the positions that she, as a Minister in her Government, had been required to uphold for years as a Government and for years, in her case, as a Minister. That could only reflect back on the nature of the Government, the culture that had been imbued in it, and the leadership that it had. We cannot escape the fact that this tragic sequence of events is inextricably linked to the context of that workplace. We cannot avoid the fact that we have had a Government that for a long time has sought to make policy based on the hope that if only they announce that many houses would be built, it would happen. When you have a Government that constantly tries to ensure that things will happen simply by wishing it so, the frustration that amounts, the problems that arise in the public domain, the pressure that comes back on to Ministers as a result. Well, unfortunately, all of those things which fully reflect upon the Government have been contributing factors to this particular tragic sequence of events. The Government has lost a Minister in highly questionable circumstances that bring into question ministerial probity—not just because of that individual's choices, which are clearly wrong and for which she has apologised, lost her job, and moved on. But they have occurred in the context of a Government that is failing at multiple levels and cannot be a good place for a Minister to be, where there is not a replacement to come on. All of these things, Mr Speaker. I can understand why the Minister of Finance doesn't want to hear them, but, nevertheless, they remain true. They are the true context in which these events occurred. It is simply the case that what we find ourselves with now as New Zealanders is a Government that can at best be described as a "caretaker Government": one that cannot field a full team, one that cannot manage itself—let alone the challenges of inflation, of lawlessness, and of division that have grown up like mushrooms under this Government. Failing and lacking the ability to manage itself or any of the problems that New Zealanders face, this Government will now amble towards October 14, and at that time people facing these problems—this inflation, this lawlessness, and this division—will have to ask themselves: are they not better with a new team? Is it not possible that New Zealanders can hope to see a Government focused not on itself and its multiple losses of personnel, but instead focused on their problems? Solving them with practical solutions that aren't satisfied simply with sounding good, but actually work. That is the challenge that is now before New Zealanders. That is what this unfortunate sequence of events has brought about, and that is the arena into which ACT enters to provide a better solution, a better way forward, and one that is not going to be so tragically negligent of people that come to serve in the Government. I finish by giving my best wishes and regards to Kiritapu Allan at a personal level. She is a person that I have known and interacted with over the years and found to be a good person, a person of great intelligence and capability. She has chosen a course, and I respect—obviously—and would like to support from afar that choice that she makes. We wish her all of the best and we hope that all people who come here to do the job can find themselves in a circumstance where they can make a difference as part of a strong team that is responsive to the problems and challenges New Zealand face and put in place coherent solutions that actually solve those problems. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It is with regret and a heavy heart that I rise today to speak on this motion. I want to begin by sending my aroha directly to my friend Kiritapu Allan. I have admired the work that Kiritapu has done as a Minister and admired the work that she did before then. She is a person of extraordinary talent, intellect, heart, and mana. Many New Zealanders first came to understand who the Hon Kiritapu Allan was during her struggle with cancer, and the bravery and the courage that she showed during that period of time. I still have people who talk about the period of time where she was the Minister for Emergency Management and was needing to deal with a particular emergency in New Zealand whilst also knowing, herself, how unwell she was. What people saw there was a person who exhibited the strong qualities of leadership, as I say, and of courage and of bravery and also of enormous intellect as well. The tragic events of Sunday night have been traversed extensively in the media and I remain very cognisant of the fact that they are also matters that will come before a court in the very near-term, and, obviously, this debate is taking place in that context. Very soon after those events early yesterday morning, Minister Allan tendered her resignation to the Prime Minister after a conversation with him. In doing so, she acknowledged, as she did publicly, that she knew that this was the only course of action that was possible. She fully understood that, as a Minister of the Crown and, in particular, as Minister of Justice, she could no longer remain in that role, having gone through the circumstances of Sunday night. She quickly and swiftly moved to resign and had that resignation accepted by the Prime Minister. That is undoubtedly the right thing to do. As Kiritapu Allan referred to, herself, in her statement, she understood that these actions were inexcusable, and therefore did not offer any excuse, and moved quickly to resign. That is the right thing to do. There is no excuse for the actions that have been acknowledged by Kiritapu Allan, including the driving while under the influence, and also the charges that have been laid. The consequences of that is that she is no longer a Minister, and she has suffered the consequences for that. What I want to do, though, is place on record that while I understand and believe those to be the right actions to take in this situation, I do think this House can recognise that we have had a person working as Minister, who is a good New Zealander, a person who is able to relate well to other people, who is able to drive forward policy in a number of portfolio areas, and who represented, I think, to New Zealanders someone who they wanted to be in their Houses of Parliament. My reflection is that, as a group of people here, we are stronger and better for the diversity that is in this House. We are stronger and better for making sure that people can see a career in politics even if they're not perfect. From time to time, myself and others have stood in this House and probably said and done things preying on the imperfections. It's part of what we do here, and it's not always right. But I especially think, when we know and when Minister Allan has been brave enough and courageous enough to talk about her own mental health struggles, that we do, as a Parliament, need to think about how we make the job we do—the important job all of us do; not just the Government but the Opposition parties as well—how we make it possible for people to be able to fulfil those roles with a diverse set of backgrounds, with a diverse set of current experiences, including struggles with mental health. I think we can do better, and I do include myself in that along with everybody else. We need to understand and respect the fact that mental health issues are things that can be worked through. Getting well is what it's all about; looking after your wellbeing, making sure that you understand how to manage issues when they arise, and that as a group of people in a population, we do that. I mihi to Kiritapu for the way she's talked about mental health. I think it's opened up conversations just in the way that she talked about cancer. It's opened up conversations among New Zealanders that weren't happening. She should be proud of that and we should support her and others in doing so—and I acknowledge my old student political colleague Todd Muller in this regard as well, as another person in this House who also did that. We do need, as a country, to understand the importance of mental health as an issue and understanding how we support people in all walks of life to be able to stay well, and when they are struggling, to be able to be supported to retain their wellbeing and get back to the place that they want to be. The resignation of a Minister is always challenging for a Government. The Prime Minister's decisions around what to do when faced with that, in this particular instance, is a recognition of the short period of time that exists between now and when this House rises and we go to the election. We have just five more weeks of this House, and it's appropriate that Ministers take on the responsibilities that Kiritapu had, to allow us continuity and to be able to move forward towards the election. I'm extremely proud to be part of this Government and this ministerial team: people working every hour of the day to make this country better. Kiritapu Allan has been a valued member of that team and I am very confident that in years to come, her name will be heard again as doing something significant for Aotearoa New Zealand. She is a person who will make change for the better in the future in her life. What we want for her now is to be able to be given the space and the time to get well, for her situation not to be unnecessarily politicised, but for all of us in this House to gather around her, her whānau, and her friends and give them the aroha and support that they deserve. Kiritapu, we are thinking of you, you are one of our whānau, and we will always love you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We're speaking in an urgent debate on the matter of the resignation of Kiritapu Allan as a Minister. It's a perfectly appropriate debate to have, because this is a serious event. The Minister of Justice was arrested, allegedly for resisting arrest, and she has resigned, and it's absolutely appropriate that the House should discuss that. And we've heard some criticism from the other side of the House, as if this was somehow inappropriate, and I don't agree with that at all. It is quite right for us to talk about these matters and to put them in the wider context. The context is that this is sixth resignation we've had this year from the Cabinet. I'll just quickly run through them. Jacinda Ardern first, when she knew the game was up in January, and after five years there was very little to show for the efforts. Second, there was Stuart Nash for leaking information to donors and texting the Commissioner of Police about matters. Third, there was Meka Whaitiri, who showed such a level of animus within the Government that she made sure that her resignation was announced when the Prime Minister was on route to Britain to have a very unwelcome arrival in the airport there. Then, there was Michael Wood—the "16 times is not enough" Michael Wood—which descended into comic farce over a senior Minister not dealing with matters appropriately around conflicts of interest. Fifth is Kiri Allan, as was said, Minister of Justice, resigning because of resisting arrest and a number of other serious matters. And the sixth, that we shouldn't overlook, which happened pretty much at the same time, was David Parker leaving his post as Minister of Inland Revenue because he was unhappy with the decisions made within the Cabinet over the wealth tax—not doing what usually is regarded as the honourable thing to do, which is to leave the Ministry, full stop, if you don't agree with what the Cabinet agrees, but that's by the by. And so what we have is the great resignation. Now, we talked about that in the context of 2022—post-COVID, people leaving their roles. What we see under this Government's great resignation is a Labour Party getting close to election with nothing to show for their efforts. When it comes specifically to Kiritapu Allan and her resignation, much has been said and written over the last 24 hours. On the issue of her wellbeing and her mental health, I, of course, like most members of the House, do not know the details and what goes on in anybody's experiences. We are all very conscious that we are all fallible human beings, we're all struggling in a high stress environment, and we all share concern for any member of Parliament—in particular, to Kiri Allan at this time—for going through a difficult period. And so I don't propose to add anything more to that, because I don't know anything more about it. But what she has said, of course, is that none of that excuses her behaviour on Sunday night, and she has taken responsibility for that, as she really had no choice to do anything otherwise. And so what can we talk about here? It is appropriate to assess her performance as a Minister of Justice. There has been a lot written. It was written that she was on top of her game. I think it was actually a much more mixed performance as Minister of Justice, because she is responsible for a Government which has struggled to make progress in the wider law and order space. And they have had, I think, I believe, the wrong priorities. And she has prioritised reducing the prison population by 30 percent, even at a time when there has been a real increase in crime. And so we're all conscious of the fact, as we go around door knocking and talking to New Zealanders, that there are two issues that they are most worried about. They're worried about the cost of living and they're most worried about law and order. And we've seen, throughout the period that the Minister who has resigned was the Minister, a period of no movement being made on very large reductions in sentences so that people with serious violent convictions are ending up on home detention. We've seen a massive expansion in cultural reports with little to yield for it. We've seen a massive increase in ram raids and youth crime generally. We've also seen a very significant increase in the delays in the court system. So these are real, real challenges that affect people's lives. People's lives have been kept on hold for a long period of time. And then a final area is we've moved away, as a country, from equal suffrage in the local government setting. The Minister of Justice should be standing up vigorously for the principle of equal suffrage—all New Zealanders having an equal say in who governs them and who makes decisions affecting their lives—and she failed to do that. In fact, she failed to even talk about that as an issue. And so that is a perfectly legitimate thing to analyse. So, like many Ministers, people will look back and see what was achieved. They'll be conscious of the particulars over which she resigned, but they will also make a judgment about the overall effectiveness of the Government in the justice space. And I suppose the broader context that we debate in this debate is the consequences of this resignation—what it means for the Government, and what it means for what we have here and what we all see is a Government that has been overcome with chaos, with confusion, and incompetence. Why does that matter—why does it matter? Because, ultimately, the confidence that people have in the Government really has an impact in the confidence, generally, in the country. If we go back to the fourth Labour Government, when it fell apart at the scenes and Lange was fighting with Roger Douglas and the whole thing blew apart—that had a terrible impact on confidence as well, because—to understand the relationship—when people are confident about how a country is governed, they are more likely to invest, and if they are more likely to invest, the country has a better chance to grow and to create jobs and to do well. And the inverse is true. When people don't have confidence that the place is well managed, that a Cabinet is coherent, and that the people within it govern themselves and the country well, they tend to hold back—particularly now, when we have got to a state where the Prime Minister can't even remember who some of his Ministers are, because there has been such a rapid turnover. That sense of chaos is building. When you have one Minister being both the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice—which has been parodied up and down the country as Minister of "Catch and Release"—that all leads to a sense of lower confidence in the way that the Government is managing itself. And ultimately, that is unhelpful for a country, and that is why we strongly believe the time is well and truly past for a change, so that we can reassure New Zealanders that they have a Government that can conduct itself well, that it has Ministers who are able to stay the term, and who will obey the rules. Kiritapu Allan's case, I suppose, clearly is the most egregious, in terms of breaking the laws as a Minister of Justice, but there has been, like I say, a number, over the whole period of the year, where rules have been broken and Ministerial understandings and conventions have been moved away from—whether it was Nash, whether it was Wood, or whether it was David Parker. So there's a lot to reflect on in this. Nobody takes any joy from the personal downfall of any Minister. I would hope that all people across the House recognise that and they recognise the personal struggles that we have seen here. Like I say, I don't have any specific insight into that and can only offer my thoughts to Kiri and those who know her and love her. But we do quite rightly expect that our Ministers will obey the law, obviously, and that that that a Cabinet will be coherently run in good discipline and good order so that New Zealanders can have confidence in that Government. What we are seeing, right here, right now, is the slow and steady disintegration of this, the fifth—is it the fifth?—no, the sixth Labour Government. That is a problem—a political problem—for this Government. It's a political problem for Chris Hipkins, but it's a broader problem for New Zealand, because, like I say, when people look to Wellington, when they look to the Government and they see such chaos, the implication is that people will feel less confident, ultimately, to make plans, to invest, and to have a long-term view because so much is so unsettled. And that's why it's so important that we restore good Government and good governance in this country. Thank you very much GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in this debate, as I hope others have done, with grave sadness and a sense that, in fact, we shouldn't be here debating a deeply personal, tragic circumstance in the workplace of the person who, with so much courage, has in fact owned her actions many, many times over. I send nothing but our absolute aroha from the entire Green Party caucus, from myself, and I know many, many others out there in Aotearoa to Kiri—or Minister. It is sad that we are standing here and debating this issue, but I want to hold that I have, in fact, been heartened by the vast majority of the reporting since yesterday—when we all woke up as a nation with some shock and sadness to the news of what had occurred in terms of the traffic incident and the resignation of a talented Minister in our Government—has in fact been different than it might have been a few years ago. There seems to be a greater understanding of workplace stress, of mental health, of the way that we talk about things like this in our communities and, in fact, the standards that we hold our leaders to when they stumble. So that actually made me feel a lot better. And then I saw some of the political commentary in terms of my colleagues in this House and I feel compelled to comment on that, in that I think it has set us back, and in that I think we have a responsibility as members of this House to show better moral leadership. I want to say that as the last speaker, Paul Goldsmith, was wrapping up his speech he started to talk over and over again about how confidence would be eroded out there in the public. But I actually want to say to members of the public, because I know that many, many are finding it challenging right now in a post-COVID environment, in an environment where we've always had challenge in terms of accessing mental health care, that, actually, no one will lose confidence in you if you stumble, if you talk about your mental health challenges or crises openly, that your workplace—unlike this one—will probably not make a public spectacle of you. That actually, as leaders, most of us in here would have chosen not to be standing up and debating something this personal and turning it into a challenge against your competence. I wish, on behalf of the National Party, that in media we'd seen someone like Matt Doocey, the spokesperson, or Todd Muller, a former leader—both of whom have spoken about their own experiences—front for that party rather than Chris Luxon or Paul Goldsmith, who actually turned it into an issue of Ministers needing a psych report to come back to work if they experienced challenges. I want the public to know that if you come forward and say that you are struggling with your mental health in your place of work that no one's going to institutionalise you and require you to come back with a psych report. When I went forward and talked openly about suffering from multiple sclerosis it was in part because members of that community kept telling me not to come forward because when they had talked about their chronic illness they'd realised that they weren't being promoted at work, they weren't seen as being competent enough, as other members of our disabilities community have since come forward and told me. So I felt like it was really important to talk about the way that I might need more support in the workplace as a multiple sclerosis sufferer, but that I can still do it. Because maybe it's important to have people with chronic illness in this place, and maybe it's important for this place to trust and respect us, just as it's important that members in this House trust and respect those of us who happen to represent the vast majority of people out there in the world in Aotearoa who have at some point in their lives had mental health challenges. And I want to finish by commenting with maybe as much sadness and disappointment on the fact that David Seymour felt the need to call this debate at all, and that he had to be stopped twice during his speech for politicising what should have been an urgent debate only about the matter in hand, that it is shameful that in election year some members of this House still think that anything at all is up for debate. That's not what New Zealand wants. That is what calls the competence of us as politicians into question, not the fact that Kiri Allan suffered from a mental health challenge, that she lost a battle on that day, because we know that she will rise again. We know that life is long and that it's OK to have challenges. What's not OK is to see a workmate, see them stumble, and see a personal profit. That's not the politics that the people out there deserve. So with that, I want to send our aroha and support to a leader who we know will rise again, and to all the future leaders who will stand, who we will stand next to, who we will lift up no matter what your challenges, whether it's mental health, whether it's chronic illness, whether it's disability, whether you happen to be a queer Māori young woman like Kiri—you'll be OK. Kia ora. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I too would like to begin my short contribution by acknowledging Kiritapu Allan and sending our love from her Labour whānau to her. I'd also like to acknowledge that the events of the last 36 hours once again highlight that this is a workplace like no other. I can't imagine a workplace anywhere else in the country where someone clearly makes a mistake, they acknowledge their mental health challenges, and then there is a discussion and a debate that is televised on TV for the whole country to see. I think it highlights something that I've always been struck by in my time in this House, which is that when we see an MP stumble or when we see an MP—from whatever side of the House—clearly see their careers sometimes disintegrate within a matter of hours before our eyes, it is nothing that any of us find comfortable and it is not something to celebrate. It highlights what a different and difficult workplace this place can be. I would like to acknowledge also the members of our caucus. Events like this have a ripple effect, and it's never about one person. We become pretty close in these jobs as a caucus and as colleagues, and when one member falls, that does have a ripple effect throughout the team. So I would like to acknowledge the very many members of our caucus who have wrapped their arms around Kiri in the last days and months to support her at what clearly was a trying time. Kiri has been brave in acknowledging that she was struggling with mental health issues. Last week, she came back to work, and the consensus was she was on top of her game. It was Kiritapu at her very best: articulating policy in her clear ability to communicate and to talk to New Zealanders in a way they understood was on show. But what we saw and what we can't ignore is that yesterday morning, we saw a Minister who had to have a conversation with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister did advise that he did not believe that it was tenable for her to continue to hold her ministerial warrants, for very real reasons. I think it has been clearly documented what has happened from there, but I think the best thing now is that Kiri takes the time to heal, that she spends time with her whānau and with her friends, and that she does spend that time healing. I think that for the rest of us, it is time to reflect on the fact that there are no quick fixes when it comes to mental health. It is something that we have to make sure that we understand that things can change quickly and without warning, and it is something we have to think about in terms of our workplace here in Parliament. But we also, as a Labour caucus, need to continue to focus on all of those New Zealanders who are doing it tough at the moment, all of those members in our communities who are looking to their Government for hope and for support to address the cost of living, to tackle things like crime, and to make sure we have a health system that is serving New Zealanders and an education system that is fit for purpose, and that is exactly what Labour will be doing. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first met Kiri in 2017 when we were both asked to participate in a press gallery debate to raise funds for a charity—I can't remember what it was now. We both participated in that, and then later on, sitting out the back of The Backbencher, we had a drink together and we talked about an area that we both love, and that is the East Coast of the North Island—Gisborne, from Ruatōria down to Wairoa, where, obviously, Kiri's family is from and my family is from also. I spent a good chunk of my adult life living over there. I transferred there in the police as soon as I had the opportunity and spent most of my time over there as a police dog handler, operating out of Gisborne. I just have to say that it certainly gives me a sense of comfort to know that Kiri is now back in Gisborne, a very, very strong community there, with her family, and they will be wrapping the support that she needs around her now. I want to talk to two parts of this. The first part is the human side. I do want to address some of the comments that my friend and colleague from the Green Party, Golriz Ghahraman, made, because, in this country, we are still fighting to overcome stigma. We are still fighting to allow mental health and depression to be spoken about openly as if it's any other ailment, whether it be a broken arm or a broken leg or a bronchial infection. It's just quite simply a chemical imbalance in the brain. No one wakes up in the morning asking to have mental health issues. No one wakes up in the morning wanting to be depressed. And we've still got quite a long way to go. I'll just say to the Green member that she spoke about a psychological report as if it was a bad thing. It's not a bad thing. A psychological report is quite simply a report on someone from an expert in that field—that is passionate and trains and has the ability to care for and provide a diagnosis and a support plan going forward, just like it would be the same if it was a broken arm and you had an orthopaedic specialist or an orthopaedic surgeon— Ingrid Leary: Are you saying to mandate it? Hon MARK MITCHELL: What I'm saying quite simply is this: if we want to get rid of stigmas, let's not continue to talk about them as if there is a stigma, as if there is an issue attached to those types of things. There's not. There quite simply isn't. The human side of this—and I've been very clear about this. I consider myself, and I like to think of myself, as a friend of Kiri. I know that, when she was facing the terrible challenge around cancer, which she took on bravely—and, by the way, still remained very committed to her role as a Minister, as much as she could, and I think she deserves our admiration for that—I certainly, on a personal level, tried to support her as well as I could through that cancer battle. We stayed in regular contact, and when she put her hand up, again bravely, a few weeks ago and said, "I have got some mental health issues. There are some personal things happening in my life."—and the tough thing about this job here is that it's a huge privilege but the reality of it is that you live in a fishbowl; you look out and everyone else looks in. We just have to accept that. That is the nature of this role. We serve the people that send us here. They expect us to be able to do that role, and they'll hold us to account. That's how the system operates, and that's how it should be. But it is very hard when you're dealing with deeply personal issues and those have been played out in public. When she put her hand up and she said, "I'm going to have to step back and take some time off because there are some personal issues and it has impacted and affected my mental health", I did send her a message. I sent her a message of support, and I said, "Good on you for being brave enough to put your hand up, because maybe that will just help others to put their hand up and say that they need help as well." But my issue with what has happened with Kiri, and I've been very clear about it, and some people don't like it, is that she should have been—and I don't know whether she did have, because we don't know the details about her return to work. I want to acknowledge the Hon Willie Jackson, who is in the House. It appears that he has definitely been trying to provide her with support behind the scenes. But my point is quite simply this: she is in a much worse situation now personally, where she's got some big mountains to try and climb. That, in my view, didn't need to happen. If someone is supported properly and if there is a proper process to allow them to come back and re-engage in the workplace, whether it be light duties or whatever the plan may be, as long as they're properly supported, you've got a very high chance of success, of actually getting them back into the workplace. I'll just say this: often when people are depressed or they're suffering from mental health, they are not in the best position to judge whether or not they are ready to go back to work. They need people around them that are able to step back and have some perspective, whether that includes professional advice or advice from a counsellor—whoever is providing that support and that treatment—to be able to actually step in and make those decisions. I think what we've seen played out in the last 24 hours, in my view, was avoidable. Now, I want to come to the important part too, and that is the fact that—we all wish Kiri a speedy recovery and we all want to see that happening, but the reality of this is that our country at the moment is experiencing a massive crime wave. We've got a cost of living crisis. We've got interest rates going up. We've got Kiwis now trying to borrow money just to get themselves through week to week. They're having to prioritise, and it is tough. And one thing they expect us to be able to do is come to this place and take that seriously and think about them and make the decisions and do the things that we have to do to make this a better country and an easier country to live in and raise your family. I think that when you've got the justice Minister—[Speaker gestures to member] Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. When you've got the justice Minister—and this is the justice Minister; this is one of the highest law officers that we have in our country—in a position where they're failing, allegedly—and I must say "allegedly", because we do understand that this is an ongoing police investigation and case—not complying with our front-line police, that is about as bad as it gets. I just want to say one thing: in the last six years, our front-line police have had to deal with a lot. But one of the things that has been very tough for me to watch is that there's been a loss of respect in the way that gang members, youth, and juvenile offenders treat our police officers. They are not paid enough to be spat at. They're not paid enough to be assaulted— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Mitchell, I've asked you to keep this narrow. Keep it narrow or you will be sitting down. Hon MARK MITCHELL: And therefore, Mr Speaker, we should be sending a signal from this Parliament, from this House of Representatives, that we should be complying and respecting our front-line police officers. We had the person that held the highest position in our Parliament in terms of a Minister of justice that completely failed on that level. And we have to take steps as a Parliament, all of us, and especially as a Government, to restate the fact that our police officers deserve to be shown that respect. Just very quickly: when I was in Gisborne recently, I was very lucky that, at the police station there, they had a ceremony for me where they presented me with my old Armed Offenders Squad cap, which was 20-plus years old. I hadn't worn that for over 20 years, and somehow they still had it in the station. During that meeting, they recognised the fact that they respected Kiritapu Allan. They respected her as their local MP. What's really important now is that this House and this Government gets up and very clearly says we respect the role of our police officers. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It's a very sad time for this whole Parliament, and I agree with our lady from the Greens, Golriz, who said it for many of us, that we did not need to have this type of debate today. Mr Seymour, on one hand, talks about supporting Kiritapu, and then this whole debate turns into a political kōrero. It saddens many of us today, but what will be will be. Her resignation is tragic, and as Megan Woods said, we thought she was OK a week back. Yes, we're not experts, but she was adamant, and particularly with me, that she was ready to come back to work. Mental health's a funny thing—well, it's not a funny thing; it's a terrible thing, I should say. I should put that in a better place. We saw how she operated in the media conference last week. She was absolutely on her game—brilliant, actually. According to Claire Trevett, she gave a masterclass performance in the media conference on ram-raiding and justice. So who would know, when you see a Minister like that on top of her game? She worked well in the House after taking questions from the Opposition. Then just a few days later, down she went. It was shocking for all of us to see how she went down that track. For me, I take this very personally. My uncle Moana Jackson talked to me about Kiritapu six years ago. He said to me, "I have this young woman who is a great, great talent, and you better look after her." So that's when I first met Kiri. I hadn't met Kiritapu before. He said that she's got talent and brains and she's a contemporary of people like—I think you're a bit older than her, Tama, but she's part of that legal crew who are so brilliant—that young, Māori crew. So he put it on me to support her, and so her and I have grown very close over the last six years. I suppose on Sunday I was very sad because she got in touch with me at 6 o'clock and said she was a bit lonely and she wanted to go for a kai. I wasn't in Wellington at the time, but I thought everything was OK. We were happy at the end of our kōrero, but at 10 o'clock on Sunday night, it all went wrong. So just so saddened by this. But I suppose I'm buoyed and happy when I see the type of support I heard from the Greens; the Māori Party have been very supportive. Our women out there—I saw Professor Linda Smith salute her. She has a lot of support out there that other MPs would love, but I think it is because she represents so much. She's young, she's brilliant, she's funny, she's a young leader, she's also proudly from the coast. You know, she's such a hard case, and at the same time is incredibly brilliant. So she's got so much support out there. So I've heard the kōrero. She'll rise again, and I've said that to her too. Politics is a funny game. Politics is all about timing. A few of us know that—a few of us know that. Hon David Bennett: Winston. Ha, ha! Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, that's right, Mr Bennett. Like, when is the right time to come into politics? When is the right time to leave politics? When is the right time to come back into politics? For Kiritapu Allan, she is, without doubt, one of our mana wahine. She has been a leader for Māori, she has been a leader for her community, and she is revered right across the spectrum. I said yesterday when I was speaking to an interviewer that she's a bit different to some of us who just want to smash into the Opposition. She always rose above that. That's why people like Mr Seymour gave her a good mihi, and others from the Opposition, they supported her, because Kiritapu never really got too personal with anyone, and that was her great strength. I'm glad now she's going to find some wellbeing with her whānau. I wish her all the best, and she will be back. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I genuinely rise taking no pleasure from having to take part in this debate. I want to pass on my empathy and best wishes to Kiritapu Allan, and at this time when her personal and private life is under such public scrutiny, just remind her that this too will pass, and many people have talked about the likelihood of her rising again. So I want to endorse those sentiments. I want to speak about Kiritapu Allan's resignation and the context of this, and it has been talked about before that her resignation comes within the context of five other resignations under this Prime Minister, so Jacinda Ardern, Stuart Nash, Meka Whaitiri, Michael Wood, Kiri, and of course David Parker. But not only does it come within the context of those six resignations, but it also comes within the context of many areas of failed reforms, and failed behaviour from this Prime Minister. I believe that in the context of this resignation, the Prime Minister is the common denominator of many of these issues. We're talking about a Prime Minister who, while is an experienced politician, he was certainly not an experienced people manager, and he was certainly not experienced in exercising judgment over staff or people that he worked with. I said very early in my time here that Chris Hipkins wasn't capable of running a bath because he had never run anything, and I stand by that, and so I think Kiritapu Allan's resignation has been an incredibly sad consequence of a person being in a position of leading who did not provide that support and leadership that she should have been able to expect. I talk about the context of the things that the Prime Minister has been involved in in his time as Prime Minister, and also as a Minister. I look at the education reforms of the vocational education sector that have been a complete and utter disaster. I look at the roll out of the vaccines— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Come back, come back please to within the debate. PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I'm wanting to traverse the areas where I believe that the Prime Minister, and at the time when he was the Minister of these various areas, Chris Hipkins has let down not only Kiritapu Allan, but a large number of people. When I look at farmers who have lost hope for their— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I've warned the member once to come back to within the scope of this debate which is an urgent debate centering around the resignation of a Minister. I'll ask the member again to stay within the parameters of the debate. PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do think that the Minister resigning is very much as a consequence of the lack of support and leadership that was not shown to her by the Prime Minister, and I believe that there have been a number of signals over the last few years that this Prime Minister, in his role as a Minister, has done similar things to people within those areas and now to his Cabinet. When we read through six Ministers in the last six months who have resigned, there is a common dominator, and the common denominator is Chris Hipkins who lacks the experience and lacks the judgment to be able to offer the support that should have been able to be expected of a leader in that context. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] This whole debate focused on Kiritapu and the Government, to me, is a very narrow-minded debate. Instead what we should be debating is the institution of Parliament that continues to uphold a misogynistic culture that was imposed by British men. Everyone sitting in this House is responsible for upholding that culture. Suddenly, everyone here has turned into mental health professionals, when this is the very institution and the very people that choose, every day, to create mental unwellness amongst our people. Kiritapu Allan is only one casualty among a long line of people who have suffered from the misogyny of this Parliament—especially our wāhine Māori: Alamein Kopu, Georgina te Heuheu, Metiria Turei, Claudette Hauiti, Nanaia Mahuta, Marama Davidson, Meka Whaitiri, Louisa Wall, and now Kiritapu Allan. This place is unsafe—more so for Māori, and more so again for wāhine Māori. The record shows for itself that the rules and traditions of this place perpetuate an unsafe culture. This place is makariri—which means "cold", Mr Brownlee. It is void in spirit and this affects Māori more than anyone else in the House. Why? It's because it was built with the aspirations of ridding Aotearoa of its indigenous people through subjugation and assimilation. It is our responsibility—every one of you here—to do better, to challenge the very institution of this House that perpetuates misogyny and racism. How do we do that? Through constitutional transformation. We've been very clear about constitutional transformation—Te Paati Māori has policies based on it. The Matike Mai report shows a way we could do that to ensure that is a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, a system that is based on Te Tiriti, a system that allows tikanga Māori to be part of any political system here in Aotearoa. Our Aotearoa hou shows that. What does an Aotearoa hou look like? It looks like how we would treat you on the marae. This is the way Kiritapu Allan and all these other wāhine Māori and all of us here in this room—none of us exclusive of this—be welcome to an Aotearoa hau. What does that look like? It looks like how we would treat you on our marae. We will welcome you. We will feed you. We will house you. We will care for you. We will love you. That's the type of system we should be looking at. This is not about an isolated case of Kiritapu Allan—kāo. This is about ensuring that this is a safe place for everyone, that this is a safe place for minorities, that this is a safe place for tangata whenua, that this is a safe place for tangata Tiriti, that this is a safe place for wāhine Māori. The record shows that it has not been a safe place for our wāhine Māori. I named a whole raft of wahine Māori that had been affected by the Westminster system that has been imposed on us here in Aotearoa. So our challenge is to everyone here. This is an opportunity for us to start to look at a system that is more accepting—that is more accepting, that is more Tiriti-centric, and that builds an Aotearoa hou. So, in saying that, [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): Vanushi Walters—five-minute call. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like many of my other colleagues today, I rise with a heavy heart as well and join them in sending aroha to Kiritapu and to her whānau. It's really difficult to see someone who has such a heart for improving our justice system to have to step back in this way. I met Kiritapu many years ago when we were both working at YouthLaw Aotearoa and we connected really in terms of her passion for young people. That's something that has followed her through her role as Minister of Justice. Kiritapu was always someone who I think, while she had the ball, really was running, and that of course is very difficult to do when you're going through your own personal circumstances as well. It is undeniable that her actions on Sunday night are unacceptable, but I think what that shows us is that mental health issues don't discriminate and they don't always present in the most obvious of ways. Sometimes they do sit under the surface and often the scale of those issues sits under the surface as well. I want to acknowledge that there has been a reallocation of the portfolios as a result of her resignation. I just want to acknowledge Minister Andersen as someone I know to be focused on responding to community concerns and very connected to justice issues across the portfolio. I would say to all those who are experiencing mental health issues that your present circumstances don't determine where you go; they merely determine where you start. I believe it's time now for us to give Kiritapu and her whānau some peace to talk with themselves and some privacy. Kia ora. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the consideration in committee of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill; the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committees of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Climate Change Response) Amendment Bill. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 72 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere. Noes 44 New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORAL LEGISLATION BILL Instruction to Committee Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Point of order. I move, That the committee be instructed to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments to the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty. This Supplementary Order paper will permanently enable local councils to have remote participants in their meetings to count towards their required quorum. This arrangement is already in place. [Bell rings] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, sorry. No, I meant— Hon JAN TINETTI: All good. Firstly, this was through the COVID-19 pandemic and now through the severe weather events. The temporary settings will expire, and this change will support the continuation of local authority business. It is supported throughout the sector. The change will make it easier for councils to conduct business and keep the choice about whether to enable remote participation in their hands. It is up to councils whether, and how, they will make use of this ability through their own locally determined standing orders. But for councils that cover sparse populations and large geographic areas, making these changes permanent will support those councillors representing remote communities to participate in local democracy. This proposal will place no additional cost pressures on local authorities who are already operating under this system. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Speaker, thank you. We've heard, from the Minister, an explanation of why, in her view, the amendment—the Supplementary Order Paper—is a good idea. And I don't say that it's not; on this side of the House, we would need to consider the substance of that, and no doubt it would be in the context of those changes that are contemplated via a piece of legislation that's currently before the House. But what I don't understand—and which the Minister did not touch upon; not that I heard anyway—was why this process is being followed. Why is it that this idea that is seemingly so worthy has not been included in legislation before, within scope, that could have been set out, of course, by the Government itself? So I don't intend to take much of the House's time to effectively pose that question. If the Minister is able to respond and explain how and why it is that we are being asked to agree to this change in process—notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the proposal itself—then that would be helpful, I think, for the House to be able to form a conclusion as to whether we should allow the scope of that bill already in front of us to be expanded in that way. A party vote was called for on the question, That the committee be instructed to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments to the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Ayes 72 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere. Noes 44 New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.