Tuesday, 15 August 2023 [Volume 770] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene. [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 and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Charlotte Christie requesting that the House ban the sale of vaping products in non-vape premises petition of Kylee Kelly requesting that the House ban dog shock collars petition of Kiwilaw Probate and Estates Ltd requesting that the House raise the financial threshold for requiring probate or letters of administration before estate funds can be released by a financial institution. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2021 annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra 2022 annual report of the Social Workers Registration Board Government response to declaration of inconsistency on the voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 Government response to referral petition from Juliana Carvalho Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Patricia Fabish Ministry of Health Long-Term Insights Briefing, August 2023 2022-26 statement of intent for Predator Free 2050 2022-24 statement of intent and updated 2022-23 statement of performance expectations for Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand 2021-22 statement of performance expectations for the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission 2022-23 statement of performance expectations for the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission 2023-24 statement of performance expectations for NZQA, Predator Free 2050, and the Social Workers Registration Board. SPEAKER: I present the Parliamentary Service Commission's annual report for the year ended 30 June 2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill report of the Environment Committee on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill reports of the Justice Committee on the inquiry into the 2020 general election and referendums petition of Christian Newman petition of Corinda Taylor report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Chlöe Swarbrick petition of Eye Health Aotearoa petition of Ian Young report of the Primary Production Committee on the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023 reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Health Act (COVID-19 Alert Level 3) Order 2020 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022 report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Primary Production Committee, the Regulations Review Committee, and the Justice Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, introduction Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, particularly this Government's work to build an economy that keeps wages growing ahead of inflation and maintains record low unemployment. Statistics New Zealand data out today shows median weekly earnings from wages and salaries grew 7.1 percent in the year to June 2023, ahead of the rate of inflation. We know that the most important thing we can do to help New Zealanders with the cost of living is ensure that they are in work with growing wages. I'm particularly proud that we have delivered unemployment below 4 percent for 24 consecutive months, a feat that has only been achieved on one other occasion in the last 30 years. David Seymour: How much money does the Government currently collect in goods and services tax, or GST, on fresh fruit and vegetables, and can he confirm it's approximately $500 million per year—$10 million per week or $2 per person per week? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The cost across the forecast period is about $2.2 billion. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Government's Tax Working Group, which said, "changes in rates for specific goods and services were on average not fully passed through and had an estimated average pass through rate of approximately 30 percent.", and, if so, does he accept that taking $2 worth of GST off fresh fruit and vegetables per person would save the average person 60c a week? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. David Seymour: Why not? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I don't agree with them. David Seymour: Does he accept his Government's Tax Working Group's conclusion that low-income households' benefit from taking GST off food would be three times less than high-income households', and can he name any groceries a low-income shopper won't need to take out of their trolley and put back on the shelf because the Government saved them 60c by no longer charging GST on fresh fruit and vegetables? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion in the last part of the member's question. David Seymour: Does he agree that the Government's record of increasing spending by $56 billion per annum has led to a culture of extravagance where public servants think it's acceptable to spend $40,000 on a leaving function, and what does it say that ACT has been able to identify a billion dollars of wasteful spending programmes that could be stopped immediately without anyone noticing except the people working in those bureaucracies? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do note that some of the policies the ACT Party proposes to cut would result in significant job losses across the economy, including in the private sector. The ACT Party wants to cut all of the support for the screen sector in New Zealand—no more Hobbits, no more Lord of the Rings, no more Avatar; cut under an ACT-National Government. I notice they also want to cut the support for the space sector, so forget about Rocket Lab and other innovative industries that actually see New Zealand as a great place to base their operations; gone under an ACT-National Government. These would be private sector jobs gone. I can say to the members in the ACT Party and the National Party that a tax cut won't mean much to people who lose their jobs because of their cuts. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that Peter Beck's success with Rocket Lab is because his Government employs 50-odd people, mostly hired after Rocket Lab hit lift-off, or is he really just worried that he's going to need a new job soon and he'd like to be a hobbit in the next movie that's sponsored by the Government? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if the member thinks that we shouldn't have a regulatory framework for space in New Zealand, he should talk to the previous Government, who were the ones who put it in place in the first place. David Seymour: Would he say it's a good example of the Government tightening its belt that Mac Leauanae's $40,000 farewell from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was followed by a welcome to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage that cost only $12,500, including $468.70 on flowers, which included 60 bucks of GST? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't believe that expenditure was appropriate. David Seymour: Will he admit that the Government's firearm reforms failed after five firearm deaths—half of New Zealand's annual average of fatal shootings—occurred in just 17 days, or would he like to take this opportunity to argue that we'll all be safe soon because those criminals and the crims who supplied them with illegal firearms will be registering their guns soon? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, if Governments had worked earlier to remove illegal firearms from circulation, we might not be in the situation that we are in now. I welcome the fact that the member now seems to be backtracking on his unequivocal pledge to remove the firearms register—one of the tools the police have been asking for, for decades—that is being delivered by this Government and that would be at risk under an ACT-National Government. David Seymour: Does his statement that "the healthcare system should be treating people equally"—is that a statement he stands by, and as Prime Minister is there anything he can do about race being used to prioritise surgical wait-lists, give out Prezzy cards exclusively to pregnant Māori women, a pharmacy service being accessible only to Māori and Pasifika, a separate Māori Health Authority, and a medical health line that opens with "Press 1 if you are Māori"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the member's question, yes, absolutely. I recognise that our health system has delivered inequitable outcomes for Māori and Pacific New Zealanders, including New Zealanders in rural communities, for example, and proactive targeting of ensuring that we are creating equal outcomes for different population groups, I think, is a positive thing. I note the member isn't attacking the fact that there are now targeted support services—health services—for rural communities in the way that he is some of those other population groups. David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that both Māori and non-Māori live in cities and in rural areas, and what New Zealanders object to deeply and strongly is the constant profiling of citizens by race by his Government? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject the statement in that question, which is just plain racism. Question No. 2—Health 2. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has she made recently about improving the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives in New Zealand? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I was pleased to announce that New Zealand's hard-working Te Whatu Ora hospital nurses and midwives have accepted their collective employment agreement. This was on top of the nursing pay equity settlement announced on 31 July and the increase in midwifery pay rates for pay equity announced on 6 July. This Government is proud to have delivered for nurses and midwives. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will this mean for graduate nurses? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017, graduate nurses earned $49,449 a year. Over the first five years we were in Government, we increased these nurses' pay to $59,834 a year. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed, these nurses now earn $73,566. Next year, in April, they will receive a further increase to $75,773. This is a total increase across our term of Government of 53.2 percent. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will the announcement mean for registered nurses? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017, registered nurses on the top step of the pay scale earned $66,755. Over the first five years we were in Government, we increased these nurses' pay to $83,186. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed, these nurses earn $103,630. Next year, in April, they will receive a further increase to $106,739. This is an increase of 59.9 percent since we entered Government. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why is this important to our health system? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The rates we pay our nurses in New Zealand are crucial to keeping them in our health system. Another priority is the wellbeing of our health workforce. Reaching agreement on these measures addresses many of the issues and concerns raised by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation during these negotiations. This Government is committed to addressing pressures on our health workers, and this settlement package is a step towards achieving that. I would like to acknowledge everyone involved in the bargaining process for both the collective and pay equity. The challenge of delivering healthcare in a complex and increasingly demanding environment is something we need to do together. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. 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 this Government's work to ease the cost of living and support New Zealand families and businesses through difficult economic conditions. We are building an economy that keeps wages growing ahead of inflation, that maintains record low unemployment. We're taking practical steps to support families like removing the $5 prescription charge, extending targeted childcare assistance, extending 20 hours' early childhood education to two-year-olds, and making public transport free for kids and at half-price for younger New Zealanders. Our policies are carefully designed to deal with the pressures families are facing right now while maintaining prudent levels of Government spending and keeping a lid on debt. Christopher Luxon: Was his trade Minister, Damien O'Connor, right or wrong when he said "We probably don't have enough tax in this country."? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member's taking the Minister's quote out of the full context in which it was made. Christopher Luxon: Was former tax lecturer Deborah Russell right or wrong when she said removing interest deductibility from rental properties was "a bad idea" and that "Plenty of residential property investors would simply increase rents."? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government's policy position on this is very clear and I think Deborah Russell is making a significant contribution in the tax area. I note that those comments were made over 10 years ago. Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that since the Government increased the cost of owning a rental property by removing interest deductibility, average weekly rents have increased by $75.00, just as Deborah Russell predicted? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that there has been a significant spike in inflation during that period. Christopher Luxon: How much better or worse off would a typical low-income renter be if they save $2.00 a week on fruit and vegetables but were paying an extra $75 a week in rent? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government is doing a number of things to support low-income New Zealanders, including making sure that their incomes are keeping up with the rising costs that they are facing. Wage growth is growing ahead of inflation. That is one of the best things we can do to support families through this inflationary period. Bringing inflation down is also one of the good things that we can do to support them, and I note many of the policies the member is promoting would result in higher inflation for longer. Christopher Luxon: Has he received advice about the number of IRD officials and lawyers that would be required to determine whether a mixed bag of salad or a vacuum-sealed beetroot count as processed or fresh? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. Christopher Luxon: Was finance Minister Grant Robertson right or wrong when he said that cutting GST on some items will "mostly benefit supermarkets"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member himself has confessed to having a road to Damascus conversion. The policy that the Labour Party has announced, of course, will be implemented after the election. I welcome the member's confidence in the re-election of this Government. Christopher Luxon: Was the Government's Tax Working Group, led by Sir Michael Cullen, right or wrong when they reported that evidence from 17 countries over 14 years found that only 30 percent of the benefits of GST exemptions were actually passed on to consumers? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will allow everybody to make their own judgments on the Tax Working Group's report. Of course, I note that there are some other recommendations in there that the member isn't quite so enthusiastic about. Christopher Luxon: Are there any members left in his Cabinet who actually support his tax policies or are they just waiting until the election so they can dump him and his desperate economic band-aid politics? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, at least I have a clear tax policy, which is more than the member has, and I think it's because his co-leader hasn't figured out how to pay for it yet. Question No. 4—Women 4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What recent announcements has the Government made on pay transparency? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Last week, Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan and I were proud to announce the Government is taking action to close the gender pay gap for New Zealand's women through a mandatory pay transparency reporting system. This is a significant next step to close the gender gap. It will mean 900 entities with over 250 employees will be required to publicly report their gender pay gap. This move is part of the Government's ongoing commitment to make New Zealand an equitable and desirable place for people to live, work, and do business. Sarah Pallett: What will the system look like? Hon JAN TINETTI: Organisations with 250 employees or more will report their pay gap initially, and then organisations with over 100 employees will be required to report after four years. We expect around 900 organisations to be covered initially, increasing to 2,700 when the threshold reduces. The Government is also committed to exploring the inclusion of ethnicity and pay gap reporting for Māori, Pacific peoples, and other ethnic groups. Sarah Pallett: Why is gender pay gap reporting important? Hon JAN TINETTI: Gender pay gap reporting is one of several tools to address the gender pay gap and ensure equity in the workplace. Countries we compare ourselves to, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have introduced gender pay gap reporting with successful results. I would like to note that today, the gender pay gap has reduced from 9.2 percent to 8.6 percent. That is excellent progress, but while a gap exists there is still more work to do. Sarah Pallett: How does this complement the Government's other work to close the gender pay gap? Hon JAN TINETTI: We know from history that achieving gender equity isn't an overnight fix but requires deliberate and concerted efforts. This Government has a strong track record of delivering for women in the workplace through increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks, settling historic pay equity claims for close to 157,000 women, investing in KiwiSaver to match employer contribution to paid parental leave recipients, reducing the gender pay gap in the Public Service from 12.2 percent in 2019 to 7.7 percent, and reaching 50 percent representation of women on Government boards. There is still more work to do, but I am proud to be part of a Government that is putting in the tools we need to tackle the gender pay gap as a country. Question No. 5—Finance 5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions related to tax policy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken, acknowledging that context can change as a result, for example, of global and domestic economic backdrops. Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his reported statement that removing GST from fruit and vegetables would mostly benefit supermarkets, and, if not, why not? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that the particular policies that the Labour Party has announced are important. They're going to be useful in the future when the member clearly believes a Labour Government will be re-elected, but they are not the subject of my ministerial responsibilities. Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his earlier statement—yes or no? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by—as I said in my primary answer—statements in the contexts they were made. The member, however, does give me an excellent inspiration for this, because when she back-flipped on the medium-density housing rules and it was put to her that it was a U-turn, she said, "I don't see it that way, I think it's a step forward." It's a step forward. Nicola Willis: Was his earlier statement based on the analysis by his own tax working group, which found that similar changes in Europe were not fully passed through and, on average, consumers only reaped 30 percent of the benefit? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My earlier statements were based on the information I had at the time. My current statements are based on things which aren't my ministerial responsibility, but, again, I'm glad to see the member's endorsement of the Labour Party continuing in Government. Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Grant Robertson MP, who said at the weekend that depreciation deductions for commercial buildings were "the last remaining … COVID … stimulus measure", or was the Minister correct when he said that it was "not a temporary measure until we get back on our feet; it is, instead, a change to restore and correct policy settings." and "not a short-term measure."? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, I stand by the statements I've made in the context in which they were made. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that a tax-free threshold paid for with a wealth tax would guarantee that more people have enough income to cover the essentials? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, that would depend on those people's circumstances. Nicola Willis: Has the Minister asked for advice on how much it would cost to provide the Grocery Commissioner with the army of officials he would require in order to enforce a GST policy which would deliver a 100 percent reduction on a pass-through on fruit and vegetables? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. Nicola Willis: Are there any other statements on tax he's made that he would like to walk back today, or would he prefer to ask the Prime Minister first? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I'm very comfortable with the statements I've made. However, I am happy to reach out to the member and assist her with taking down all of the signs that she's going to have to take down by midnight because they're against the rules of the Wellington City Council. Question No. 6—Trade and Export Growth 6. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has the Government made about sustainable and inclusive trade as part of the Trade for All agenda? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): It was a privilege to be in Adelaide last week with my Closer Economic Relations (CER) colleague, the trade Minister for Australia, Don Farrell, and to conclude and sign a sustainable and inclusive trade declaration between Australia and New Zealand as we mark 40 years of closer economic relations. As close partners with shared values, both New Zealand and Australia believe in a trading system which sees everyone getting a fair go. This joint declaration is about upholding those values of sustainability and inclusion throughout the next 40 years of CER, and it sets out our commitment to work together on important issues like modern slavery, plastics pollution, climate change, and indigenous trade. The Government was proud to sign this declaration, progress our Trade for All agenda, and continue our world-leading work on sustainable and inclusive trade. Dan Rosewarne: What work has the Government done to ensure the momentum of our Trade for All agenda continues into the future? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: More great news; last week the Government released our refreshed Trade, Environment, and Climate Change Framework and our refreshed Trade and Labour Framework. It goes without saying that trade is key to our economic success, but it's also a tool for good. These updated frameworks will be used to guide our future trade negotiations and will ensure that this Government continues to negotiate agreements that don't just bring new opportunities for New Zealand exporters, but also improve standards of living, protect labour rights, and take action on climate change. This Labour Government's record on trade is historic. Since 2017, we have secured seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements, and each and every one of those free-trade agreements has delivered progress for our exporters, for our economy, and for our Trade for All agenda, and we fully intend to continue that momentum. Dan Rosewarne: How does the recent UK free-trade agreement (FTA) reflect our Trade for All agenda? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well, the UK free-trade agreement is our very first trade agreement negotiated and signed under our Trade for All agenda. It is a gold standard—in fact, I say a platinum standard—agreement. The UK FTA delivers unprecedented access to the sixth largest economy in the world, saves Kiwi businesses $37 million in tariff reductions immediately, and sees 99.5 percent of our exports enter the UK market duty free. At the same time, the agreement also sets ambitious commitments on sustainable and inclusive trade, such as tackling harmful environmental subsidies. The UK FTA shows that market access and opportunities and Trade for All principles are not mutually exclusive; it is possible to have the best of both worlds, and with the UK FTA we indeed have. Dan Rosewarne: How is our Trade for All agenda reflected in our recently signed EU FTA? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It keeps getting better. The EU FTA was also negotiated and signed under this Government's Trade for All agenda, and it delivers huge opportunities in a market of 450 million people. In fact, we expect that the EU FTA will increase our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year by 2035 and, of course, the agreement also includes ambitious outcomes in areas like climate action, subsidy reform, Māori trade, and gender equality. The Trade for All agenda is about maximising opportunities for all New Zealanders, and the EU FTA will boost our economy, cut costs to exporters, create new opportunities for small and medium businesses, and protect jobs for Kiwi families. Question No. 7—Housing 7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: Was Inland Revenue right that additional taxes on rental housing "will put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term", and how much have average rents increased since the Government's interest deductibility changes were introduced? Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Acting Minister of Housing): On behalf of the Minister of Housing, the evidence does not suggest that the interest deductibility changes are the main causes of rent increases. A recently released report from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development found that wage increases and the relative supply and demand of homes were instead the main driver of rents. Since the introduction of the new interest deductibility rules in October 2021, nationwide rent for new tenancies has increased by 5.9 percent to the end of July 2023. This is in line with the longer-term average and below the rate of general inflation. We know the way you get out of a housing crisis is by building more houses, not selling them like the previous Government used to do. That's why we've ensured new builds are exempted from the interest limitation rules for a period of 20 years. Consents remain above pre-COVID levels and completions of new builds are at record highs. CHRIS BISHOP: How does she square those comments with the research conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, which actually asks landlords why they are increasing rents, for which the answer is: because of changes to interest deductibility legislation, introduced by her Government? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That's not the information we've got from landlords— Chris Bishop: It's your own document. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, the member is quoting something that is out of line with what we've received and we don't agree with those comments. Chris Bishop: Has she seen the comments of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell, who said that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs is "a bad idea" and "simply won't work", and does she agree? Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Over 10 years ago, mate. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yet another stupid question from that member. We all say things and we do things differently than 10 years ago. I mean, that member was a lobbyist for the tobacco companies 10 years ago, and now he's an honourable member. Chris Bishop: Has she heard the comments from noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell—that her comments were 10 years ago when she said removing ability for landlords deduct interests costs "would be an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose", and what responsibility does she take for rents being up $175 a week in the last six years? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: These questions are getting stupider and stupider. The member is talking about what someone said 10 years ago. We have a member here who totally supports what the Government are saying. He should look at what he was doing 10 years ago, which was advocating for the dirty, rotten tobacco companies. Chris Bishop: What is incorrect about the remarks of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs were an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose, were a bad idea, and simply won't work; what is incorrect about the analysis? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The member can't get it through his thick head that the Minister was making those comments in a previous life—10 years ago. So get it through your thick head that this member here totally supports the Government, and we support Minister Russell, 100 percent. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question of time has nothing to do with the correctness of the answer. He could at least address the question, which was: what was incorrect about the quotation? Being old doesn't make it incorrect. SPEAKER: I'll have to have a bit of think about that one, because there was a lot that the Hon Willie Jackson said. I'm just trying to think whether it actually addressed the question or not. One of the problems, of course, was it was quite loud in here—been many rulings about that, whether the Speaker can hear the question. I don't think it probably was, and I'll give the member the benefit of doubt. Mr Jackson, unhelpful to describe any question by a member in that way. I encourage the Minister to think carefully about the question. I'll ask Chris Bishop to ask it again. Answer the question, not comment on the quality of it. Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was—paraphrasing slightly—what was incorrect, or what is incorrect about the analysis of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell in her long blog post that explains that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs is a bad idea, won't work, and is an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In 2013, the Minister now—who was not even a member of Parliament at the time—was probably correct, because it was a different time. It was a different environment. Since then, we've had to inherit a housing crisis. Times change, people change, jobs change. As I keep saying, this person here was advocating for the tobacco companies, advocating against the average New Zealander. He should hang his head in shame, but now he's an honourable member, some say. Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that since interest deductibility was limited, rents have gone up by less than the rate of general inflation? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: One hundred percent. Rents are below the general inflation rate and, in fact, things are so much better for renters under this Government. Under the previous Government, landlords would kick our people out–Kiwis out—just at a whim. Chris Bishop's mates—these landlords, they had no time for the average Kiwi. Now we have warm homes. We look after people. You can't put rent up just at the drop of a hat, like Mr Luxon and his rich mates would do. SPEAKER: That last comment was not helpful. I think I'll get you to withdraw and apologise. Hon Willie Jackson: I withdraw and apologise. Question No. 8—Justice 8. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government delivering more support for the victims of crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Last week, I introduced the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, which will, in the next phase of our work, support victims of crime. The bill addresses some important issues in the justice system, reducing the risk of child victims of sexual violence being asked about consent while in court, as well as increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to 20 years' imprisonment to align with other offences. The bill also gives adult victims of sexual violence greater say over name suppression for themselves, as well as the offender. This Government is delivering on our goal to improve the experience of victims in our justice system. Arena Williams: What other work is under way to address gaps in the justice system for victims? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Just last month, three new pilot programmes got well under way. The first will help make sure victims' voices are heard when bail decisions are being made. The second pilot aims to improve the experience of child witnesses in sexual violence cases and provides training for support staff to work with them. The third pilot programme is focused on improving the coordination and safety planning for victims of serious crime. Victims have told us that there are some parts of the justice system that are not working for them. We have heard those concerns, and these pilots will make a real difference in this space. Arena Williams: What financial support is now available for victims? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Since we came into Government, we have tripled the amount of funding for the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the amount of funding for Victim Support. Our support for the Victim Assistance Scheme means an estimated 10,000 more grants are available for victims of serious crime, including increased financial support for homicide victims' families, counselling for victims of serious crime, and a new grant specific to victims of sexual violence. I'm proud of our strong track record for supporting victims—compared to the previous Government, which reduced funding in this area. Arena Williams: What other work is under way to support victims of crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The bill introduced last week is part of the tranche of a three-year programme to transform victims' experience in the justice system. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act and established Te Aorerekura to empower communities to fight back and reduce family violence. The work is under way to make further changes to prevent litigation abuse in Family Court proceedings. These are always practical changes that will make sure victims have a meaningful role in the decisions that directly affect them and their families. As a Government, we are committed to having a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered. Question No. 9—Energy and Resources 9. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her reported statement in relation to the carbon price doubling or tripling that "the financial consequences for families would be too harsh"; if so, does she support further measures to directly assist households to decarbonise? Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): On behalf of the Minister, yes and yes. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she aware that a gas heater has lifetime emissions of over 11,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide, is more expensive to run than a heat pump, and exacerbates childhood asthma; and if so, when will Warmer Kiwi Homes be expanded to include swapping out gas heating? Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly accept that the particulate discharges from gas heaters—particularly if it's not vented—can be problematic, and that a heat pump is better. And I stand by the record of this Government, which is to deliver 100,000 insulation and heating retrofits through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she accept Transpower's assessment that Aotearoa needs 13 percent solar generation to achieve a 100 percent renewable electricity target; if so, what is the Government doing to get more rooftops solar on homes? Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I accept that solar is part of the future. Most solar investments are likely to be in solar farms rather than on rooftops. Rooftop installations are most cost-effectively done at the time of building of houses, which is one of the reasons why the Government programme, in respect of State house builds, is incorporating some solar on roofs of new builds. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she support the call from The Homes We Deserve coalition of over 160 organisations, to commit to a large-scale retrofit programme over the next nine years to reduce emissions and household bills? Hon DAVID PARKER: I have no responsibility for other parties' or other groups' policies. Question No. 10—Conservation 10. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding taking action to protect the Hauraki Gulf? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation): Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we are taking a major step towards protecting the Hauraki Gulf for future generations through the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. This beautiful blue backyard is where Kiwis in the region have some of their best experiences. It's also essential and a traditional source of food, and a vital part of our economy for the tourism, transport, and seafood sectors, with a recent assessment putting the economic value of the gulf at $100 billion. However, we know that the gulf is under stress, and action is needed now. The Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill will see the implementation of 19 new protection areas that have been designed to represent and protect a range of crucial ecosystems in the region. They will be located across the inner and outer gulf, protecting a range of rare, ecologically important, and representative habitats and species. Through this action, we will nearly triple the area of Auckland's maritime area that is under the protection from just over 6 percent to about 18 percent. Angie Warren-Clark: How will these new marine protection areas work? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: As I have noted, the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana must be protected for the enjoyment of future generations. The way we will do this is threefold. Firstly, we are extending the country's first marine reserve, Cape Rodney - Ōkākari Point Marine Reserve—or Goat Island—and Whanganui-A-Hei (Cathedral Cove) Marine Reserve on the Coromandel Peninsula. Secondly, we will create 12 new high-protection areas to protect and restore marine ecosystems, while allowing for customary practices of tangata whenua. And, thirdly, the bill will allow for five new sea-floor protection areas to preserve sensitive sea-floor habitats by prohibiting bottom-contact fishing methods and other activities which harm the sea-floor. Angie Warren-Clark: How are these marine protection areas developed? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The best way to protect the special marine ecosystem is to find conservation solutions which work for different people, and that's exactly what this action to revitalise the gulf does. The bill announced this week follows years of careful work and extensive consultation to strike a good balance. An important catalyst for change was the innovative endeavour the Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari marine spatial plan. It was developed by a group that comprised tangata whenua, fishers, farmers, and environmental groups. Since then, the Department of Conservation and Fisheries New Zealand led several rounds of consultation with tangata whenua and key groups. During our final public consultation around the end of 2022, we had significant contributions from the community, with more than 7,500 submissions on the marine protection proposals. Angie Warren-Clark: What impact are the new marine protection areas anticipated to have? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: These new marine protection areas will protect at-risk ecologically valuable and representative habitats and ecosystems in the gulf to support their recovery. They will also increase our understanding of marine ecosystems within the gulf and the pressures on them, and support holistic management. Just two examples of protection that these areas will provide include one of the last and possibly best remnant seagrass meadows found in the Hauraki Gulf, as well as a more comprehensive protection for rock lobster, which are considered functionally extinct in the gulf, through the marine reserve extensions. This week is Conservation Week and the theme is relevant to this kaupapa: take action for nature. So as the Government moves to do just that in the Hauraki Gulf, I also take this opportunity to encourage everyone to get involved: Conservation Week is to improve the environment and their own wellbeing. Question No. 11—Health 11. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many of the 24 initiatives in the 2023 winter plan have resulted in patients actually being treated, and what evidence, if any, does she have that the plan has reduced pressure on hospital emergency departments (EDs)? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): This year, a comprehensive winter plan was put in place to ease pressure on the whole health system. As that member is aware, the plan included new pathways to treatment as well as actions across the system to better manage acute demand, including expediting needs assessments, vaccination, data, and staffing projects. Of the interventions that are new treatment pathways, I am advised there has been 50,000 free consultations in pharmacies with a minor health condition scheme; over 20,000 calls diverted to the clinical telehealth service since December 2022 by eligible practices for overflow and after-hours support, with more eligible services signing up. The clinical telehealth service pilot for ambulance staff has seen over 1,200 patients nationally treated in the community, and avoiding a trip to the emergency departments since the start of the year. In answer to the second part of the question, I am certain the plan reduced pressure on emergency rooms—had we not vaccinated over 1.2 million people for influenza, over 600,000 people for COVID, or over 340,000 children for their routine immunisations. Although we are almost through the winter, it is not finished yet and a full and comprehensive evaluation of the winter plan and its impact on the system will happen once winter is over. Dr Shane Reti: Point of order. I didn't ask how many people had participated in any number of initiatives. My primary question on notice asked, "How many of the 24 initiatives in the 2023 winter plan have resulted in patients actually being [seen]"? "How many of the 24 initiatives" was my question. SPEAKER: Yeah. I'm not an expert in this area, but I did hear three distinct areas. Maybe the—[Interruption] Who was that? I'm trying to do a ruling. It's really unhelpful, people interrupting. Maybe the Minister can help me in making that discern, but I thought I heard you mention three of those initiatives. Am I right or— Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Mr, Speaker, yes. I did name three, but the answer would be 11 of the initiatives treat people. Dr Shane Reti: What specific actions is she taking to ensure that Oamaru ED will not have to close for a fourth time this year? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Those contingencies are managed by local clinicians, and it is important that those plans are in place to make sure that patients are looked after when staffing levels are low. Te Whatu Ora has taken responsibility for increasing the resourcing that was previously provided to the district health board to make it more able to face these challenges, and works in the longer term with that centre—and the trust that owns it—in order to address the staffing challenges it faces. Dr Shane Reti: How many people have been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That's a very precise question. That does occasionally happen, and it is not ideal but it is important that when that decision is necessary, clinicians are supported to make it to take care of people. Dr Shane Reti: Have any patients been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am aware that patients were referred both in advance of the change and during the time when staffing levels were low. Dr Shane Reti: Why is she unable to report ED wait time data until two weeks after the election, given it has been previously reported monthly for decades? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is not me who reports ED wait time data. Te Whatu Ora has a responsibility to do that. They have written a very long report on the appropriate process for doing so, and if that member wants accurate information, the processes that are outlined in that report need to be followed. Question No. 12—Education 12. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree that the Relationships and Sexuality Education: A Guide for Teachers, Leaders, and Boards of Trustees resource produced by the Ministry of Education "must" be included in teaching programmes for years 1 to 8 children, and that "the school does not need to seek parents' or caregivers' permission for ākonga to participate in the programme"? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Within the New Zealand curriculum, health and physical education, which includes relationships and sexuality, must be taught. However, the document the member refers to is a guide and not a requirement. Under the Education and Training Act 2020, schools have a legal obligation to consult with their communities at least every two years about their local health curriculum. Under the Act, parents and caregivers still have the right to withdraw their child from relationships and sexuality education by written requests to the school. Chris Baillie: What should a parent do if they don't want teachers talking to their children about gender identity and gender diversity, given that the guidelines suggest the curriculum programmes could be integrated into English, science, technology, maths and statistics, languages, and social sciences? Hon JAN TINETTI: I have just said in my primary answer that they should write to the school. But I will actually read here what it does say about the suggested learning intentions—that in that guide it says it can be taught across the curriculum. In English, for example, it could explore and critique the representation of gender roles and relationships in text. Therefore, it could look at gender stereotyping—for example, women going to the supermarket all the time. Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think that parents should have greater involvement over the delivery of relationship and sexuality education in schools? Hon JAN TINETTI: I will refer to my primary answer. Can I read the part from those guidelines where it says schools, teachers, and parents or caregivers have some particular rights and responsibilities around requests for children to be withdrawn from aspects of the sexuality programme responding to children's questions on sensitive issues. Firstly, the way that this happens is that schools must legally consult with their school community on what they are planning to teach in their local health curriculum. The school board of trustees then decides what the curriculum will be, taking into consideration the consultation from the community and the professional guidelines provided by the ministry. The school does not have to seek further consultation or permission from parents at this stage. However, if parents wish to remove their child from this part of the curriculum, they can do so. Chris Baillie: Can the Minister explain why enabling year 1 to 8 children to "interrogate the ongoing effects of colonisation" is relevant to relationship and sexuality education for five- to 12-year-olds? Hon JAN TINETTI: The guidelines the member is referring to have been developed by experts. What I will say is that, as a teacher, I know, from being a teacher, that when you put learning into the context of the learner, the educational outcomes are more powerful. Chris Baillie: What teacher professional development has been provided to teach relationships and sexuality education, or can anyone do it? Hon JAN TINETTI: Professional learning and development is part of the contract system. When a school decides that that is what they want to focus on, they will make those applications to the Ministry of Education or they will contract those private providers themselves. But it's up to the school to determine where their strengths lie and also where their weaknesses lie, and what professional development they need as a school. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Migrant Exploitation—Recent Case SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Erica Stanford seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, a recent case of migrant exploitation that was reported last night in Auckland. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible—Speaker's ruling 200/4. The application does not disclose any Government action on the matter. Indeed, it notes that the Government has made no formal statements in relation to these events. The application is therefore declined. ESTIMATES DEBATE In Committee Debate resumed from 3 August on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members—quietly, please—the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio so there'll be no sector specific debates. All votes are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Transport will be available today. I understand that the relevant select committee chairpersons have indicated they do not wish to take calls to commence the debates. This debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the vote stand part of the schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. There are two hours 29 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has 30 minutes remaining; New Zealand National has one hour 20 minutes remaining; ACT New Zealand has 22 minutes remaining; the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 13 minutes remaining; Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes remaining; Dr Elizabeth Kerekere has six minutes remaining; the Hon Meka Whaitiri has six minutes remaining. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table. The committee will be suspending at 5 p.m. for valedictory statements and will be sitting again after the dinner break. The question, once again, is that the votes contained in the Estimates of appropriation for 2023/24 stand part of the schedules. We start with the Minister of Local Government. The Minister is available from 3 p.m. till 4 p.m. Local Government Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. On the basis that the Labour Party only has 30 minutes remaining of the 2 hours and 29 minutes, I intend to signal to the House that how I'll approach the hour that we've got is that I'll let some questions build up and then answer them all in one go to try and be a little bit more efficient with time. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I acknowledge the Minister has run out of steam already, but that's not a problem at all. We will maximise this opportunity just to remind the Minister in regards to potentially some of the areas that he can ponder over answers. But it is clear that a number of these questions won't have answers because a number of the decisions have been made in circumstances which sort of beggar a little bit of belief. But I want to firstly question the Minister in regards to the three waters reform and, in particular, ask whether he stands by the degree of consulting and contractor spend that has been undertaken on what has been, without doubt, a woeful example of a Government reform programme. I acknowledge that the Minister has had a hospital pass from the prior Minister of Local Government the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and there is an element that, potentially, I feel sorry for him in that circumstance. But the degree of consultancy expenditure is in the region of around $30 million, with $600,000 spent on PR from Senate Communications. If we remember back on those failed ads that had green slime coming out of the taps and that expenditure, nearly $3 million was spent on an advertising company, FCB, in order to put together that advertising campaign that had green slime coming out of water taps—hard-earned taxpayers' money. The question to the Minister is: does he believe that that was appropriate Government expenditure and not wasteful spending, taking into account that that communication programme—as the prior Minister of Local Government articulated—was a failed campaign in regards to information that did not convey the reality for many communities across this country? What about the $1.27 million that was spent on the Scottish water authority to provide advisory into the numbers which underpin this Government's three waters reform programme? Remember that number that the Prime Minister refers to—the $185 billion of capital? Well, those numbers have been debunked by a large number of people across this country, including mayors and councillors, who, with respect, I think would know more about their local government infrastructure than a couple of bureaucrats out of Scotland. Again, $1.27 million of Government expenditure was thrown up against that water agency for consultancy spend as part of that. My second area of questioning is in regards to the forecasted nearly $3 billion—$3 billion—of establishment costs for this three-waters reform. Don't forget that that's up $1 billion from what was originally forecast, at nearly $280,000 per day—$280,000 per day—of establishment costs for a reform which none of the local government bodies, from the outset, thought was actually going to really deliver fundamental change and improvements. What an absolute waste of money. I appreciate that the Minister is out of time, but he's probably lucky that he's out of time, with respect, because trying to come up with an answer that is all credible, but why that is not wasteful spending is beyond us. We appreciate that a number of bills still proceeding through this House relate to the changing of the number of entities, remembering that this was set out when we went through the first threewaters reform programme. We said that absolutely this could not be done with no less than four mega-bureaucratic entities—remember that? Remember that Minister Mahuta came up and said, "We've done all the analysis, and no way this will ever work without dropping it down to four." Well, what happened? After the grand reset by this Government— Hon Scott Simpson: The policy bonfire. SIMON WATTS: The policy bonfire, and what a bonfire—I think there was a bit too much petrol thrown on the bonfire, and a few people on the other side got their fingers burnt, didn't they, through throwing a little too much dry kindling on to that fire. But that policy bonfire came up with "Oh no, let's change four to 10 entities.", but they didn't change any of the underlying structural elements around the fact that they were still co-governed mega-bureaucratic entities that are not based on democratically elected principles. So I want to give the Minister the opportunity to potentially just say, "Hey, actually, do you know what? With only three sitting weeks left of this Parliament, maybe we made a mistake." Here's an opportunity, right? Here's an opportunity, because the problem with this election is that this topic will be; there's a very clear difference between the two political parties on this. So, in effect, the outcome of the election will be a mandate from the New Zealand public in regards to this. So my third question to the Minister is in regards to whether the new proposal of 10 entities is still something that the Minister believes is going to be appropriate. The other area of questioning that we went through as part of the reviews was in regards to the IT expenditure projects. I tell you, for anyone who has looked at Government IT programmes, they generally don't go too well, do they? But in order to ensure that this Government's IT programme in regards to three waters is as credible as it could be, it decided to not undertake a proper procurement process, of course—right? So what better way to provide integrity and assurance would you have than if you didn't undertake a proper procurement process, and that would be OK if the numbers were potentially reasonably immaterial, but guess what? Guess how much the numbers were in regards to the IT programme? I don't know—throw some numbers out. Hon Scott Simpson: I bet they're big. SIMON WATTS: How much—big numbers, yeah. I mean, a couple of hundred million, maybe—maybe that. Maybe $530 million, or maybe half a billion dollars of expenditure on the ICT programme? It was $530 million for this ICT investment programme. So I'm asking the Minister clearly: does he stand by the fact that the officials have undertaken a procurement programme for ICT relating to three waters that did not go through a proper procurement programme, for $530 million of taxpayer money? No competitive process, no looking at options internationally, no looking at different systems, and no looking at alternative ways in which we should spend that money. No, just choosing a single supplier, signing a deal, and going ahead. Interestingly, that product that was selected is the same product that is used by one of the largest water companies in the country, and I'm sure that all of the process was appropriate, but the Minister needs to articulate that there was integrity in regards to that. The other aspect, while we've got a little bit of time, is for the Minister to provide a little bit of comment around the chief executive officer roles that were appointed to manage these entities. Remember, we had four entities originally and we hired the CEOs. It's come out that these CEOs are on salaries in the region of $600,000 to around about $800,000 per annum, per person. Well, let's talk about a cost of living crisis, right? Let's talk about a cost of living crisis. But the Minister has obviously been quite comfortable that we've got, initially, four CEOs on that, but, of course, with the change from four entities to 10, one doesn't have to be too au fait on the mathematics to work out that that, potentially, is going to mean that we might have up to 10 of these CEOs across the country on between $600,000 and $800,000 per annum. So I want the Minister to articulate and provide assurance to this committee—and to Kiwis out there watching this—whether this is value for money. What are going to be the additional outcomes in value that this will create by paying chief executive officers for 10 entities across this country, and all of the peripheral— Hon Scott Simpson: There'll be welcoming parties. SIMON WATTS: There probably will be welcoming parties, I say to the Hon Scott Simpson. I wonder if they will spend around $40,000 on welcoming parties for each of them, because that would be another $400k that would go on top of that as well. Maybe the Minister could give us a little bit of an answer on whether he's going to rule that out and say that there won't be any welcoming parties for these 10 CEOs when they assume their positions. Of course, the legislation doesn't kick in until mid-2026. Just for the record, we're in 2023 right now, so that's a little way into the future. But, interestingly, these CEOs are already on those salaries, and they haven't even started. They don't start work for three years, but they're already getting paid that accrual as money. So, again, can the Minister articulate whether that is value for money. The last aspect is, in retrospect, in regards to all the challenges that local government faces across this country—the workforce shortages, the critical pressure that our local communities and local government are under—is it still appropriate that the Government is pushing through such wide-scale reform and ripping the heart out of local government by confiscating their assets and putting them into undemocratically elected entities? I ask whether that is still appropriate or, actually, should we just restore local ownership and control of water assets and ensure that our local communities are empowered to do what they should do in regards to three waters? SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Questions for the Minister: will the forecast establishment cost for the three waters entities, projected to increase from $2 billion to $3 billion now, deliver any additional waste water, stormwater or drinking water infrastructure? If not, what value, if any, will taxpayers and ratepayers get for the additional billion dollars that this Government now proposes to spend on three waters reforms? Minister, please note that one down in your notebook. Secondly, has the Minister asked the Department of Internal Affairs to identify where any savings might be made to reduce the $3 billion cost that is going to land on taxpayers, ratepayers, or water users just for setting up these entities, and, if so, if you ask the DIA for savings, what savings did they offer? Another question: how is it acceptable that the Department of Internal Affairs continues to pay between $602,500 and $815,500—the salary banding that applies to the three civil servants hired by the DIA as chief executives of the three water entities—even though those water entities are disestablished by the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, which is on the order paper today, meaning they'll be disestablished today or tomorrow at the latest. How is it acceptable that the DIA intends to continue paying them?—which was your response to my written question. Are there any other Civil Service chief executives who continue to be paid for a role that no longer exists? It's not just the ACT Party that wants to know, every single taxpayer in New Zealand wants to know. How is it acceptable that the Department of Internal Affairs hired recruitment consultants at a cost of $500,000 to recruit these CEOs—four CEOs for four water service entities, three of whom whose roles will soon be redundant. Half a million bucks to recruit them, and will the department ask the recruiters to help find them another job when they're made redundant by the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill when it passes today or tomorrow? Will these same recruiters be asked to help shuffle these people along? A final question from the ACT Party on behalf of all of the consumers and taxpayers in New Zealand: has the Department of Internal Affairs ever ended the employment of any staff as a result of their roles becoming redundant and, if so, will the Department act to save taxpayers money by terminating the three chief executives who've been hired for three water service entities which won't exist after today or tomorrow when the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is passed? The Government's going to disestablish their roles, will the DIA make them redundant, and if not, Minister, why not? CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion about local government and I'd like to do so in a number of different areas. But perhaps starting with its relationship to the cyclone recovery, I acknowledge that there is a separate Minister for Cyclone Recovery, but the matters that I'd like to raise with the Minister relate to that very important relationship between central and local government. Noticing that the Government—by which I mean central government—has touted a locally-led, centrally-supported recovery, and of course noting that the Minister himself also has a particular role as a ministerial lead within a particular region—and I reiterate, for the committee, that National will be supportive of any efforts that the Government makes that we think are positive changes for those who have been displaced by Cyclone Gabrielle—I note that the six-month mark from the time of that disaster has recently passed and I acknowledge all those who have found themselves in difficult circumstances, and indeed those who lost their life in some cases and certainly were endangered and lost much property and personal possessions that are dear to them, and so forth, in the events of 14 February and around that time. My questions for the Minister will revolve around seeking to understand from him—and I acknowledge he has limited time available to deliver a response, but the question is whether the model of a locally-led and centrally-supported response or recovery has been effective. It has been effective, it seems to me, in some ways, but in other ways not so much. And while at the theoretical level we in the National Party agree that local input is hugely important, indeed vital, nevertheless it is the case that central support must be provided in order for that to be delivered meaningfully. And I think it's fair to say that in certain key respects we haven't had meaningful delivery. Certainly, visiting Muriwai within my own electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi yesterday morning, I was taken to view a number of badly damaged homes. In fact, it's probably an exaggeration now to call them homes, except that's where the lives were being made of these people who have been displaced. They are certainly not habitable now. In some cases there were large trees and mudslides through them; the cliff had come down on that fateful night. It's obvious to anyone with a civil engineering degree, or not—and certainly I'm no expert in these matters from a technical perspective—to see that these houses are not habitable now, in some cases. I'm not referring to all, obviously, but the ones that are not are very obviously not, and those should have been designated for the buy-out regime much sooner than the six-month mark; they still don't have that. So I put it to the Minister that the locally-led, centrally-supported notion was a valuable one and a worthwhile one but it's only been as successful as the extent to which central support has been provided; in too many ways it has not. One of the problems that we've seen in the relationship between Wellington and these respective local governments is that the mayors and the councillors, and indeed even those who live within these regions, appear reticent to criticise or to ask for more, even from the Government, because to do so would be to bite the hand that feeds them. They are crucially dependent on the largesse of the Beehive. Noting the disparity between ratepayer versus taxpayer bases, you know, the large scale of assets at play and differing revenue streams mean that, actually, there's a power imbalance between local and central government. Now, that's historic. That's not something that's occurred only recently in relation to cyclone recovery. It's been the case for many years; it's not a particular thing that's arisen over the course of the last two terms, for example. I don't make any political partisan point in relation to that, but I do point it out because it's relevant background to understanding that, because local government is so dependent on central government playing a part in a situation such as this, we do need to acknowledge the assistance that local government needs, the support; indeed, that it needs in order to achieve things in relation to cyclone recovery. The cost-sharing arrangements that the Government announced it would reach with local councils in affected areas is a major topic of contention and, if I'm allowed additional time, Mr Chair, then I'll point out that it is only in the case of one region, namely Hawke's Bay area councils, that a cost-sharing arrangement has been agreed. So Wellington is yet to reach equivalent agreements with others. My current understanding—and if there's an update in this then I'll thank the Minister, I'll be grateful to hear from him that others have been concluded—is that while we have heard for some time now that it is close to hearing an agreement between itself and the Tairāwhiti region, nevertheless such an arrangement has not yet been made. Likewise with Auckland Council jurisdiction with large areas of West Auckland and the north-west that remain totally in limbo in the absence of a cost-sharing agreement. Also lacking, for the benefit of the Minister, is an understanding—whether from local government or central government or between them—as to when buy-outs of irreparably damaged homes, category three homes, as we say, will actually take place. We've heard good intentions in this regard from the Minister and we support those intentions, but unless and until those become reality, that's not much consolation to those who have been displaced. We don't know when we will know, we don't know when the buy-outs will take effect. I think it's a reasonable hope and expectation that these might take place before Christmas. There's an emotional attachment, I suppose, and an impetus for people to feel as though by Christmas-time—that special time of the year, in many ways—people will know better what life will lie ahead for them in the following year. But, nevertheless, they don't now and we face the prospect of, regardless of who is in Government following mid-October and regardless of the shape of that, that whoever is responsible for implementing such a buy-out regime will be left with too little time to achieve that before Christmas and that would be a real shame. To think that the country's Civil Service, and private sector too, for that matter, will close down for a month or so as is customary over the summer break, and what a fine tradition it is too, nevertheless, that will be bittersweet for those who have more time cooling their heels outside the suburb in which they have lived, outside the communities in which they have connections, and without the emotional and financial certainty of their situation. And an example of the problem is that there are people who are living away from their homes at the moment, they've been displaced, they've entered into rental agreements for a certain period of time because at the point that they were displaced they've tried to find anywhere that they can to keep a roof over their head. They don't know how long to enter into those—they don't know how much of a renewal they should seek. They're in precarious financial circumstances. Now, I will acknowledge—and I give credit to the Government for this—recently there was an announcement that there would be some accommodation support that would allow those who are in that situation to gain some support from central government. So again, just to emphasise, we welcome that as far as it goes. However, the bigger picture is that people need the certainty of what's happening with their situation more substantively so that they're not relying on the Government to prop them up on a temporary basis month by month, or six month by six month, or year by year in the case of tenancy agreements. While we're talking about it, it's also the case that the scheme took some weeks to come into effect. So for people who were left in that limbo, who were really already struggling and didn't have good circumstances in terms of their living situation, they had to actually wait for quite some time until they could be eligible for that. And even then there were all kinds of complications that have been the result of central government rules as to be applied either through central government departments or in conjunction with local government. And one of them, it seems to be, and we're trying to unpick this puzzle now, is actually that it appears that if you own your home—your family home—in a trust, that you won't actually be eligible to gain such accommodation assistance. That seems to be extraordinary because there are many reasons that a person might own a home in a trust. For example, to protect against creditors relevant to a professional situation. It might be some legitimate family reason that's not for avoiding or, let alone, evading tax, and yet these people are disqualified and that seems to me quite wrong. It's a theme I might be able to pick up in a future contribution. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you. I've been taking notes throughout, so I'll run through them. To Mr Watts' first question. There were two parts, neither are relevant to the Estimates. To the second question: it's an estimate only and isn't appropriated for within the estimates. To the third question: yes. To the fourth question: yes. To the fifth question: CEO roles will be sized appropriately to the size and scale of the entity. And to the sixth question: yes, and the reason I say that is because the Government can and has always been able to demonstrate that our plan will save ratepayers' money. The member's party's plan, such that it is, cannot. To Simon Court's question, the first one: yes. The second one: the increase is offset by the removal of tranche two of the Better Off funding, $1 billion of which was due to be funded by the entities. The third and fourth questions are not actually a matter for the Estimates. In regards to Mr Penk's questions, I have a lot of sympathy for those questions and genuinely would like to engage in that discussion. However, I'm in a difficult spot where, in so far as I'm Minister of Local Government, my responsibility doesn't go that far. I've gone through the Estimates documents and looked at it. Definitely there's funding that's come through these Estimates around the seven regional recovery organisations across all the affected regions, including those that he's mentioned, and of course funding for local Government around support for flood mitigation etc. It is true that I am the Minister responsible for the recovery in Hawke's Bay, the Tararua district, and the Wairarapa, but in so far—and I would love to have that yarn, but I'm limited in this debate. But I would say that I acknowledge the concerns that the member's raised. They are concerns that I share also as the Minister responsible for Hawke's Bay, which is the most affected but also the most advanced. It has been an incredibly complex process, but I do want to acknowledge the five councils in Hawke's Bay for showing the leadership that they have and for getting to the point that they have at this point. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I hope these questions do relate to the Estimates. There's a budget of $605 million for the Minister of Local Government, and there's quite a chunk of money across various appropriations that are for the water services reform. There were a number of questions that the Governance and Administration Committee asked of the department, including some of the risks around key deliverables for the whole reform programme over the next 12 months. The response was that, yes, the costs of transition—such as key personnel and establishment boards—would be covered, and the like. But one of the answers said that there was no intention to undertake a performance assessment prior to the completion of the project, the reform programme; there would be a post-implementation review. Given the large amount of money in Vote Internal Affairs, and the local government portion of that, that is going to the reform, why isn't there a performance assessment being done prior to the completion? What assurance can the Minister give that there is appropriate scrutiny of expenditure? And are the questions that have been posed by the National member about the cost of the ICT system and the system of record correct or not? Because questions that were asked to the department about providing an update on the systems and record implementation business case and when it was expected to be presented to the Minister weren't answered with any level of detail. The department is apparently working through a revised work programme, but that ICT system will be expensive. So when does the Minister expect to receive it and how much is it likely to cost out of the Minister's Vote? Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for her question. The response she received is obviously directly from the department. I will follow up, personally, and get an answer to her directly. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Minister, for those responses. Just following on from my colleague, Chris Penk, in regards to the implications of categorisation of some of the homes in my local electorate of the North Shore—and particularly Milford, located on the back of the Milford stream, which was one of the significant outflows following the Auckland floods. The responsibility for categorisation of the impacted homes is on local government—in particular Auckland Council—and yet some six months on, my community and many communities surrounding that are still waiting for that categorisation process to be completed. That obviously has a significant implication in regards to the pressure that falls upon those families and individuals that continue to live with their properties backing on to that stream, and the continuing concerns around a large number of individuals: I think about the Parklane retirement home that is in Sunnynook and Forrest Hill areas of my community of which nearly 40 homes within that—and this is a retirement village—those homes are completely uninhabitable and the residents are still not able to go into their homes nearly six months later. Yet, the responsibility around categorisation does fall upon local government. The irony here is that when we've got a funding model—and acknowledging that the Auckland funding model isn't public, but if you use the precedent of the agreement of 50:50 funding that has been reached in other jurisdictions outside of Auckland, then when council has responsibility to actually categorise and the categorisation leads to a fiscal consequence on them as a council, surely you can see the logic that there is a conflict of interest in regards to that decision-making process, that adversely will impact residents within the local community. So as Minister of Local Government, I am seeking clarity and assurance around why this process is taking so long. Christchurch took about 120 days for that categorisation process to be undertaken, on a scale which was significant—and acknowledging this is broad, but the number of homes is known; the number and the location of those, and yet we have not seen any significant tangible progress on that—and nor, actually, clarity in regards to a timeline of when that will occur. So acknowledging the current state is people still don't know the answer, they don't even have the certainty of when that question will be answered, and that obviously is completely unacceptable, and many of those within my community continue to worry about when the next heavy rain will come, because no tangible feedback has been received from local government in regards to the lessons learnt from that flood. What did the reviews find as a result of what caused the implications, and as a result of the findings of those reviews by local government? What actions, if any, have any have been taken to mitigate this from happening again? Those are all questions, six months on, that remain unanswered, and I do see it as the role of the Minister of Local Government to be ensuring that we have got a process of transparency in that regard, and I'll be interested in the Minister's comments in regards to that. I want to go back to the three waters legislation. I note that the Minister said that my question around consultancy expenditure was out of scope; well, I challenge that. I do see that during the period in which we are discussing today there is a large number of consultancy expenditure that has been incurred within the period; to say that that is not relevant is an interesting opinion, but not one that I share. The questions I have in regards to the aspects of the three waters legislation are around the Te Mana o te Wai statements, and this is a principle that has been in place for a long time. The Minister has been on record to say that actually the Te Mana o te Wai statements—which is a new construct under the of the Water Services Legislation which basically provides requirements for the regional representative groups that must take into account feedback within those statements—still remains. And while the community priority statements have been brought into play in regards to mitigate some of this issue, the community priority statements have been embedded to potentially provide another basis for other stakeholders to input into that process. The consideration around those priority statements is that they "may" be considered versus "must", and there is obviously a key point of difference there. And I'm interested in the Minister's comments in regards to the difference between the Mana o te Wai principle, and then the subsequent construct of the Te Mana o te Wai statement, which did not exist prior to this Government's three waters legislation, and it is the basis of a large amount of question and concern by members of this community. I'm also interested in the Minister providing comment in regards to when the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the prior Minister of Local Government, called that the three waters reform was an arrangement that was "co-governance", and then subsequently, thePrime Minister Chris Hipkins was quoted as saying "co-governance" never existed in any of Labour's three waters reform. Well, there's a slight conflict around views there. I'm interested in whether the Minister stands by the Prime Minister in regards to saying "co-governance" never existed in Labour's three waters reforms, or the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who was very clear that those labels were "co-governance". And let's just remind those considering around that: the regional representative groups still have a dedicated number of seats within those governance entities, or those entities that are dedicated only for iwi Māori, and a number of seats that are only allocated to territorial authorities—and actually, an equal weighting, and that's why it's referred to as "50:50 co-governance", so I'm interested in what the Minister's comments— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Watts, you will show us the context of this. SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, you made the statement, in response to my question, that the $1 billion in additional costs for the three waters transition won't be borne by taxpayers or ratepayers or the entities because it's been offset by the Government cancelling the billion or more in Better Off funding that it offered to councils in recognition of all the additional costs they're going to face as a result of this transition; in particular, the costs in back office, retaining staff, overheads, Minister—not to mention the fact that many councils like Whāngarei District Council, for example, their water assets and revenues are cash-flow positive, Minister, which means that by taking their assets off them and the revenues they're going to be worse off. So, Minister, the Better Off funding is still needed by councils even though this Government has withdrawn it. So, Minister, is there any opportunity in the provisions made in this year's Estimates to recompense those councils who are having their assets taken off them without compensation—expropriated—who will suffer these additional costs that the better off funding was supposed to compensate them for? Minister, is there anything in these Estimates, in this provision, which will compensate them? Second question, Minister, in your role, being responsible for local government, for councils such as Wellington City Council—Wellington City Council is going ahead with the Golden Mile improvements project, which is nothing more than a mass demolition of Lambton Quay that's going to last for two or three years in terms of construction and all of the other impacts that will have on businesses. Now, the project aims to remove Ubers, private cars, taxis from Lambton Quay, spend $140 million of ratepayer and taxpayer money—probably more, because you can't trust a cost estimate delivered by this Government—and the overwhelming majority of Wellington businesses, retailers, property owners, delivery drivers, taxi drivers, Uber drivers, anyone who has to access the Golden Mile is opposed to this project, Minister. So does the Minister have confidence in Wellington City Council delivering and proceeding with this project with no backing from those affected, and, if so, why? Thank you. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. It might be useful to the previous two members to point out that this is an Estimates debate. And so when I respond and say that questions were out of scope and not relevant to the Estimates— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That's not a point of order. The Minister can answer the question and point that out in his answer. Other than that, it will be for the Chair to decide what is relevant. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Fair enough, Mr Chair. However, I do have one point I wish— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Minister's not answering the Chair. The point of order is over. The Minister can now answer the question or sit down. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: OK, sure enough. So in the limited time that I have, any question that is asked that refers to costs that have gone previously or matters that are outside of the Estimates document are out of scope; similarly, this is not a committee of the whole House stage—so any question around Te Mana o te Wai statements, etc. The other point that I wish to make is like the comment I said to Mr Penk: I would dearly like to have a discussion around the cyclone recovery. This is a matter that is very important to me. However, whilst the matter might be relevant to the local government sector, it is not relevant to this portfolio nor the Estimates debate. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just going back to the Minister's previous response of a few minutes ago, I was heartened by his willingness to have a conversation about these matters, in relation to cyclone recovery. I look forward to taking him up on his offer to have a yarn—as he would have it. So we'll arrange that offline; I don't need to take the committee's time to ask him to open his diary and see how 3.30 next Friday might be. But, in principle, I'm very pleased to have that offer and I look forward to doing that. I think the point in relation to cyclone recovery—and I hear the Minister's point that that portfolio is not in direct alignment with the local government one, but I do think, nevertheless, in an Estimates hearing, the points I'm about to make, Mr Chair, you will regard as reasonable for this context, which is to talk about what's set out in the Estimates and in Budget and annual review documents and all those ones that are relevant to the funding of the sector, because the demands on the sector are as set out, in the first instance, in the Local Government Act and various other items on the statute book, and, for now, at least, the Resource Management Act and soon-to-be, albeit temporarily, Spatial Planning Act and the other one, natural built and environment. But also there are miscellaneous and occasional and irregular demands that are put on the sector and it's reasonable to ask, in this context, how the Government of the day and local government, more particularly, will respond to these challenges, including by way of resourcing, and so on. So, if I can use an example, in the Tiniroto community on the East Coast, there's a Bluff road that has been closed, the bypass one—Parikanapa Road—is, effectively, a bypass. Now, by the way, I'm not asking the Minister to be an expert on these particulars. That wouldn't be fair, wouldn't be reasonable, and I'm not about to ask a question particularly on the matter. But just to point out to the committee, more generally, that these demands on local government are a good illustration of the demands that are on councils and territorial authorities, whereby if there is a small ratepayer base but a large geographical area or a large problem in infrastructure terms that needs to be addressed, then that's an issue that needs to be taken into account by central government in determining what level of support is needed. That's an issue, incidentally, on which I would be grateful to meet with the Minister, if he has time, and, certainly, that community has reached out, hoping to be able to meet with a Minister—and, in fact, your name specifically was mentioned, Mr McAnulty. So, again, not to put you on the spot in terms of making that particular arrangement now, but just to flag these are the kinds of demands that the local government sector is facing. There's the business-as-usual—and there's the business very much not as usual, in response to events such as Cyclone Gabrielle, of course. I have some unrelated questions and comments to make, which, perhaps for the sake of neatness, I should seek in a separate call. But I'd be remiss if I didn't add in to this contribution that we have good people involved in local government. We have elected representatives up and down this country who work hard, who represent their communities. Some of their decisions that I'm aware of, whether it's my own patch or elsewhere, I'd agree with; others, not so. But these are people who put themselves forward to serve their community and they deserve our commendation for that. They're part of a democratic process through local government elections—and, as recently as last year, of course, that was their fate to go through, and they were putting up billboards, and we were not; 12 months later, of course, it's our time—those of us in central government. But in a way we are engaged in the same act of, we hope, representation in public service. So I think it's worth acknowledging that. And, again, just to use, by way of example, the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery context, there are people who have been very deeply affected in their own households or businesses, nevertheless, trying to deliver the goods and services and the leadership that their local communities need. Where central government can support them to do that, recognising the difficulty of their circumstances, that's a positive thing. So, again, I would encourage the Government to do everything in its power to provide that support, noting the circumstances, noting the good intentions but sometimes more limited resources in terms of staffing, expert knowledge, ability to communicate, and so forth. So I'll conclude my remarks on the local government, as it relates to Cyclone Gabrielle, point there, and if no other—the Minister or other—wish to take a call, I'll pop up and perhaps make some other local government – related remarks. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for those comments. He might remember back when the Auckland floods first hit, that I contacted him directly and invited him to stay in touch with me and work as a conduit between his caucus and me and my office to try and give him the information that he needed. I would extend that again. If he needs to have a yarn specifically around where it's relevant to my portfolios, I invite him to do that. I certainly recognise the issues that he's raised: that councils are constrained finally and that's having an impact on them to do their day-to-day activities—in particular, roads. I think of the Tararua District Council in my electorate; it has 12,000 ratepayers, the fourth-largest roading network in the country, they simply are struggling to afford to do that, which is why the Government has assisted them with an increased allocation through the emergency works budget. I would point to the fact that water services reform will remove a significant amount of debt from councils' balance sheets—a debt that they are, in some instances, struggling to cover now. Some councils are already at their debt cap; other councils simply cannot increase rates, because their communities can't afford it. They will be assisted greatly by the removal of that debt cap. That is also a major feature of the review into the future of local government. The member may remember or recognise that I have invited Local Government New Zealand to work with the sector and figure out what they want from that; what the solutions are, in their view, to deal with the funding problems and then come back after the election and we'll work through it together. SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, in response to the question I put to you about whether the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) will continue to pay three soon-to-be-redundant chief executives hired by the DIA's national transition unit on three waters—they'll be redundant today or tomorrow by the very legislation you're sponsoring, Minister. You said that's "out of scope" for the Estimates debate. Those salaries are funded out of these Estimates, paid by the DIA through the national transition unit to these three individuals. Minister, it's clearly in scope. Will you instruct the DIA to make them redundant and stop paying them when the roles are redundant or do you support the DIA keeping those individuals on, paying their salaries out of this year's Estimates for appropriations so that you can do what with them, Minister? Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The member is incorrect. One CEO will continue because one of the entities in which the CEO has been hired has not changed and will continue to go live in July 2024. So that person continues in that role. Outside of that, there is a change process under way. If they wish to continue to assist with the establishment, then they'll have that opportunity. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much. As the Minister outlined in his reply to one of the questions, the reference there to the future of local government review, my question is in regards to that review, which was undertaken during the period in which we are reviewing this afternoon: why has that subsequently been thrown to another, in effect, review committee to work out what needs to be done and, in effect, kicked for touch to April—give or take—of next year when, actually, a large number of the issues within the local Government sector are well known and 90 percent of the issues primarily relate to funding, finance, and the financial sustainability of that sector? So why is the Minister choosing to continue to kick that issue down the road and not take some accountability in regards to being clear and concise around how the Government is planning to deal with the financial sustainability issues that the local government sector is facing? Also in regards to that future of local government review, there were a wide-ranging number of recommendations, many of which, in our view, are not necessarily relevant or make the boat go faster in regards to making the local Government sector high quality nor financially sustainable. I'd be interested in the Minister's view around what aspects of that review he does not support, to save a little bit of time and effort by those individuals from further considering those points and coming up with further recommendations which will not be implemented by any Government in the future. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The member might be happy to pick and choose which ones he and his party support and then go to the sector and say, "This is what we think; what do you think?" We're not going to take that approach. We've said to the sector "Here's an opportunity." We don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past and numerous reviews over successive Governments that have taken the approach that he's proposing. We've said, "Sit down together, try to find a consensus view on the recommendations."—a view that takes into account rural, metro, provincial, and regional slash unitary authorities, and how it worked for them. Then, after the election, I have invited them to sit down and we will work through it together. That has had a really positive response and I stand by that. If we're going to find a solution that works for the sector, we've got to work alongside them, and as long as I'm Minister, that'll be my commitment to them. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): One of the major issues facing the local Government sector, in addition to the issues around financial sustainability, funding, and finance, relate to workforce. From the Minister, I'm interested in what plans or actions the Minister has considered, or is the Minister considering, in regards to providing relief to the local government sector in terms of the significant workforce challenges that that sector has been under under the review in which we are undertaking during that period, and continues to be impacted by. In particular, a number of examples in regards to workforce vacancies which are related to the appropriation and the fact that the local government sector has the inability to fill those vacancies because a number of those technical experts have, in effect, been—and I'm using some language from a number of those within the local government sector—"poached" by central Government agencies on salaries sometimes 30 to 40 percent higher for the same or similar role within local government. So I'm interested in regards to aspects around, particularly, retention of those individuals within the sector and what the Minister is planning to do in order to provide a degree of certainty for those individuals who obviously undertake significantly important roles across our local government sector and, in effect, provide a number of solutions and options and value for our local communities. And I think that was highlighted again by the response of our local Government sector during the period of the natural disasters that we faced earlier this year. It is without doubt that without the support of, and the role in which, and the actions by members of our local government sector that we would not have seen our communities be able to respond nor our communities be able to rebuild from the implications of what has occurred in that regard. But the reality is that a number of people within the local government sector, because of those significant workforce shortages and issues around changing reform policy, means that they are leaving the sector, and yet we don't seem to have a clear plan in regards to the workforce and the keeping and the building of capability and competence within that sector, which is a critical sector for our community. So I'm interested in the Minister's views around that and what specific actions, if any, have been undertaken in regards to mitigate that risk. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): In so far as that is relevant to the Estimates, I will give an example that will assist councils considerably and that is water reform, because what the Government is doing will remove a significant amount of debt from council's books, debts that they are currently having to service that is a significant financial burden on local communities. The member's party has put forward a proposal that will not remove debt from their books and they will continue to have to service that individually at rates that will ultimately become unaffordable for ratepayers. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Chair. In the dying stages of this excellent discussion on local government with the Minister in the chair— Simon Court: And this Government. CHRIS PENK: Oh the Government—the dying days of the Government too, Simon Court points out. Well, I'm sure he's not far wrong there. We've got nearly three weeks to go—sitting weeks—or two weeks to go, plus a bit as colleagues in my office misleadingly put up every time. So, I do want to make a bit of a local pitch in relation to the local representation arrangements in my electorate, and again not to put the Minister on the spot to be OK with the particular aspects that I'm going to talk about, but it is an opportunity to put on record some concerns of the community that have been expressed to me— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): In so far as they refer to the appropriations Mr Penk— CHRIS PENK: Absolutely, and so far as they refer back to— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Which you will refer back to constantly. CHRIS PENK: Absolutely, absolutely. I'll refer constantly back to the appropriations, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your guidance on that point. Although can I just say, and I know I'm straying to dangerous territory, but you'll indulge me I hope, these points have been made to me, but also the Labour list MP based in the area, namely Marja Lubeck. I do want to acknowledge, ahead of her valedictory statement which will be made in just over an hour, in fact, that that's an aspect on which we've been working together closely, with local advocates, and I've enjoyed doing so— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That still doesn't lead it into the appropriations. CHRIS PENK: No, no, but if I were to say how that relates to the appropriations, I probably wouldn't have much to say. So I will actually just get on firmer ground and say that while the appropriations for local government, for the relevant year, whichever that may be, relate to various ways of local government operating. Of course it's important that it operates as efficiently as possible and revenue streams are relatively limited, because, of course, we've got a particular system that's enabled under the legislation and the rating thereof. The point that relates very clearly to the appropriations in relation to my electorate is that the more rural areas sometimes feel underrepresented because they're part of a larger whole, whereby the old Rodney district, for example, which existed in its own terms, is now part of the Auckland Council—the so called super-city—despite the fact that this area is very much not a city. It's very rural in character and nature, and the plea from locals who meet with me, they say, "Chris, for goodness' sakes next time you're in the House and discussing the appropriations of the local government sector in an Estimates kind of way, can you please raise this?" And I say, "Well that would be very relevant, so I'll be happy to do so". CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, you could go back to them and say you have local issues time to do that. CHRIS PENK: We have local issues time as well, that's right, Mr Chair. I think you're giving a very good contribution, if I may say; it's almost as good as my own. But look, I do just want to make that point that that's part of the bigger conversation about what's important to local government: the efficiency, the revenue that's obtained by rates, and the fairness of the representation there on. So with that, I welcome any response that the Minister may have to that in the remaining time. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It's an absolute pleasure. I wanted to go further into a couple of aspects. It's interesting in regards to this appropriation that the Minister refers to the reforms and the fact that the three waters reform programme will take the debt off council balance sheets. But what the Minister has not clearly articulated is: where does that debt go? Because the reality is that there isn't any magic money tree that exists. And while the debt may be taken off the council's balance sheet, that does not mean the debt does not exist in the context of the broader economy. While it may, under the Government's proposed model, sit within a water services entity, at the end of the day the ratepayer or the taxpayer will still need to contribute in order to fund that debt profile. So I think it's interesting to sort of make that point, but I don't think it holds any water, to use the point in regards to the fact that actually there is no magic money tree for this debt. What is clear, in regards to the estimated $3 billion of establishment costs—these are costs that have been outlined across the period, and a large portion of those costs have already been included within this appropriation—is that those will not actually derive one single metre of additional water pipe going into the ground; actually quite the opposite. The majority of that expenditure to date has been spent on what is a Conga line of consultants, a gravy train of consultants and contractors by this Government to implement a reform programme which was strongly opposed by the majority of local government and the majority of Kiwis. So I'm interested in the Minister's comments in regards to: does he stand by the fact that the expenditure within the appropriation is value for money and is actually going to derive benefits? And while the debt will be taken off councils' balance sheets, who actually is going to be funding that debt? Who is this magic population that isn't the rate payer or the taxpayer? Or is it actually the rate payer or the taxpayer? Because I think most Kiwis are pretty sensible and they can see through that, that no matter how you dress up this issue, the fact is that someone is going to have to pay and, at the end of the day, that person will be members of our community. So those are the two points, Mr Chair, that I wanted to add and to thank the Minister for his contribution. Justice CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now have the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is going to be available from 4 p.m. till 5 p.m. I call on the chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters. VANUSHI WALTERS (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to make some brief remarks to lead off this debate on the justice Estimates. Firstly, I'd just like to thank the Minister and the chief executive, Andrew Kibblewhite, and also the officials who provided us with information and advice on the day, and thank the committee members for their diligence through this process. The Justice Committee hearing forms an important part of our holding the executive to account. In 2023-24, the appropriations sought for Vote Justice totalled $856.932 million. That is about 3.6 percent more than the previous year's estimated actual expenditure of $827.013 million. Of those appropriations, they included $303.578 million for legal aid services and $196.59 million for services provided by the Ministry of Justice, as well as $72.968 million for community-based justice services including services such as the community legal service network. Through our discussion with the Minister and the chief executive, we discussed subjects such as the cluster approach to Budget bids—and this is, of course, the second year that that approach has been taken—the sentencing of offenders, support and assistance for victims, legislation to address organised crime, and the appropriation within Vote Justice that is the responsibility of the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. So with those brief remarks, I would thank the members, again, for their work. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, for those tuning in to this debate, this is a debate where we're discussing the Government's spending in the justice sector for the coming year in the Budget. As has just been indicated, you know, $800 million - odd are spent in the justice-specific area, but, obviously, a lot more is spent on the prisons through corrections and through the police, and in the broader sense that there are several billions being spent. Justice, as the overarching portfolio, guides the priorities for the Government of the day in terms of spending, and that's guided by the legislation that they pass. We've been on the record a number of times querying the priorities of this Government in justice as a whole. It is a fact that the one, real, clear priority that they've set out so far, articulated by Kelvin Davis, is to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what's going on in our communities and on our streets. We contend that that is a misplaced focus. Everybody wants to see fewer people in prison, but it needs to follow a fall in crime. But, instead, we've seen an increase in crime over the same period. In terms of violent crime, we've seen a 40-odd percent increase in violent crime over the same period that we've seen a more than 20 percent drop in the number of people in prison. So that leaves people confused and confounded and trying to understand what the purpose is. Is it to keep us safe, or is it just to follow an ideological desire to reduce prison numbers, come what may? So when we see the money that's being spent—a lot of it on advice from the Ministry of Justice—we ask ourselves: "Well, what is the focus of the advice; what are they trying to achieve?" We are two months out from an election. If I was fortunate enough to be Minister of Justice, I'd be focusing on making better progress on reducing violent crime in our communities. So I'd be interested in where the Government sees her priorities are there and what the Government is trying to achieve there. Then, we'd be trying to deal with the real problems that we've got on youth crime—we've seen a 500 percent increase in ram raids, and that's got out of control over the past few years. Various schemes have been put forward, but they haven't seemed to have been working so far. We have proposed some new tools, such as military academies. We've also proposed new legislative tools around young serious offenders, but we haven't seen much progress made there. The third area needs to be the focus on speeding up the processes of the courts, which is keeping people's lives on hold for years, waiting for justice. But when we see this Government's priorities—as well as reducing the prison population, we just heard today that they're going to be introducing legislation to reduce the voting age to 16. Well, I mean, heck, thank goodness for that! That's one thing that the people of New Zealand are calling out for when there's violent crime increasing, youth crime is out of control, and there are long delays in the court system! But this Government is focused on reducing the voting age to 16. Now, they've also been spending millions of dollars on their crusade to ban hate speech, which is on and off again—I think it's off at the moment—but has involved a lot of ministerial and official advice on that topic. So I'd be interested to know just what the Government is proposing to spend on the consultation and advice on that latest bill that they brought in around reducing the voting age, the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. Then, finally, we've heard from the Minister of Justice today, talking about being victim-centric and trying to focus on the needs of victims of crime. The fundamental question I ask her is: surely the thing that victims of crime want to be most focused on—well, first is not to become a victim in the first place, which is around improving public safety, but then, secondly, to see justice and justice done. We've seen a number of cases over the last few years where people—young men—have been convicted of very serious sexual assaults on young women, including rape, and have received home detention sentences. I would have thought victims would not be very impressed with that, frankly, and what that means. So what I'd like to understand is why the Minister and the Government haven't given more attention to the Sentencing Act and whether it's working effectively, and whether the massive discounts that we're seeing—sometimes up to 70 percent of sentences—from judges as they apply a whole lot of discounts—where people have come in, committed, and been convicted of very serious crimes, serious assaults, and, like I say, rapes, where the starting point might be eight or nine years in prison, and then a whole lot of discounts have been applied and they've ended up in home detention, on the Xbox, watching TV, and doing whatever they're doing on home detention. So the question is: is the Minister satisfied with the situation where there is unfettered discretion on the part of the judiciary to reduce them as much as they feel due fit? Now, we in the National Party have proposed a limit on that, and I'd be interested in her views on whether she sees that as appropriate. So when it comes to the $196 million that's being spent on the Ministry of Justice, primarily to provide advice to the Minister, has she asked for some advice on that, whether we've got that balance right, and why should we change and why shouldn't we change? I also want to know whether she's asked for advice on whether the community is safer as a result of her Government's goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, regardless of what's going on in the community? And I saw some interviews where she said, basically, they hadn't asked and they didn't really know. I'd give her another chance, I suppose, to answer that— perhaps a bit better—so that she can reassure New Zealanders or try to explain to New Zealanders why she sees that as a priority when everybody is seeing an increase in violent crime in our communities. We've had a dreadful number of shootings in Auckland recently. We've seen the increase in ram raids. We've seen the 100 percent increase in retail crime, such that the many shop workers up and down the country are concerned for their safety, and the many parents who've got young kids working in hospitality and retail worry about their safety. And yet the Government continues to be focused first and foremost on reducing the prison population come what may. I want to know whether the Minister's got advice from officials as to what impact that is having on public safety, so that we can get a better understanding of that. Another area that I'd be interested to know is around the $6 million - odd a year that's being spent on cultural reports, including some money going to the likes of Harry Tam, a lifetime Mongrel Mob member, to write some of these reports. His company has a nice website sort of promising reduced sentences from these cultural reports, if they do them well, and you can get a quote for doing one of these cultural reports. We on this side of the Chamber aren't impressed with the cottage industry that's developed there. It's our view that that money would be better spent better supporting the victims of crime and giving them access to the support and help they need. The previous Minister, Kiritapu Allan, before she departed, did say that she wasn't very convinced that we were getting good value for money from those cultural reports. I'd be very interested to see whether the new Minister, the fourth Justice Minister we've had in this Labour Government, following Mr Little, following Mr Faafoi, and Kiri Allan—the fourth Minister, I wondered what her view on the cultural reports was and whether she thinks we would do better by victims of crime if we gave them some of the extra support that they need. Finally, I think, just some other random impertinent questions for the Minister to consider. Does she believe we are indeed in a crime wave in this country after six years of this Government? How would she describe the situation more broadly, given all the money that we invest, given the laws that are passed, and given all the talk that she has said about new legislation, extra police, and more resources? How would she assess the current situation that we face, does she believe there is room for improvement, and how does she think sticking with the current plan, which is to reduce the prison population irrespective of what's going on in community, is going to help? And I'll leave those questions for her to consider. NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from my colleague Paul Smith's— Hon Paul Goldsmith: Goldsmith! NICOLE McKEE: Goldsmith's—[Interruption] Following on from his questions, I, too, have similar questions when we're looking at the vote documents. The justice Estimates, they don't present a coherent picture of what or how the Government is seriously looking at tackling the crime that we're seeing, the increase in crime that we're seeing, but also how we're going to tackle getting through the backlog of cases that are going through our court and justice system. We're hearing of some trials taking up to three years and we've also heard some talk around whether or not courts should be sitting on a Saturday to help relieve some of that. I wonder, Minister—when we look at the sector within the Vote Justice system, it's really quite hard to ascertain exactly what some of these Estimates budgets are going to be spent on. And it makes it hard to actually figure out what is going on with crime, what is going on with our court process, and trying to make sure that everybody gets access to justice fairly, but our victims especially get access as well. So, Madam Chair, I just wonder whether or not the Minister can give us a bit of detail on what it is within the justice votes that tells us what is the coherent picture of how the Government's going to deal with the increased crime, and what is the picture in regard to dealing with the backlog of court cases? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, I've got some more questions for the Minister to consider as well. One would be when she talks about her Government, and again in the House today, being very focused on the needs of the victims of crime—yeah, she is aware, I presume, that her own officials in the ministry admitted during the previous Budget process that the victims assistance scheme, and I quote, "The Ministry and Victim Support have managed the cost pressure by deliberately under-promoting the scheme to minimise access and uptake." I just want to read that again, just so people get that sort of clear in their head: "The Ministry and Victim Support"—this is from officials. This is from officials writing through the Minister to the Minister of Finance, saying: "The Ministry and Victim Support have managed the cost pressures by deliberately under-promoting the scheme"—and we're talking about the victim assistance scheme, deliberately under-promoting the scheme—"to minimise access and uptake." That was the style; they talked a big game about how they're focused on the needs of victims for years. Kris Faafoi would stand up on his hind legs and he would talk about it and Andrew Little would, before. And yet, at the same time, they were deliberately under-promoting the scheme to minimise access and uptake, because they hadn't put enough money into it and they couldn't cover the need. And so the first question is: have you changed, Minister? Are they still under-promoting the scheme or have they actually decided that perhaps they should let victims of crime know about it so that they can access the help that they need? And how can we have some assurance that that is going to actually lead to New Zealanders getting better access to the help that they need? Because another example I could give the Minister, and another question that follows from it, is the big announcement made with great fanfare about a fund of $20 million around strangulation. Now, everybody knows—well not everybody knows, but a lot of people know—that when people strangle somebody else, particularly in a domestic violence situation, it is a well-known precursor of even worse violent crime and a real signal of danger. So strangulation is a big red flag fluttering everywhere. And so this big fund was announced, $20 million, to help victims of or complainants of strangulation to get through the court system and to get the help they need, and it was promised that it was going to be 800 people helped a year. But then it turned out that virtually nobody had—and I think they might be up to 50 or 60. I'd like the Minister to give us an update on how many people have actually been helped, because it was, like I say, nowhere near what was promised. And then it turned out that actually that fund had been used to help more perpetrators of strangulation than defendants or complainants of strangulation. So, I mean, it is sort of beyond recognition. So on the one hand you've got a victims assistance scheme, which deliberately under-promotes itself so as to not draw attention to itself because it is inadequate to the task, and then, secondly, you've got a strangulation scheme announced with great fanfare and totally under delivering and actually giving more help to the perpetrators of strangulation than the defenders of strangulation. So on both those instances, I'd like an update from the Minister as to what progress, if any, has been made on both of those important areas. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member, can I just remind the member who's just taken his seat that it's not really respectful to call another member who is not in the Chamber as having hind legs. So reflect on that kind of language. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you, Madam Chair. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Well, we know Aotearoa has one of the most imprisoned populations in the world, with 170 per 100,000 in prison. Of those people, 52 percent are Māori. The majority of Māori prisoners are locked up on drugs- and property-related offences. In other words, crimes of poverty. Since this Government began its programme to decrease the number of Māori in prison–in 2019—our prison population has gone up by 2 percent. Two-thirds of our prisoners have been denied their right to maintain contact with their whānau, due to the ban on face-to-face visits, long after the rest of us have had COVID-19 restrictions removed. So not only has the prison population increased under this Government but life for prisoners has gotten worse. In fact, this has been the case for the last 35 years. Since the publication of Moana Jackson's groundbreaking report, He Whaipānga Hou, the rate of incarceration for tāne Māori hasn't changed, at 50 percent. The rate of incarceration for wāhine Māori has risen significantly. Today, Māori women make up 64 percent of the female prison population in Aotearoa. Our people suffer unequal outcomes at every level. We are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, and convicted. Despite what the ACT Party believe, and the National Party, tāne Māori receive special treatment from the Crown, as in, the criminal justice system. Does the Minister believe that the system is racist, and how is she going to decrease Māori incarceration rates? It was only last year that an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner and the Independent Police Conduct Authority found the police guilty of racially profiling and illegally photographing rangatahi without consent. Children as young as 15 were approached in broad daylight and threatened with arrest if they refused to have their photo taken, all for the crime of looking out of place. That is not policing with consent; that is bullying. It is predatory behaviour and a total abuse of power. We know too well what happens when Māori break the law. We are reminded on the news every day. But what happens when the police break the law? Well, in this case, the Minister of Police—who is now the Prime Minister—pledged to change the law to allow the police to continue to violate our rights. No consequences for the police. But we know what the consequences are for Māori: over-incarceration and the continued intimidation of our rangatahi by the State. The question I'd like to know is: how will the Minister ensure the police are held accountable for breaking the law as we citizens are held to account? After those particular reports have found that it was illegal to be photographing rangatahi without parental consent, the whakamā trauma of these incidents shouldn't be carried by the rangatahi and their whānau; instead, it should be the police. Crime in Aotearoa is a result of colonial inequities here in Aotearoa. It's past time the colonial Government stop feasting on the misery of our people. Under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Crown has no right to take our people from their whānau, hapū, and iwi and put them in the State prison system. The impacts of the prison pipeline from State care and the education system are clear. Studies have shown that one in three children placed in residential care by the State ended up in prison later in life. Recent reports, including Ināia Tonu Nei and Turuki! Turuki! put forward a series of recommendations to restore power to tangata whenua and end inequality in our justice system. Here are the questions we would like to ask of the Minister. Would she take a look at establishing a Māori justice authority? A Māori independent justice authority—precedence has been used in the health space—and we want to ensure that we can mirror the opportunities that the Māori Health Authority has in the justice system to be able to come up with our own solutions by iwi, hapū, whānau, Māori organisations. We know there's $97 million of Whānau Ora money sitting in prisons. What is happening with that money? What is Whānau Ora got to do with the justice system? It's actually got absolutely everything opposite to do with the justice system. So those are some of the questions that I have for you, Minister, through the Chair. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be quick, as we have limited minutes to respond to all those questions. So the first point from Mr Goldsmith, who tries to draw a correlation between the decrease in the prison population and an increase in offending. So he's asked if we've had any advice from officials. The advice is that there is no correlation between the reduction in prison numbers and an increase in some areas of crime. I can speak to that briefly by saying that the key areas of the prison population, under offence types, that we've seen a reduction in prison numbers would be for burglary and would also be for drug offences—for those possession offences of drug offences. They are the two main areas. Interestingly, as the prison population has reduced, there is now a more significant proportion of the prison population that have been incarcerated as a result of violent offending. So the number of those in prison for violent offending has actually increased. So I'm happy to provide more information on that later on if he would like it. He's also asked in relation to the Sentencing Act, and I'm not sure if it's his policy that I think he referred; he didn't clarify it—but there were requirements. I think one idea was that to specify for the safety of the victim and also for the safety of the community, to be requirements for a judge to weigh up at sentencing. If the member would like to refer to the Sentencing Act, those are already in legislation. So those are factors already that are a requirement for judges to take into consideration upon sentencing. In terms of the Section 27 cultural reports, those have been around for well over a decade. I have seen an increase recently in terms of a cottage industry that has sprung up to create those reports. I've already indicated in this House during question time that I will take a look at that. It seems like it does seem to be increasing, and I'm prepared to take a look at where that's tracking and whether that's a good use of funds. In terms of the other questions that that member raised, he also specifically asked, I think, around youth offending. He asked around—I think it was ram raids was your question. So what we have seen is a sharp increase but that has been tracking down—and I think that tracking down for youth offending in ram raids has been tracking down as well. That is largely because those programmes that we brought into play at the end of last year, which was a whole range of better pathways for youth offenders—that is working well. We are seeing that those young people who have been repeat offenders are getting the wraparound support that will take them to stop reoffending. In terms of questions—I'm running out of time, so I'll go really fast. In terms of questions—and I've lost my piece of paper for Nicole McKee, sorry—that you raised in relation to court backlogs was your question. I have the list here of what the Government is currently doing to address court backlogs, which would be: increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, High Court, and District Court through to 30 June 2025; the Government's provided $15 million over four years as part of Budget '21 to establish new Family Court associates to speed up that process in the Family Court; also the Criminal Process Improvement Programme, additional funding there for Police prosecutions to enable that; also in the Coroner's Court, we're seeing the appointment of special assistants in that space to speed that up; the development of demand-driven rostering and scheduling approach to ensure optimal use of all judicial officers, courtroom staff—to making sure that's running as effectively as possible. They are some of the measures we are taking to address that backlog. NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Andersen, I'll ask you two questions; one of them's quite quick. The Human Rights Commission: they've been given $14 million and they have two chief executives. Its recent activity is to claim "the fundamental illegality of the State" and that the Crown's claim to sovereignty is "illegal". So why is the Government paying for the existence of a body which actively seeks to deny the right of Government? My second question to the Minister is regarding sector leadership and support. At page 100 and 101—the bottom of page 100 and the top of page 101—it talks about "[The] appropriation is intended to achieve timely advice and support by the Ministry of Justice to the Justice Sector.", and there's an allocation of $13 million there. But when we look at the assessment of the performance, the assessment itself is based on "The satisfaction of the Justice Sector Leadership Board with the leadership, advice and support provided by the Ministry", and it's rated eight out of 10. Now, that's the KPI, just people being happy with a $13 million spend. So I wonder: what is involved in that? What is involved in the satisfaction of the Justice Sector Leadership Board for a $13 million spend, because I think the people actually should be well aware of what that entails and what the detail is around that spend. So, $13 million in sector leadership and support, Minister, and $14 million to the Human Rights Commission, who are wanting to—actively seeking to—deny the right of Government. We're just wondering why we're funding them to do that. Thank you, Minister. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak a second time. Just a couple of questions, Minister, before we end the session, around—I understand Operation Tauwhiro, Operation Cobalt, and the reasons why those particular operations are in action. My question is: what are you doing as a justice Minister around tax fraud and tax evasion in this country that's costing this country $7 billion a year? Where is the operation in regards to tax evasion here in this country? Where is the operation—like Operation Tauwhiro, like Operation Cobalt—for those who are costing this country billions and billions of dollars of tax evasion? That's one question I'd like to ask. The other question is around ensuring that we look at a whole, transformative approach to the justice system. Again, I welcome the Minister to answer the question around the appetite for an independent Māori justice authority to allow Māori the dignity and the mana motuhake to be able to come up with solutions—because the current solution isn't working for us—to allow us some dignity and to allow us the opportunity to reform ourselves as we climb from underneath the bonnet of years and years of colonial violence. So, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] , if you could answer those questions, that'd be much appreciated. Kia ora. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for engaging in this discussion about Justice and its Estimates and various challenges in the sector. Obviously, it's pretty broad ranging, and I acknowledge the Minister also has the portfolio of police, and, of course, courts, which is very dear to my heart, within that broader justice sector as well. I know the Minister will be au fait with some of the issues in our court system, having been chair of the Justice Committee before that. As others, including my own colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith and Nicole McKee, have both quite rightly pointed out, one of the major barriers to justice in this country at the moment, from an access to justice point of view, is the huge backlogs involved in having cases heard in our court system. I might bring out some of those figures, not to quote them all across the different types of courts and tribunals necessarily but to highlight for the attention of the House just how dire the situation is, but by way of shorthand, Ms McKee is quite right when she says that it can be up to three years that it takes a case to go through. The key aspect of that is actually understanding that it can take, you know, the majority of that time even to get one's case begin to be heard. It's not even necessarily that the cases take a long time—and, of course, sometimes there are good reasons for that—but even to get to the start line of being heard is a major challenge in this country at the moment. So I wonder if the Minister can offer her thoughts on using, much better than is currently the case, much more extensively, what's sometimes called virtual meeting rooms, sometimes called AVL—audiovisual link—or other remote participation methods. By way of background to the question, she'll be aware that it's already possible under the statute book that we have now, with the remote participation Act, for people to Zoom in—you know, as we would say in colloquial fashion now—whether it's from, maybe, a custodial situation to avoid the security risk and cost of transporting a prisoner to have a relatively minor hearing. We're not talking about full trials or jury matters or whatever, but I wonder if the Minister can advise what thought she has given to working with the justice sector to have much more remote participation where that's appropriate and where that would be in the interest of justice. I'm hoping she will reflect on the savings of time, of cost, of removing the postcode lottery of lawyers being available in one location but not another, to take away the challenges of a pandemic situation or other public health challenges—maybe ill health during the winter months in a more ordinary way—earthquake strengthening issues with courts, flooding issues in the case of extreme weather events. I hope that she will reflect that there is much more that we can and should do in this country working with the courts—yes, recognising that as a separate branch of Government, but working with them to provide them the tools to enable that more technology-based interaction through our courts and thereby to improve the lives of those who so desperately need to have their matters heard. They need their day in court. They need for justice not to be delayed and therefore justice not to be denied. I sense the Minister is engaging in various matters of importance, so I'll sort of seek an indication of when she's able to address that question. But maybe I'll jump ahead to a related point, which is in relation to legal aid. I do acknowledge that the Government has recently announced an increase to the levels of legal aid, and I think that's worth supporting, but in terms of the structure of how legal aid representation works, I wonder if the Minister has received any advice or would seek advice on whether junior lawyers assisting a more senior colleague might be able to attract legal aid funding in a way that will be helpful for the speedy resolution of the matters but also by way of succession training—that is to say, equipping the next level of the profession, the younger or at least newer practitioners, to be able to have the mantle passed to them and so to be able to provide that important representation into the future, particularly in criminal justice matters but not exclusively those. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take the next call, I'd just like to inform the House and members that I've had a request from the main Opposition party that they would like to move on to transport soon, sooner rather than later, so if there are no further calls on justice—we will continue with justice? Chris Penk: Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if there's been a slight miscommunication. The point is, I suppose, we've only got a certain amount of time left, and other parties likewise, and we'll try and manage that as best we can. I'm sort of keen to understand what will happen if we finish the justice one earlier, and I think I understand from you that that would mean we'd go into transport more quickly, and if that's the case then so be it, but we don't actively seek to move on to transport more quickly than would otherwise be the case. Shanan Halbert: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, just to confirm that we're happy to proceed through as planned. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Madam Chair, thank you. We've had a bit of debate, from various speakers, around prison and what that represents, and we've received a long-term report from officials around the changes in the make-up of New Zealand's prison population; 20 to 30 years ago there were far more people there on property crime—stealing things—and on drug crime. Now the prison population is very much more—almost exclusively—serious violent crime and sexual crimes, with some very serious drug dealing in the mix. And so I struggle to understand the point of view of my colleague from the Māori Party Rawiri Waititi, who sort of implied that people shouldn't be there, given the very significant crimes that they have been convicted of before being there. And so I was just interested to know whether the Minister, in terms of the overall spending and the focus of policy in justice—as I've iterated, the current Government's philosophy is to reduce that prison population, irrespective of what's going on, by 30 percent. We had her predecessor as Minister of Justice saying, "Locking people up and throwing away the key is exactly what gangs want. They want New Zealanders to pay for their university of crime." That was a quote—a tweet—from our previous Minister of Justice Kiri Allan. And I just want to know whether the current Minister of Justice has the same philosophy or view that prisons are some sort of university of crime and therefore something to not support or to try and avoid at all costs. It's relevant, I suppose, because of the very widespread public anger—I think would be the right word—over a recent prominent case where somebody who had been convicted of a serious violent crime was on home detention and then went on to commit a horrendous crime in Auckland; a shooting. And many people ask "Well, how is it that somebody convicted of a serious violent crime is left in the community and actually able to go and work?" And so my broader question is—and, of course, there are always going to be various instances and exceptions, but is she broadly comfortable with the practice that has developed of people convicted of serious violent crimes not going to prison but being on home detention? And if she is, well, that's fine, because that seems to be the approach, because there is no significant change proposed by this Government. But I want to know whether she has given real consideration to restricting in some way the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences to the point of home detention for a whole host of reasons. And so that's one area that I'd like to get some better understanding from her. We would make the point that public safety should be the priority and where people have been convicted of serious violent crimes, in most cases the most appropriate thing is to get them out of circulation for a period of time so that they cannot create new victims. That seems to be the issue, and so I'd be interested to know what the current situation is: how many people are currently on home detention who have been convicted of serious violent offences? That would be a useful thing for us to know so that we can understand the scale of the problem. And, ultimately, does she think that is—not in an individual sense, because no Minister should comment on individual cases, but the Minister is responsible for the Sentencing Act and so I want to know whether she has a view whether the current arrangements where people can be convicted of serious violent offences and end up on home detention is something that she is satisfied with or whether she thinks some review of the Sentencing Act is required as the National Party is proposing, because she has been quoted as saying, "People are frustrated with the level of crime." and so the fundamental question is what's she proposing to do about it differently? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So as a result of the Auckland shooting recently, there are a number of inquiries currently under way. One will be the coroner, one will be through the police investigation. I understand the Independent Police Conduct Authority of New Zealand will also be conducting their investigation and also the Department of Corrections will also be looking at that. So I'm interested to see all of the outcomes of those investigations to determine if there have been any red flags which have been missed. Saying that, Mr Goldsmith, it's important to note that whether home detention is awarded or not is for judges—the judicial decision that is made for judges. So I assume that he is proposing that he would, in some way, limit or curtail what judges currently do in order to have an impact from this House into the courts in terms of what is able to be awarded. I don't currently have a programme of work under way to do that. However, I think it will be very important to take a look at all of those inquiries currently under way to see what the findings are before we quickly jump to any conclusions. I want to address, also, the use of audiovisual links (AVL) or virtual meeting room remote use that was raised by Mr Penk. So yes, it is available. It's also important to note—I think the number I have is that there has been an increase of 97 percent of use of AVL, so it is encouraged and used at a far higher rate than it has been used before. It is still at the discretion of a judge when that AVL is used or not. Obviously there will be some instances which would probably be inappropriate, such as sentencing or a first appearance potentially, where the use of AVL would not be appropriate. But there is a movement towards utilising it more and, by that statistic, there has been a big increase in the use of AVL. In terms of the question he raised in terms of legal aid, a second lawyer can be funded under legal aid. But this is more generally for those big or more complex cases—and he's already noted that there has been a significant increase, under this Government, for funding of legal aid. So that has been in place. There was one other point made—I think there was a point raised by Mr Waititi in relation to Operation Cobalt and I think Operation Tauwhiro. Both of those fall under operational activities of police. We're in Estimates now for justice, so I can't really go into discussing what's under that appropriation when we are discussing justice. I would point out in relation to improving outcomes for Māori in terms of the justice system, that Te Pae Oranga—Māori justice panels—have been rolled out right across the country. They continue to prove that reoffending rates and getting people on the right pathways within their communities—all of those reviews are proving that they are providing far more positive outcomes for Māori, and I look closely to see how we can continue to support that work. In terms of—Mr Goldsmith had one other question. Oh, that's who I had—Nicole McKee raised whether it was value for $14 million for the justice senior leadership board; whether that's a good use. I would say that the justice cluster, in general, are put in all of those votes in one, being able to get better value for money. All the chief executives I speak to think it's working well, that it is good value for money, and to have that level of coordination going right across Courts, Police, Justice, Corrections does require a level of administration. But I would say, overall, having that coordination—having that oversight—actually holds the key to getting better outcomes for victims of crime, and that has been the missing case in our justice system. Without that coordination, it's each of those agencies taking their own lens, without having the ability of looking at how that, in fact, impacts upon the victim. So that coordination, I think, holds real opportunities for New Zealand to increase the rights of victims and the visibility of victims within our justice system. NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for the answers to that. The question about the sector leadership and support was not so much whether it was value for money for the $13 million, but what was it that they provided specifically for $13 million. The request in the question about value for money was directed at the Human Rights Commission and them having two chief executives, and them actually undertaking a project looking at the sovereignty of New Zealand and coming to a conclusion, so far, that it's illegal. So it was asking a question about that. I have two more quick questions for you, Minister. One is looking at the biggest driver of costs in our justice system, which appears to be our legal aid bill. When we looked at it, it's gone from $180 million in 2018/19 to $281 million in 2022/23. Now, it's an estimated $304 million cost for 2023/24; that's a 56 percent increase in legal aid requirement over the last five years. So I'm wondering: what is the driver behind this? This then leads on to my second question, which is about the elimination of family and sexual violence. I understand that it's not the Minister's portfolio, but the budget actually comes under the justice cluster, and it has $22 million attached to it. So the question is: what has actually been done in that portfolio? The performance in page 95 of the vote is essentially saying that it's overseeing actions in the plan and that the Minister's satisfied with advice—so it looks like we've spent $22 million on actions that we don't know about and that the Minister is happy with the advice. We know, and the Minister in the chair has said herself, that we have an increase in family harm occurring at the moment. The police commissioner has said the same thing. So with the $22 million and everybody being happy, but we're seeing no progress, is the Minister able to answer as part of that justice sector, what has that $22 million been spent on, and will we see some tangible results in the next 12 months? Thank you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, hoping for some good answers from the Minister on these things. So ultimately it all comes down to the Government's priorities for the $190-odd million dollars that it devotes to the Ministry of Justice to work on problems that we're trying to fix as a society. When we look around the justice space, the three, four things that spring to mind are the increase in violent crime that is the scourge in our community—the fact that the gangs are recruiting faster than the police, and a sense of disorder on our streets. Secondly, there is a real worry about the massive increase in youth crime and this is particularly exemplified by the ram-raiders who are running amuck and causing so many difficulties across our communities. The third issue, which would strike me as top of mind, is the very long delays to justice that many New Zealanders face, whether they are in the criminal system, in the family court system, and all the other elements of the courts with people's lives being on hold. That partly relates to the previous question that my colleague Chris Penk was talking about, the very significant increase in the legal aid budget. Well, a big part of it is that everything takes so much longer and there are so many lawyers involved in the whole process. So those are three big challenges in the justice space, the fourth area I'd identify would be around electoral law and the importance of reasserting equal voting rights for all New Zealanders. Now, equal suffrage is a core part of our human rights legislation, but it only directly applies to general elections. This Government has undermined that at local elections through its Canterbury Regional Council bill, which moves away from equal voting rights for all citizens and democratic accountability. So given those priorities, what I want to understand is why this Minister and this Government has instead prioritised reducing the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what's happening in our community. Secondly, they spend an enormous amount of time and official advice, millions of dollars on an ill-conceived proposal to ban hate speech and whether the Minister regrets all that diversion of effort. Another area has been on reducing the voting age to 16, which is not something that I would have thought was top of mind for most New Zealanders in that justice context. Then a whole lot of electoral law, financing boondoggles, which weren't carried out in the normal process of being bipartisan, but rammed through, we think, in order to skew things in one direction. So I suppose that what I'm putting to the Minister is: why have you prioritised those things at a time when, as a country, in the broader justice space, we have these very substantial pressures when it comes to violent crime, youth crime, and very long delays to justice in our justice system? And does the Minister believe that she, and her Government over the past six years has given enough attention to those real pressing issues on the front line that all New Zealanders are focused on? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, as we only have a couple of minutes left, I'll touch on the issue of violent crime. The member has raised the issue that violent crime has increased and I'm pleased that he mentioned that the large reason for that increase has been family violence. That has been a significant driver of that area, and it's for that reason that this Government has invested, more so than any other, in Te Aorerekura, which is the first time we have the funding in place in those NGO sectors like Women's Refuge, for those outreach groups to actually get involved and fund our communities, not only to respond to family violence, but to engage with those families to stop it happening again. So I would say that there has been the biggest investment New Zealand has ever seen to reduce family violence and stop it from happening to the next generation. When we talk about youth crime and the increase we have seen—a spike in ram-raid offending, that looks like it is tracking downwards, and that is because there has been significant resource invested in those wraparound programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro, like circuit breaker. We see that around 80 percent of those young people who go through those programmes do not reoffend, and I put that in stark contrast to the National Party's policy of introducing boot camps, which have an 80 percent number of those who do reoffend after going through those camps. So they don't work, and we continue to be a Government that goes on evidence. We have evidence-based policy and that is why investing in family violence, and that is why investing in reducing youth offending addresses and tackles those route drivers of crime that do take time, but we know that they do track our communities in the right direction. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's traditional when the gallery starts filling up for valedictory remarks to sort of comment self-deprecatingly on how they might all be there to hear you, the speaker, on justice Estimates, and I have to say that it's good to see the debate being so warmly welcomed. Actually, I do want to acknowledge, if I can, and take the liberty to say that there's a couple of people from the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate who are here, no doubt, in support of Marja Lubeck. So I acknowledge them coming from the Labour Party and supporting her, and Marja herself, who is about to give her valedictory. Just briefly in relation to justice matters, I wonder if the Minister can address now or undertake to find out if it's the case that the scheme whereby duty lawyers have been incentivised to have their clients plead guilty early—that was something that has come up previously, and I think most people have understood that that programme had been discontinued. Her predecessor the honourable Kiritapu Allan had indicated that she was unhappy with it and that it would be discontinued, which I would say is a good thing, but my understanding anecdotally recently is that, actually, that isn't the case, and in other District Courts that would continue to take place. So I ask the Minister to take that on board and find out if that's indeed so. Finally, in relation to the Criminal Process Improvement Programme, or CPIP, as it's known, I wonder if the Minister can explain in her remaining time—short as it is—what positive changes have derived from that, or, for that matter, the Te Ao Mārama programme, which had been designed to improve our justice system. But it seems to many casual observers and, actually, to those who have followed it more closely as well that there hasn't been much tangible gain from those. If the Minister can say otherwise, then I would be very interested to hear it in order to be convinced that it's a worthwhile programme to have continue. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith, but just a heads-up that we will be going to valedictory speeches soon. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering if we'd had an answer from the Minister to my previous question around the strangulation fund of $20 million that had been announced, with great fanfare, to help 800 people a year—I think the number was—who are victims of strangulation, or complainants, to deal with it. We've found out that a very small number—maybe 50 or 60 a year—had been receiving the help, and then, secondly, we found out that there had been more perpetrators receiving help from that fund than victims or complainants. Given the context of her speech, I was wanting to get an update on that figure. Then, secondly, on the Victims Assistance Scheme, which, as I said, had been deliberately under-promoted "from the officials" because they didn't have the funds, I wanted to know whether that was still the policy of her Government to deliberately under-promote that scheme, or whether she had changed her mind on that and was actually promoting it in order to help victims of crime. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, as I know that we're short on time, in relation to the member's question around strangulation, or the offence of "impedes breathing", that was a new offence that was introduced under this Government that has resulted in a large increase to the number of family violence offences being reported. So the question he raised was that there was funding made available to the defence in a court case that is made available to the defence if they request it for specialist evidence. That has not made any difference in terms of what the outcomes are, and I do have the statistics there that show that the judge's having that information before them assists them in making a good decision. I wouldn't say that it potentially assists either way the defence or the prosecution. So there are approximately just over 1,000 people charged with strangulation each year. Since 2019, there have been over 4,000 charges and, roughly, 50 percent of those people who were charged in 2021-22 were convicted, and so that was a slight increase on the year before. Of those people charged who were convicted, about 37 percent faced imprisonment. So that statistic indicates that while the defence may have had the opportunity for specialist advice, we're still seeing good numbers in terms of not only prosecutions but convictions, and even a prison term being served for that offence. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the committee is suspended for valedictory comments. We will resume at 7.30, after dinner. House resumed. VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, following the valedictory statements, the House will suspend for the dinner break and resume in committee at 7.30 p.m. for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. I call on Marja Lubeck to make her valedictory statement. MARJA LUBECK (Labour): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And in the legendary words of my colleague, "g'day". Whānau, comrades, friends, and frenemies, it's humbling to see you all here. Even though I've risen to speak more than 300 times since the first time I got up, I'm still standing in this House with a sense of wonder at the sheer privilege of having had this opportunity. I didn't expect to stand up here, when I was asked in 2017 to help get the party vote out for Labour in Rodney. I remember Tolley told me that I could get a bit of an idea what it was all about, and, if I liked it, who knows what would have happened in 2020 or 2023. Well, mate, who would have thought that here in 2023, I would have served two terms as an MP, and that, I'm told, is about the average time for an MP to serve. But there was nothing average about the last six years. A lot has happened between 2017 and 2023. It was a privilege to serve in the Labour team during some incredibly tough times that our nation went through. I am forever grateful for how the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led New Zealand's response to March 15, COVID, and other challenges. Together as a society and with very special leadership, so many lives were saved during the worst pandemic in a century, where other countries could not. But despite the challenges, these were also six years where lots of progress was made. If I may sound like an advertisement just for a moment, I'm a proud member of a team that from day one started to tackle those long-term challenges in New Zealand, strengthening workers' rights, massively building our apprentices workforce, increasing the minimum wage, and addressing gender pay discrimination. From making abortion a health issue and giving women choice, we're building more houses than any Government since the 1970s to taking action on climate change—and everything in between. Now, in the Chris Hipkins - led Government, our team continues that mahi, focused on building back better—what our finance Minister always refers to as "the silver lining on the darkest of clouds". But I couldn't have known that was going to happen, when I started my first speech in this House in 2017. It was for the most about a topic that I was then and am now passionate about: workers' rights. I spoke about the decline I had witnessed over so many years of working conditions for hard-working Kiwis; the erosion of longstanding protections. It was a main motivator for me to start my law degree at 44 so that I could better serve my fellow union members. It was after that speech in 2017, which was so heavily dominated by a topic that I knew so well, that someone said to me that I wasn't trying to be all things to all people. What I didn't know yet was that being an MP means being all things to all people, especially when you're an MP for your communities. There is this misconception that as a list MP we don't make positive changes in our area. But one of the most rewarding parts of the job has been advocating for the communities of, first, Rodney and, after the rezoning, Kaipara ki Mahurangi and Whangaparāoa. I won't have time to tell the stories of the many people that came through our office over the years, but I'm proud of all we have achieved in the area. Some issues had been languishing for years and decades and I was able to advocate, on behalf of the communities, for investment in our schools, the restoration of the Mahurangi River, and, of course, Penlink. We are the first Government that put actual funding with the promise to build—so thank you, transport Ministers Phil Twyford and Michael Wood, for listening to the communities and committing that $830 million. My Warkworth office has served not just constituents but hundreds of businesses and community organisations. The staff in our electorate offices are unsung heroes. Alan, you've been my steady force in the electorate office, a source of infinite knowledge. You were joined a couple of years ago by Tania, community outreach extraordinaire. Here in Parliament, Nick, you made my first term so much easier. My time on the 11th floor of Bowen House was probably my happiest time in this place. Yes, Jan and Aupito probably played a large part in that, and Nina and her cooking. Eva, Jack, Laura, Christine, thank you for holding the fort at different times. A special mention of our roving support team—especially Wendy these last couple of months, you've been invaluable. When I first started, I found out the hard way that without a job description what you can take on is pretty much limitless. The responsibilities of representation weigh heavily, the hours are long, and the work is endless. It's all-consuming, and it's difficult to accept that you can't do everything. It's challenging to manage work and personal life in that environment—I did try. Early on, I joined one of the walking groups, there were two at the time, one with Ruth Dyson and one was Kris Faafoi. Ruth already had a few members in her team, so I thought I'd go with Kris; except, many months later, I found out that this particular walking group was for those who don't like walking. So if anyone needs a brand new pair of sneakers, size seven, come and see me. Now, it's just after 7 a.m. in the Netherlands, so if my parents are awake, it's the first morning with internet in their new home. It's a big thing to shift out of your family home after 51 years, and Papa and Mama, I'm so proud of you. Thank you for your unconditional love and the sacrifices you made for us. It has been especially difficult being away from you these last few years. On the topic of thanks, also a big shout-out to my sister Peta, her husband Herman, and my nephews, Mike and Lars, because this wouldn't have happened without you. I've been privileged that the sacrifice of my family has enabled me to give it my best. I've been away so much and absent, even when I was home. I tried the best I could, but Shane and Max, I know at times I let our whānau slip way too far down the list of priorities, and I'm sorry. Thank you, Max, for all those messages you send me. It always brings a smile to my face when I read, "Mum, have you eaten?" And, Shane, you worked so hard taking care of the rest of life, and I know your body suffers. When you broke your leg, things got even harder, and you had to miss out on being here today. It's been anything but plain sailing, but you were and always will be my best friend—thank you for always letting me do what I needed to do. Some of that involved creating tighter connections with Dutch and Indonesian communities so that they feel represented in Parliament. Being the first Dutch-born MP from Indonesian descent, I have seen it as my role creating tighter connections with those communities. To the ambassadors, leaders, members of the communities, thank you for your manaakitanga, welcoming me into your spaces. Dank je wel and terima kasih for your support for me. With our phenomenal and largest ever ethnic caucus, you'll be in good hands, but I'm planning to stay in touch. Speaking several languages has come in handy—I've always had a thing with languages. When I first came to New Zealand, I was helping out another immigrant worker with some English lessons, and we joked between us that she was possibly the only Chinese woman in New Zealand who spoke English with a Dutch accent. It's been a privilege to co-chair the New Zealand - Europe cross-party group, building on our relationships and sharing best practices with MPs from other countries. A lot of that occurred over Zoom—especially during COVID; that was the way to keep in touch. Zoom meetings have their own challenges, and I'm sure everybody is well aware of that, but none took such an unexpected turn as our first Zoom with Lithuanian MPs. Halfway through, one of them abruptly disconnected from a meeting with the words: "Got to go, the Russians are coming." Now, this was 10 November 2021, and we now know it was not just an excuse to leave the meeting early, but it was an early sign of what was to come. We were able to show our support for the Baltics when we were the first New Zealand delegation to visit Lithuania, in July 2022. As the EU Ambassador, Nina Obermaier, has said, "although New Zealand is distant geographically, from the very start, New Zealand has stood shoulder to shoulder with Europe in solidarity with Ukraine". New Zealand's support was acknowledged and appreciated by all the Parliaments we visited. Another great privilege was being welcomed as an ally in the rainbow community, and in 2018, I got to know a fierce activist called Amanda Ashley. Her Rodney Rainbow petition, combined with the one from Young Labour and Young Greens, collected more than 20,000 signatures. A long story short, I've been blessed to have had the privilege to be part of the kaupapa to ban conversion practices. We'll never know the specific individuals whose lives were impacted by this legislation, but we do know that the world is a safer place for it. Thank you to everyone who's doing the mahi to protect particularly our rangatahi against the dangers of prejudice, discrimination, and intimidation. There's more work to do, but there's also a lot of good stuff happening. It doesn't always get the airtime it deserves, and that should change because it's so much easier to give people hope by showing them the positive initiatives and the wins—that there are a lot of people in this place who care and are working hard to make things better. They often give until there's nothing left in the tank to give, and that is a story we're telling. But in the era of social media, clickbait, and the 40-minute news cycle; trolling and rampant misinformation, it feels, at times, that it's not the good stories that make the headlines. I wish politicians and media could stop their focus on catching people out with perceived or real slip-ups—or 10-year-old tweets for that matter. Feeling powerless witnessing the take-down of some of my colleagues over the years has been the source of my greatest frustration. That, and possibly the change of the breakfast menu in Copperfield's! Now, this is obviously an adversarial environment and I've done my fair share of heckling. Jason Walls, you called it: I spoke my mind. Because you know what they say: "Many people are too polite to be honest, while the Dutch are too honest to be polite." But as one of my colleagues said, politicians are not prey, and that is how it feels to me at times—preying on the imperfections. We are not robots; we are humans—good people, doing our best, often to the detriment of our personal lives. If we could just make the political and media culture less toxic, I think we'd make a lot more progress. I've love being part of my Labour whānau in Parliament. Thank you to so many of you for your kindness, friendship, and support. Ministers who, no matter how busy, gave their time, including one, often referred to as "Chippy", who always made you feel listened to. The awesome class of 2020: having you on our delegation, Rachel, was just the best thing. To my mates from the class of 2017, I'm going to miss you so much. In a place where you need to feel someone has your back, we've always had each other's. I felt aroha at a time when I felt lonely, overwhelmed, or I needed a sense check. It has definitely prevented some serious mishaps on Twitter! Taking this time to reflect, I realise that what I will miss most is working with so many good, decent people, all different, but with a common goal of making New Zealand the best it can be. Lots of our changes are working towards that. I'll mention a few—actually, I'll mention one, because I'm running out of time. Cut, cut, cut, I'm not the National Party—oh, sorry! Fair pay agreements: thank you, Michael Wood, for your determination. We need to keep going with ensuring people have fair pay, decent conditions, and a voice in the workplace. We are investing in our people and the economy, and fair pay agreements are part of that. I've love being chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. It's a privilege to hear from submitters and to deal with legislation that often can have such a profound effect on people's lives and that of their families. So many people have been part of my journey, providing me with friendship and mentoring—and sometimes unsolicited advice. There are few of you here, but there are too many to name. But I'll give it a go. Susan and Des, always there right from the start. Thank you; I owe you. Also for the jacket—Dunedin op shop. Sorry, Colin, I know you're watching—say hi to Peggy and Helene. I acknowledge our formidable Labour electorate committee (LEC) chair, Hugh and the Kaipara ki Mahurangi team: Andrew, Guy, Neil, Olga, Mike, Robert and Pauli, Mike Boudine for the cooking and baking for our meetings. Kura, Judy, Adam, Janine, Brad, Sam, Nisha, Brad, Dev, Marina, Ken, Rewa, Derek, Alan and Joy. The Whangaparāoa LEC, Gabrielle, Tanja, Ernie and Velma, Glen and Nobu. James, you were only 13 when we met in 2017. Shane, our chief hoarding. Ann and Mike, Erica and Lane, Eanna, Scott and Dean for helping me at the markets. Greg and Cherie for the many elegant events held at your place. David and the late Mary at Herons Flight for your hospitality and support. Colin and Jeff—always making me feel good about myself and I'm counting on my parliamentary colleagues to make sure that Colin Morley Couture continues showing off. Young Labour: your enthusiasm and energy is contagious—keep it up. E tu, my union, Council of Trade Unions and representatives of affiliated unions present here today: you've been at the forefront of fighting for better pay and better working conditions. Thank you for your support of me and for my hinerangi. I'll treasure my taonga for ever. To clerk Edward Siebert for making the select committee job so much easier. Thank you to everyone who runs Parliament. There's just too many of you to mention. But you're all awesome, and we could not do it without you. And, of course, the Labour Party leadership and everyone in it, for you are these words: you're phenomenal. One of the biggest compliments I received in this place is that I haven't changed from the day I entered Parliament, and while that can't be entirely true, I do leave with the values I entered Parliament with and I still hold dear—in particular, relentless optimism and compassion for people. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. [Applause] Waiata JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this House for a final time. My journey to Parliament began in 2014 when I stood in the Taupō electorate, alongside yourself, Mr Speaker. And I remember phone calling the Labour Party stronghold of Cambridge! I made 30 calls—30 National Party voters on the end of the line. I soon realised I would need to develop a thick skin in order to become an MP. In 2017, I stood in the Hamilton East electorate under the leadership of Jacinda Ardern in the "Let's do this" wave. I entered Parliament on the list—snuck in with a few other of my colleagues. Then in 2020, I won the Hamilton East electorate—first time a Labour candidate had won it since Dianne Yates in 2002; something I'll always treasure. Now, in 2023, I move on with my family into new fields of endeavour and community service. I'd like to begin by acknowledging my family: Angela, Jack, Brooklyn, Chloe, Charlotte—also our three cats: Holly, Snowy, and Sparkles. I may well be the first MP to put their cats on Hansard. Thank you for your support. I couldn't have served in this way without you. Ange, we've been best friends during our 27 years of marriage, and I'm super proud of all the work that you are doing to serve our Waikato region. To our children, for the times that we've been out and about and I've started talking with people and probably talked too long, the times I've been in Wellington and missed some of your activities, but mainly for putting up with an oversized photo of my face on our Toyota Estima for six years. Never give up on your dreams. You can achieve anything, and mum and dad are always there for you. To my wider family in Nelson, Perth, Hamilton, and my sister Chelsea who is here today in the gallery, thank you for your support. Being an MP is a community role. The more I ponder this word community, I settle on the fact that everything we do is community, whether it's education, health, housing, sports, arts, politics, business. It became very vivid to me when I recently heard a couple of local CEOs in Hamilton. They were talking about who would get the contract for a project. And one of them said to the other one "Well, it doesn't really matter which one of us gets the project, the money's all going back into the community anyway." And they were right, because, whether it goes back in wages, whether it goes back to support for various organisations for schools, everything we do, everything we have here is community. It's about connection. And most of the problems in our society today can be traced back to people becoming disconnected. The more we can foster that connection, the better we'll be as a society. Parliament is not about us MPs; it's about our open and liberal democracy. I remember someone say to me once that as an MP, you enter Parliament, it's like diving into a swimming pool. You're in the pool for a while, you hop out, the water covers over, and it was like you were never there. Because we have a strong democracy in New Zealand, and it's important that we continue to foster that democracy. It's very important that our jobs do not define us. If our jobs define us, we can often have perverse outcomes. Parliament is a difficult place to get into. In fact, there have been more male All Blacks than MPs. My first option was All Black, but far too small for that! However, it's also a difficult place to leave. How do we measure the success of an MP? Is it longevity? Is it impact? Is it favourability ratings? I'd like to suggest that we ask those closest to us. We ask our partners, we ask our children, we ask our key local leaders. They'll give us an honest answer of our performance. I believe we need a four-year term in Parliament to allow Governments time to fully implement the policies that they went to the electorate on. I acknowledge we don't have an upper house and there'll be questions around not having enough checks and balances for four years, but I believe that we are mature enough as a country to take on the four-year term. We have a stable democratic system that I believe could handle that. Politicians are public figures—we know that. We get into this job and we understand that. But often, particularly around social media, people tend to turn politicians into an object rather than a person. There have been many times, particularly early on in my career, when people have shared their views on social media and I've commented and I've said, "Look. Book in a meeting.", and I'm actually genuine, but none of them book in a meeting. So I'd encourage everyone out there who's listening: please feel free to make your comments, that's our free and open democracy, but also meet with MPs—meet with us, talk with us; we're open-minded people. We must continue to monitor the benefits of social media to our society and the purpose of this medium—we need to keep a close eye on it. I look forward to scaling back my social media presence and simply posting the odd random 1980s cricket video every couple of months. That gets a maximum of two likes: one from my father and the other from parliamentary staffer Peter Hoare, whose cricket blog "My Life in Cricket Scorecards" I highly recommend. In 2019, the parliamentary cricket 11 took a trip to the UK, paid for by corporate sponsors and individual MPs. And while we were there, we contested the Inter-Parliamentary Cricket World Cup. We got thrashed in the world cup. But I remember attending the 2019 world cup final at Lord's that we did not lose—I just want to put that on Hansard too! Ha, ha! I think that's important. In April 2021, I remember playing for the parliamentary 11 at Seddon Park in Hamilton, and we played the Seddon Cricket Club. I was pretty nervous coming into bowl, because this was my childhood dream to play on Seddon Park. And I just remember thinking, just pitch the ball in a good length outside off-stump. It's all you're trying to do. And I bowled it. The first batter got a single. The next batter came on strike—it was this batter's first ball—bowled it, swung, and I thought I heard a faint edge, and I turned around and looked at the umpire and appealed, and he said "That's out." I was, like, yes; saw my name up on the scoreboard. However, we got into the team huddle and I distinctively remember our co-captain, Chris Bishop, looking at me going "Jamie, he was the sponsor of this event." And I got him out first ball! It was CEO Cam Wallace, MediaWorks' CEO Cam Wallace, as some of you will know. He'd actually paid $5,000 for that event and I suitably felt pretty bad. On the theme of sport, in 2023, our parliamentary football 11—we visited Brisbane and we played Australia, and I'd like to acknowledge my co-captain David Bennett here. Last time we played Australia we hadn't won, so David and I were determined to win this game. We were leading one nil with five minutes to go and the Australians got a break. I could tell this guy was quick and I knew we were in trouble. However, all of a sudden from nowhere, David Bennett came flying in and just wiped out an Australian MP, and David was standing over the top of him and the guy was sharing his views about the tackle. I came across and David looked at me and he said "I had to do it." He's right; he did. And we held on and we won the game. In fact, every time I visit Australia I often ponder the thought: will we ever become one country, Australia and New Zealand? My personal view, and it's only a personal view, is that New Zealanders shouldn't rule that out. There would certainly be economic benefits, economies of scale in the private and public sector, opening ALDI stores on our shores. In fact, technically the option remains open for New Zealand to join Australia under their constitution. The main problem I foresee, though, is: how do we integrate the Australian cricket team? But we conquered Everest, so you never know. I'd like to thank a few people. I'd like to thank our Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins. You're a very secure leader and that's often quite rare in leadership. And I feel like I'm someone who has been a student of leadership over many years. I'd like to acknowledge that about you. You're not afraid of having hard conversations. You have tremendous respect for the institution of Parliament and upholding our democracy and you understand the everyday New Zealander. To all of the party leaders in this House, those who have served during my time and the current leaders Chris Luxon and James Shaw, Marama Davidson, David Seymour, Rāwiri Waititi whom I stood in Parliament for in 2014, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Servant leadership is a sacrifice and I acknowledge the sacrifice that you're all making. Class of 2017 members from Labour: thank you for your friendship and support over the years, and also class of 2017 members from the other parties. We're forever bonded as the group that entered this House in 2017 to do our bit for our country. I'll miss you all. To my Hamilton office colleague Nanaia Mahuta: thank you for your advice over the years. You're an inspirational leader and you've served the Hauraki-Waikato region with passion and empathy. We've shared an office for six years in Hamilton, but due to our busy schedules we have only spent one day in the office together and that was the opening. But she helped me share the cost, which is helpful. I'd like to acknowledge a couple of other people. I'd like to knowledge my good friend Paul Eagle, the champion of the Chathams. If we tallied up how much Government funding each MP has attracted for areas of their electorate per capita, Paul Eagle would win hands down. And I'm convinced that council passed a bylaw to ensure that the only mugs allowed on Chatham Islands are Paul Eagle mugs. I'd like to acknowledge the Hon David Bennett. I have huge respect for you and the work that you've done in Hamilton since 2005 as a member of Parliament. I'm confident you've knocked on more doors than any other MP in the history of this House. And I know that because when I used to knock on doors, people would say, "Oh yeah, David was here last week. I've been waiting for you to pop by." I'd also like to acknowledge the work you did on the expressway. That, I know, will be one of your legacies and it's significant in terms of the Hamilton to Auckland corridor and the growth in our region. I'd like to acknowledge key Hamilton parliamentary staff: Ray Stevens, Tom Rowland, Dan Steer, who are all in the gallery, and also Melissa White. Thank you for your support, your reliability, hard work, and for serving the people of Hamilton. I'd like to acknowledge my MP gym buddies; you know who you are—I'm looking around the room. Rawiri Waititi: I'll miss you. JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah—Rāwiri. I'll miss you too, Rāwiri. My children, whom I love, particularly love the parliamentary pool, but I'd like to take this moment to apologise for all the manus performed in the parliamentary pool—and also those done by my children as well! One of my main goals was to attract Government investment into the Hamilton and the Waikato region, and I did have a list here but I'm running out of time. But there have been a number of significant projects that this Government has invested, and these projects are absolutely vital for the Hamilton community. I'd like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues who have regularly attended the parliamentary prayer meeting for the past six years. Thank you for your support, love, and friendship. Our prayer group is a sea of peace and tranquillity in the hustle and bustle of Parliament life. And thank you to David and Russell for your service to us. I'd like to close with a prayer: God of Nations at Thy feet, in the bonds of love we meet, hear our voices, we entreat, God defend our free land. Guard Pacific's triple star from the shafts of strife and war, make her praises heard afar, God defend New Zealand. Men of every creed and race, gather here before Thy face, asking Thee to bless this place, God defend our free land. From dissension, envy, hate, and corruption guard our State, make our country good and great, God defend New Zealand. Peace, not war, shall be our boast, but, should foes assail our coast, make us then a mighty host, God defend our free land. Lord of battles in Thy might, put our enemies to flight, let our cause be just and right, God defend New Zealand. Let our love for Thee increase, may Thy blessings never cease, give us plenty, give us peace, God defend our free land. From dishonour and from shame, guard our country's spotless name, crown her with immortal fame, God defend New Zealand. May our mountains ever be freedom's ramparts on the sea, make us faithful unto Thee, God defend our free land. Guide her in the nations' van, preaching love and truth to man, working out Thy glorious plan, God defend New Zealand. [Applause, hongi and harirū] PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Mr Speaker, I rise one last time in this House. I rise one last time to pay tribute to members past and present, and those yet to be elected. I rise one last time to honour the invisible hands that make this great House function. The cooks and the cleaners, the clerks and the couriers, the security guards and switchboard operators, the techies and tradies. Without all of you, this boarding school for older kids simply wouldn't work. So thank you all for your manaakitanga. Less than six years ago, I delivered my maiden speech as a message to my son, Tamarangi. I promised him that I would be the best dad that I could be, that I would be a strong representative for the people of Rongotai, and that I would change our adoption laws so that thousands of people like him—and me—would know our whakapapa, our identity. Now, I've tried hard to keep those promises, but it will be for Tamarangi and others to decide if that's true. And it might come as a surprise to many that my election night success in September 2017 was a bittersweet moment: sweet because I was the first Māori man to win a general seat for Labour in more than 100 years; bitter because I was giving up the deputy mayoralty of Wellington with the daunting task of filling Annette King's very large shoes. People who know Dame Annette will understand what I'm talking about. It goes without saying that I owe a debt of gratitude to Annette and her husband Ray. I want to also acknowledge former party leader Andrew Little for opening the door for my bid to stand in Rongotai—kia ora, Anaru. Your belief in me paved the way for me to become an MP. Now, some people think I came late into politics; the truth is, I was born into it, as my parents, who are watching from hospital, unfortunately, will attest. My dad was a Methodist minister for some 50 years, who was heavily involved in the Labour movement. Mum, Judith, was a health worker who believed in community service. During my childhood our house was always full of visitors who came to talk about politics and social justice issues, and it was the same at church and party fundraising events alike. At one point I did say to Dad, "What is the difference between the church and the Labour Party?" I can't remember the response, but there was talk of stopping the Dawn Raids, about apartheid in South Africa, and old stories about standing up to nuclear testing at Mururoa. These conversations seeped into me and influenced my thinking. They also helped shape my values and my politics, and those were values around honesty, integrity, authenticity, and approachability. In the spring of 2017, my first campaign for Rongotai was going very well. My favourite opponent was the fearless Christopher Finlayson and at our first public debate I found it interesting that we mainly talked about the Chatham Islands, where he had done a lot of early work on the Treaty settlement for the Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga. At subsequent meetings, the crowds used to get quite testy—until my opponent at one of the meetings reassured everyone that if he unexpectedly won the seat, he would call for the recount. We got on pretty well after that. Like the workers in Parliament, the activities of an electorate MP, as Jamie Strange has said, are often invisible. Our contribution is not measured in policy announcements, the passing of new laws, or the amount of column inches we generate. The work is done quite often in the humble suburbs of the electorate where local issues dominate, where constituents get help to find a job, a new home, a visa, or some funding for their school project, or help to understand a letter from the council or Government agency. But these are but a fraction of the many hundreds of issues that, as an electorate MP, I love to solve. And it's been certainly a privilege to represent constituents who grapple, with difficulty, with such matters that affect their daily lives. As you've heard—and as some people say—one of the joys of being the MP for Rongotai is that I'm also the MP for the 660 residents of the Chatham Islands and their diaspora on the mainland here and around the world. To our Chatham whānau here today, mayor Monique Croon, councillors, chief executive Owen Pickles, Ngāti Mutunga's Deena Whaitiri and Gail Amaru, our Moriori whānau here, and the island fishing community represented by Pita Thomas—thank you. I have to say, each year, the Chathams have this annual big festival, and I wanted to have a Labour stall there. I saw all these blue tents and I thought, "I must get a red tent in there somewhere." So I talked to the event organiser, Alexandra Hind, and said, "Look, I've got this idea." She said, "Yep, no problem." But I just needed some heavy hitters to run the stall. So thankfully I found two people: the self-anointed selfie queen Anahila Kanongata'a and the Women's Weekly cover man Tāmati Coffey, who agreed to willingly help. We had a wonderful time. We met the locals and it came time to leave. But unfortunately, the plane broke down. This was normal, but with no mobile or internet coverage, we couldn't even contact the whip's office to say we weren't coming home for three days. But also at this stage, Tāmati had developed a sore foot and got a quick health check, which we all agreed just to keep on the down low. As he hobbled back down the hill to our accommodation, only a couple of minutes away, where the hotel manager innocently asked with a big smile "How's the gout, Tāmati?" So I'm pleased to say we did help get them a mobile phone network on the Chathams. We extended the runway and brought them into the jet age and will soon lower their power bills with renewable energy generation. These investments were made possible thanks to the previous Labour - New Zealand First Government under the Provincial Growth Fund, which enabled Chatham Islanders to get the same basic services we sometimes take for granted here on the mainland. As I said earlier, one of my main goals was to change our 1955 Adoption Act. While we didn't quite complete the reform during my time, the groundwork has been laid. I believe the next Parliament will bring the law into the 21st century, and I acknowledge Andrew Little again here. Members from across the House, I believe, recognise now that every New Zealander deserves to know who they are, where they are from, and not have to wait 20 years to know who gave birth to them, as happened to me. I do want to acknowledge my birth father, Jack; birth mother, Madeline; together with my birth sisters who are here—two of them—Lorraine and Courtney. Thank you for inspiring me to make those changes that, I reassure you, will come very soon. I look forward to the new legislation that will ensure the needs of the child are at the centre of any adoption. Kia ora. One of the privileges afforded to backbench MPs is the member's bill, and I was fortunate enough to promote such a bill with the support and guidance of Nanaia Mahuta when she held the local government portfolio. The bill sought simply to reinstate the four wellbeings to the Local Government Act and it became a Government bill. Thank you, Nanaia, for your insights and leadership there too. Also, alongside Nanaia, I want to personally thank Peeni Henare and Rino Tirikatene for their perspectives, and all the members of Labour's Māori caucus for their support. Tēnā koutou e ngā rangatira. I want to also thank my Samoan uncle and good friend Aupito William Sio, who rang me from Samoa—well, it sounded like it was Samoa—and who has watched over me ever since we first met in Manukau City some 20 years ago. But I'm truly grateful for his friendship and wisdom. Fa'afetai tele lava e le avanoa. No valedictory is complete without acknowledging those who have contributed to my time in this Whare. Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban is one of them, with Dr Peter Swain for their unwavering support for many years. The Greater Wellington City Council chairman Daran Ponter, who helped keep me grounded when I got too big for my boots. I'm sorry for harassing you about our city bus service constantly, but thank you, Daran. I thank all my support staff, volunteers, and helpers. These are the unpaid people who do so much and have done so much. Rita Evans, Taylor Arneil, Lauren Woolley, Dominic Shaheen, Kirsty Carre, Ray Tuffin, and Candice Russell. Louie Encabo, Tawhai Johnson, Sera Benseman, and Melissa White—and how could I forget the 30-year plus veteran, my super loyal volunteer, Robin Boldarin. You are all amazing and have gone above and beyond. There is one staffer who deserves special mention. He has been my electorate office manager, media minder, trusted adviser, MC, event organiser, ordained Anglican vicar, occasional bus driver, and salt-of-the-earth character—up there in yellow and black stripes—my wingman, the Rev. Brian Dawson. Thank you, Brian. I also acknowledge the Rongotai Labour electorate committee chairs Bob Mason, Jo Spratt, and Maryan Street, who will continue the work leading our local Labour members. But of course there's one person who won't be there to keep the electorate humming anymore, and that's my wife Miriam. Without you, there would be no parliamentary career, there would be no political representation, and certainly no public service. You've been there through the thick and thin, the good times and the bad. We've had lots of good times, though, haven't we? But thank you for everything. I love you and I appreciate all that you do. In closing, I have one wish, and that's to urge our future parliamentarians to rise above petty politics. Let's see what unites rather than divides us—to know that pragmatism is not a dirty word. I believe we fundamentally sort of agree on most issues, but politics sometimes gets in the way from us seeing that. Everyone knows that a divided House is a recipe for failure, but a House underpinned by kotahitanga is a foundation for success. Although I am stepping down from the political stage, I leave here with a full tank—or a fully charged battery, as I have to say now. I've got lots more to give and there's lots more work to do. Community service is in my DNA, which means I will continue to be a servant of the people. Can I thank my Labour colleagues? Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou me rongo. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata—Te Aroha Sitting suspended from 5.48 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.