Tuesday, 22 August 2023 [Volume 771] (continued on Wednesday, 23 August 2023) ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly our investment to boost the teaching workforce with around 700 new teachers from overseas and 300 new domestic teachers. Within a year, the investment that we've made has exceeded the goal of a thousand new teachers. In a global shortage, there is high demand for teachers, so we need to make sure New Zealand is an attractive place to have a rewarding teaching career. While there is, no doubt, more work to do, we've made good progress with more than 3,800 more teachers in classrooms since we became the Government. Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend $2 billion more a year on law and order but deliver 107 percent increase in serious assaults, two ram raids a day, and a 70 percent increase in gang members? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, one of the reasons that we know that there are more gang members is that we put more resource into the police chasing gang members and actually making sure that they are being charged. The gang register was only put in place in 2016. Had it been in place for longer under the previous National Government, there probably would have been more gang members on it when we actually became the Government in the first place. We've had to do catching up because it was one of the things that the last National Government didn't do. Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend $5 billion more a year in education, hire 1,400 more public servants, but deliver fewer students leaving school with level 2 NCEA? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Teacher—Mr Speaker, because we are employing— Hon Members: Ha, ha! Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: "Mr Teacher"! Slight slip. Because we're employing more teachers, because we are paying them better, and when he talks about the "public servants", what he would be referring to are the extra specialist staff, amongst others, but they would be the extra specialist staff employed by the Ministry of Education to deal with the students and to support the students who have the highest learning support needs. We have managed to start getting on top of the significant waiting lists—for example, for some of our most vulnerable young kids who were waiting for far too long to get the specialist support that they deserve. Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend half a billion dollars restructuring the health sector but every single health outcome—access to cancer treatment, emergency department wait time, surgical wait list, and child immunisation rates—have all got worse; not one single one has improved? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know the member likes to pretend that the global pandemic never actually happened, but almost every health system around the world has seen indicators around things like elective surgeries and emergency department wait times get worse. And it's because the health system's been dealing with a massive influx of people with COVID-19. Christopher Luxon: How did he manage to spend $2.3 billion more on housing but rents are up $175, the State house wait list is up 20,000, and there are four times as many kids now living in cars? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm glad the member mentioned the State house wait list, because under the last National Government, to get the wait list down, they simply deleted a whole lot of categories on the wait list. Those people's housing needs did not go away; it got more severe. And the reason that we've now got people on the more severe State house waiting list is that they simply pretended they didn't exist under the last National Government. We are building more State houses, more public houses, than any Government since the 1950s. If the last Government had been building public houses at the same rate as we are, there would be next to no people on the State house waiting list. Christopher Luxon: How has he managed a special skill set to spend more, to hire more, but deliver worse outcomes in crime, worse outcomes in health, worse outcomes in housing, and worse outcomes in education? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If I just take the middle one of those again for a moment and deal with health, the health system has been under enormous pressure because of a global pandemic. I note the member mentioned immunisation rates. Now, that's an interesting topic given members opposite that could potentially make up a Government, if they are successful, would include apparently a bunch of anti-vaxxers who don't seem to think that vaccinating kids is a good thing to do. Christopher Luxon: Why does he measure success by the amount of taxpayer money he spends, rather than the actual outcomes delivered for Kiwis that improve their daily lives? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to recap—for the member—yesterday, some of the highlights of this Government's time in office: wages growing at 6.9 percent over the last year, unemployment below 4 percent for two years in a row, more Kiwis in work than ever before, 110,000 low-income New Zealand families have cheaper and healthier power because of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, and 77,000 fewer New Zealand children living in poverty under this Government. We've seen record levels of renewable electricity generation under this Government. We've seen significant efforts to improve the quality of the school property portfolio that was so badly run down under the last Government that we had kids parked in hallways, in gymnasiums, and in libraries because they simply did not have enough classrooms. On the international front, we've secured more progress on free-trade agreements than any Government in recent New Zealand history, to support our exporters. We've got more people in apprenticeships—274,000 people taking up free apprenticeships and targeted trades training under this Government. One thousand three hundred more classrooms—to put a number on the figure that I was using before. Three thousand more teachers in our classrooms—something that we are incredibly proud of. Supporting schools so that parents don't have to top up school budgets with donations, in the way they had to under the last National Government. Or what about the hundred million free school lunches that have been delivered in our schools? Increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Increasing health funding so that our hospital doesn't have to go begging. And here's one for the member, given his announcement: increased Pharmac's funding by 51 percent since we became the Government. Twelve thousand additional public housing places under our Government, and there are more under construction right now because we want to see Kiwis with a roof over their head. One thousand eight hundred extra police on the beat under our Government. And let's not forget the record levels of investment in our infrastructure, with $71 billion due to be invested in infrastructure over the next five years as we catch up for the years of neglect of our infrastructure that we saw under the last National Government. There is so much more I could talk about. Christopher Luxon: So what I would say to you is, why, despite that very long spiel, is crime worse, is education worse, is health worse, and is roading worse; why have we not seen improvement in any of those outcomes at all? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject the assertion that the member is making in his question. If he thinks that having fewer children in poverty is a worse outcome, if he thinks that building more State houses since the 1950s is a worse outcome, if he thinks having more teachers in schools is a worse outcome—that could actually explain their track record on under-investment in teachers. If he thinks having more nurses and more doctors in our hospitals is a worse outcome—that could also explain the mess that we inherited from the last Government. We actually think those things are good signs. They are good investments in the future of our country. Question No. 2—Housing 2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What recent progress has the Government made to boost public housing in Auckland? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I am pleased to inform the House that this Government has delivered over 13,000 public houses across the country. In Auckland alone, there's been an increase of nearly 7,000 public homes. Recently, the Prime Minister and I opened Te Mātāwai, a 276-unit apartment complex in Auckland's CBD, the largest single-site public housing development in New Zealand's history. Our extraordinary pace of delivery means that this Government is delivering the most public homes per year since the second Labour Government in the 1950s. Helen White: How is Te Mātāwai supporting its tenants? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Te Mātāwai will provide tenants with around-the-clock onsite support, which demonstrates our deep commitment to ensuring those people who need the support in their lives can get it. Around 60 percent of the units at Te Mātāwai are accessible or universally designed and have been recognised with Lifemark ratings of 3 or 4. All of the units at Te Mātāwai are built to Homestar 7 standard, meaning they will be warmer, healthier, and more energy efficient for those who make their homes there. Helen White: What is the Government doing to help elderly people into public housing in Auckland? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora is currently building 236 new homes in Avondale to replace 45 older homes. Of this, 192 of the homes will be retained for seniors housing. Once complete, it will allow Kāinga Ora to replace several ageing senior housing complexes across Avondale and Blockhouse Bay. Kāinga Ora has also worked in partnership to deliver 41 new public homes on Wilson Road, Glen Eden specifically designed for older people. Other examples of Kāinga Ora senior housing that are currently at various stages of development across Auckland include 52 homes on Greenslade Crescent in Northcote and 123 homes in Manukau City's Osterley Way. We are deeply committed to providing the support needed for those in public housing, including older New Zealanders. Helen White: How is the Government enabling land for much-needed housing in Auckland? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has invested $2 billion from the Housing Acceleration Fund into five large-scale projects in Auckland: in Tāmaki, Mount Roskill, Oranga, Northcote, and Māngere. This work, which has been overseen by Kāinga Ora, delivers the pipes, roads, and other key civil infrastructure to allow more than 17,000 homes to be built across Auckland in the coming years to help solve our housing crisis. This work also enables an additional 11,000 homes to be delivered on neighbouring privately owned land. In addition to this work, over $120 million in infrastructure investment through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund will enable a further 4,000 homes across Auckland. Helen White: What progress has been made on these Auckland large-scale projects? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: To date, the work under way has seen 82 hectares of land made build-ready to support more than 6,000 homes. More than 2,600 homes have so far been delivered in the Auckland large-scale projects by property developers. These homes are a mix of market and affordable public homes, as the work continues with about another 30 hectares of land to be made build-ready for housing. Our Government is proud of these outcomes. Question No. 3—Revenue 3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Revenue: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance's statement that he was "too definitive" when, prior to the election, he ruled out changes to the brightline test, and will the Government's subsequent changes to the bright-line test result in some New Zealanders paying a capital gains tax on their family home? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister of Revenue): I always agree with the finance Minister's statements in the context that they were made. New Zealand has no capital gains tax on the family home. Further, I have today announced that we will remove the brightline test for owners of flood- or cyclone-damaged properties who take up the voluntary buy-out offer, which is co-funded by the Government and local authorities. We remain committed to supporting those affected by the severe weather events. In some cases, a voluntary buy-out may trigger the brightline test or one of the other tests for land sales. The Government is clear: it isn't appropriate to apply the brightline test to these property sales because of the impact of weather events. This builds on earlier tax rollover relief changes made in April for the North Island weather events. Nicola Willis: How can she say there is no capital gains tax on the family home when the IRD has issued specific guidance which says that if a family-home owner is out of their home for 12 months for any reason, they will be subject to a 10-year brightline test, meaning, in effect, they will pay a capital gains tax on the sale of their home? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I repeat that there is no capital gains tax on the family home. I also remind the member that the brightline test was introduced by the National Party, which created this uncertainty. Under National's rule, the owner must have resided in the property as their main home. The main home exclusion will not apply when only a family member and not the owner has used the property as their main home. So this would've been caught by the National rule. Under their rules, if that person was living in the home for less than half the time they owned it, they would have been subject to tax on the entire gain on the sale. Nicola Willis: Why does she keep claiming that there is no capital gains tax on the family home when the IRD's explicit guidance about Rebecca says that despite never owning an additional home and having her husband and daughter stay in the sole home she owns, she would have to pay a capital gains tax for the time she was away from her home? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Again, I want to reiterate my earlier comments: there is no capital gains tax on the family home. Section CB16A, which talks about the disposable under the brightline test, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, not the Minister of Revenue, is responsible for interpreting the tax legislation. The main home should not be caught by the brightline test. This has never been and is not the intention. Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think it's fair that a family would have to pay a capital gains tax on the sale of their family home just because one parent needed to move out of home for a period of time due to, for example, a work secondment or a family illness? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: What's not fair is that under the previous rules by the National Government, if a person was living in the home for less than half the time they owned it, they would've been subject to tax on the entire gain on that sale. Nicola Willis: Does the Minister see that the best way to ensure that no family is subject to her capital gains tax by stealth would be simply to take the brightline test back to two years where it should stay? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I absolutely refute the mischaracterisation by that member who says that there is a capital gains tax by stealth. There is no capital gains tax in New Zealand on the family home. Nicola Willis: Does the Minister realise it's pretty confusing when she claims there isn't a capital gains tax for families but explicit IRD guidance makes clear that if a homeowner is out of their family home for more than 12 months for any reason at all—secondment, renovations, damage from a natural disaster—they will be exposed to her Government's brightline test if sold within the brightline period? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: What is confusing is that these are the same rules that the National Party introduced when they brought in the brightline test in 2015. We sought to clarify the rules in 2021 to provide some cushion for those taxpayers. Therefore, once again, I reiterate, there is no capital gains tax on the family home. Question No. 4—Prime Minister 4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his response "Yes, I do" to my question yesterday asking if he stood by "the factually incorrect statement he made to Newshub on Saturday 'The idea that you'd make a joke about blowing up an ethnic minority is something that isn't really funny' ", and does he consider his own statements that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples' expenditure "isn't acceptable" to be criticising an ethnic minority? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by the statement that such jokes are not funny. All Government spending is open to scrutiny and it's possible to do that without talking about blowing people up. David Seymour: Does he stand by the statement—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! David Seymour: —he made yesterday— SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt. Can you ask the question again? David Seymour: Happy to, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by the statement he made yesterday that "I believe … all political leaders have a responsibility to take care in the statements … they make about all of New Zealand's citizens and groups, and we have a particular duty of care to ensure that the statements we make don't inflame tensions"; and if he really believes that, why did he mischaracterise my criticism of wasteful spending at a Government department as an attack on an entire ethnic group? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, and it's a matter for the member to clarify what it was he was intending when he said he thought that sending Guy Fawkes into the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was an appropriate thing to do. David Seymour: How can he stand by his statement that "political leaders have a responsibility to take care in the statements that they make" while, at the same time, making factually incorrect statements, and standing by them today, when they introduce race into a debate where it never needed to be? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know the member seems to want to turn the election campaign into a culture war with himself at the centre of it. We're actually focused on more important issues on this side of the House. David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement in response to questions about Labour's low polling: "we're going to fight back", and is mischaracterising what other people say for political advantage part of this "fight back"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, as Prime Minister, I'm not responsible for either of those comments. But, yes, of course, I do stand by the first one. With regard to the second one, I'm sure that the parties opposite will be getting more scrutiny—including uncovering the fact that the member himself is being propped up by a bunch of anti-vaxxers. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. What does the Prime Minister think must be done to stop politically motivated violent extremism that is growing, the white identity - motivated violent extremism that is growing, that relate to anti-Semitism, ant-rainbow, anti-Māori, and anti-Pacific ideologies, as identified in the New Zealand's Security Threat Environment 2023 report released last week? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are many things that we can do, but I think one of the things that we can all do as political leaders is to lead by example. The other thing is when we see that behaviour, we can call it out. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe New Zealanders have a right to an honest, healthy debate this election, and will he publicly commit to promoting that instead of mischaracterising others' statements and creating a culture of fear? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I absolutely do and I would like the member to make the same commitment. David Seymour: Is he resorting to a desperate campaign of fear because his Government has no record to run on and New Zealanders know it and they're deserting him at the polls by the thousand every week? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Coming from a member who's being propped up by a bunch of anti-vax conspiracy theorists, I think that question's a bit rich. Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister agree with a judgment that we've got the leader of ACT chiming in about law and order but is first to get name suppression for his president for heinous crimes? SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's not responsible for that. David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I invite you to reflect and perhaps seek advice. The member has just speculated that a particular individual has name suppression and is guilty of heinous crimes. Both of those are in contempt of court, and, due to the long tradition of comity between this House and the courts, to make such statements is deeply disorderly, brings the House into disrepute, and should face very severe consequences from you, Mr Speaker. I can't believe, frankly, what I've just heard. The tikanga of this House is well known and should be respected. SPEAKER: I'd like everyone to calm down, thank you. I will go back and look at everything that's happened in question time today. The future of the House is in the House's hands and every individual member in it. I have—and I have stated this on a number of occasions—allowed supplementary questions to be asked, including the member himself on this very question today, that have been out of order, almost completely out of order, and have allowed the Minister to choose whether or not they want to address all or part of it. I will go back and have a look at that particular one and everything else, but there's a very clear procedure about what the member is talking about. He has that open to him if he wishes to take that course of action, OK? Raising it as a point of order in such an instance is not appropriate. Are there any further supplementaries on this primary question? Question No. 5—Health 5. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What announcement has she recently made regarding improving the mental health of New Zealanders? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Earlier this week, I was proud to announce that the Government's mental health and addiction programme Access and Choice has hit the 1 millionth support session mark since it started delivering services in 2020. Access and Choice provides support to people experiencing mild to moderate mental health challenges so small issues don't become big problems. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How many New Zealanders does the Access and Choice programme support? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Each month, tens of thousands of New Zealanders are benefiting from this new programme, which offers mental health support in healthcare settings they are used to, such as GP clinics. The wellbeing support provided in general practice alone has population coverage of over 3 million New Zealanders. Figures show that approximately 40,000 to 60,000 sessions a month are being delivered, and this number will continue to grow as the phased nationwide roll-out of services continues. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How has the Access and Choice programme supported New Zealand's diverse communities? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: New Zealanders can get free and easy to access face-to-face support from Kaitāia through to the Bluff, and more than 600 locations in between. We have seen great uptake in the number of Māori accessing the service, with 19,700 sessions delivered in May and June this year. We have also seen 4,000 sessions delivered to Pacific people and 9,900 sessions delivered to young people, also in May and June this year. This shows what can happen when we design services with diversity in mind. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How can someone access those services? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Access and Choice services don't require referral and are appealing to a wide cross-section of Kiwis wanting to address mild to moderate mental wellbeing challenges. New sites are also coming on stream every month. Now, you can get free and easy to access face-to-face support from Kaitāia through to Bluff and at more than 600 locations in between. To find a provider close to where they live, head to wellbeingsupport.health.nz. Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister's response of being proud, how proud is she that under her Government an extra 176,000 people have been unable to get mental health support, with the latest New Zealand health survey reporting that unmet mental health need has increased from 4.9 percent in 2017 to now 8.8 percent in 2022, despite the $1.9 billion somewhere for mental health? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We have just described a brand new mental health system in the community that is addressing unmet need, and if we had been in the position that that Government left us in, there would be nothing in the community for mental health. If we go back and turn back the clock in the way National wants us to for mental health, those people would be a lot worse off. Question No. 6—Police 6. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): E te Māngai o te Whare, for what I believe is the 16th time, I stand by my full statement at the time it was given; it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with the Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. I also stand by my recent comments that it was great to meet in person with Countdown to talk about how we can work together to reduce unacceptable levels of retail crime. I share that member's concerns about the increase Countdown has seen in stolen goods, physical assaults, thefts, and security incidents. However, rather than just talking about being tough, this Government is resourcing police to work with organisations like Countdown to get on top of this problem. Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, does she include Countdown employees in those that should feel safer? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I met with Countdown in just the last week, and when I met with Countdown they were also accompanied by the new retail crime support unit which has been advising them, and they have taken into account those security measures. I will also meet tomorrow with police and representatives from 40 retail organisations, including Farmers, Mitre 10, Michael Hill Jewellers, Pascoes, Aura, Kmart, Glassons, and Retail New Zealand. I agree that there is an unacceptable level of retail crime in New Zealand, and we are taking action to get on top of the problem. Hon Mark Mitchell: Do the 234 Countdown workers that have been assaulted so far this year feel safer now that she has met with them? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has taken action to support retailers with a new retail crime prevention unit and also to support those retailers with additional security features. The actions this Government is delivering to reduce retail crime is far superior to what those policies are, which is solely to introduce boot camps, which was proven by their own appointed science adviser not to work. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think Kiwis feel safer when dairy workers are having to confront armed youth offenders, risking their lives to defend themselves and their businesses? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Absolutely not, and that is why this Government has taken action to introduce a new offence, a ram raid offence, introduced into this House for this week. We have also seen record numbers of security installations right across the country. We are working closely with those retail owners so that they are supported and so offenders are brought to account. Hon Mark Mitchell: Given her single focus on community safety, are communities safer now than when she became police Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There's always more work to do, and this Government is focused on delivering those results. I think those results of giving retailers clear support, of improving front-line resources with 1,800 extra police, and enabling those retailers to have access to good quality intelligence and advice from police is far superior to the actions that member is suggesting, which is simply to introduce boot camps for youth offenders. Question No. 7—Agriculture 7. STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui) to the Minister of Agriculture: What has the Government done to support New Zealand's farmers and growers? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): The primary industries are the backbone of our economy and the Labour Government has always backed our farmers and growers. The full list is too long to read out in the House, but I'll give you a few examples. Firstly, we've successfully implemented a world-first Mycoplasma bovis eradication programme. We've co-invested in 267 sustainable food and fibre futures projects alongside industry to lift export value and innovation. We stood up the Opportunity Grows Here initiative to attract Kiwis into the sector and support with labour shortages. We saved Telford and Taratahi from financial ruin and ensured the future of agricultural education. We started On Farm Support and the Career Pathways Scheme. We set aside $6 billion for futureproofing roads and rail infrastructure. We invested $1 billion into developing emissions reduction tools, extension services on farm, and farm sustainability practices, and we've secured seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements to give our exporters diversified market opportunities. At every turn, the Labour Government is looking to cement the bright future of our primary industries. Steph Lewis: What have we seen as a result of this support? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: As a result of all this great support, we have, firstly, placed more than 16,000 additional Kiwis into primary sector jobs, funded 1,400 people through free agricultural taster courses at Telford and Taratahi—two organisations that the previous National Government had deserted. We have put 44 on-farm support staff on the ground in the regions and they have played a significant role in Tairāwhiti and Hawke's Bay. We've got 50 farm advisers into the Career Pathways Scheme. We've established 32 rural hubs to connect farming communities with health and wellbeing support, and we've slashed millions of dollars in tariffs off our primary sectors. As a result of this and other support, today I've announced the final figure for our food and fibre export revenue ending on 30 June this year: a record $57.4 billion of export earnings. That is 50 percent higher than when we came into Government in 2017. I want to thank the industry and everyone in the primary sectors for helping us achieve that. Steph Lewis: What are the challenges facing the primary sector? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We've seen an increase in input prices on farm as a result of Russia's war in Ukraine and the effect that has had on supply chains—on fertilizer and fuel, in particular. Recently, we have seen commodity prices coming down from their record highs. The markets are also sending strong signals around sustainability credentials and emissions reduction. But some of the biggest challenges that we would have are, firstly, if we ignored the market signals and locked ourselves out of international market opportunities, if we opened the door to foreign buyers and made it uncompetitive for New Zealanders to bid for farms, or if we sold off core infrastructure like roading into the hands of foreign buyers—that's exactly what National and ACT are campaigning on. Steph Lewis: Will the Government protect farmers by keeping the conduct of financial institutions Act? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes. The Labour Government remembers the pain of the interest rate swaps crisis and we would not let that happen again. Thousands of farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollars after being taken advantage of by banks and dodgy operators—that's why we put the Act in place. We also put in place a Farm Debt Mediation Act in 2019 to ensure that farmers under pressure would get a fair deal from their banks. Anyone who is proposing to repeal those protections would be serving our primary sector poorly. That's what National and ACT are campaigning on. Question No. 8—Housing (Māori Housing) 8. TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Māori housing? Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): I thank the member for the question. Yes, in particular, when I said last week that this Government has done more for Māori than any other Government in history, and I actually referenced the member himself, Mr Potaka. As we all know, the Opposition likes to talk about what members have said in the past, and when Mr Potaka said just last year, this Government has been very much engaged, entwined, and bolted-on to what we're doing—which is wonderful. Mr Potaka, he also said, "You either love them or you hate them, and right now we love them." I'd like to thank that member for his ongoing support and love. Kia Ora. Tama Potaka: How many of the 553 contracted houses have been completed under the iwi prototype scheme and are now occupied by residents and their whānau? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member well knows—as an avid supporter of this Government, he knows the problems that our people have to go through in terms of infrastructure, whenua Māori; the member knows there's a range of problems. Andrew Bayly: What about a number? Spit it out. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What we do have is 1,000 houses contracted to 2025—fabulous work done by Minister Henare, Minister Woods, but at the moment we have 70 built. Simeon Brown: Point of order. The question was quite clear around how many from a particular programme had been delivered, and I didn't hear an answer to that question. I heard about 1,000-something else— SPEAKER: I'm surprised you heard anything. You're kidding, right? Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm that two weather events have impacted on two of the prototypes, and that those prototypes pivoted to help the East Coast in need? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can confirm that, and confirm the support of Sir Selwyn Parata, who has also given huge support to this Government; along with Tuku Morgan, one of the leaders from Tainui; Pita Tipene from the North; Willie Te Aho from the coast; and, of course, we've got Jamie Tuuta from Taranaki—and, of course, the member gave his undying support, well, just at the end of last year. I thank him for going for that love and support. Tama Potaka: How many, if any, of the houses built through the Māori housing iwi prototype scheme now house people who were previously on the social housing register, and does his ministry collect that information? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As the member knows, I'm not responsible for the social housing register—the Minister's over here—and if one day he becomes the Minister of Housing, which I think will be never, he could possibly ask that question. I'm not responsible for that register, but I am responsible for the iwi prototypes. Can I say today, this is the only Government that's ever had a by Māori, for Māori strategy. The previous Government never put anything in place. Shame on Mr Luxon—he's responsible. He's the leader now, but Tama here is a big supporter of what we're doing, so maybe he can initiate that in 2030 or something when maybe you'll get into Government. Tama Potaka: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with his answer to written parliamentary question No. 23271, when he states, "I'm advised that Te Puni Kōrkiri does not collect information about whether individuals living in houses funded through the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga were previously on the Housing Register."? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'll just do this slowly for the member, because I have a lot of aroha for the member—because I'm not the Minister responsible. Tama Potaka: How many houses, if any, have been built at Ihumātao? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member knows, Ihumātao is a unique situation, and our people have five years to build houses, and the member who's related to some of those people over there, should know better. He's been very patronising and he's learnt too many of the dirty rotten National Party tricks—I want the old Tama Potaka back. Question No. 9—Police 9 ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What actions have Police taken to crack down on retail and organised crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): This Government continues to take action to assist police in tackling persistent youth offending and to hold to account those gang members and organised crime syndicates that pedal their misery and methamphetamine to our communities. There's plenty more to do but this Government takes backing the police and tackling crime seriously. This includes continued roll-out of the Retail Crime Prevention Programme and the fog canon subsidy scheme, the introduction yesterday of the ram raids offending bill, and also supporting police with the resources and the laws they need to continue to crack down on organised crime. It's very easy to talk a big game in this House, but this Government continues to deliver the rules and the tools to support police in their work to crack down on retail and organised crime. Arena Williams: How will new legislation help police? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yesterday, this Government introduced the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill to give further tools to police and the justice system to crack down on persistent youth offending. The new ram raid offence is modelled on the existing offence of burglary and will carry a maximum 10-year sentence of imprisonment. Where it does differ is that police now have the discretion to charge 12- and 13-year-olds in the Youth Court, where previously this wasn't possible. The bill also makes it an aggravating factor in the Sentencing Act to live stream an offence, and for an adult to use a child or a young person to commit a crime. Arena Williams: How are police helping to support retailers? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government has continued to support retailers through both the Retail Crime Prevention Programme and the fog canon subsidy scheme. To date, 16 August, the fog canon subsidy scheme has seen the installation of 1,867 fog canons into small retailer areas, and also a further 137 are booked in. The Retail Crime Prevention Programme has also aided 586 retailers, with a total of 2,198 security interventions, including 519 fog canons, 421 security sirens, 479 alarms, and 423 CCTV systems and system upgrades. These interventions are making a difference. While ram raids do remain too high, I am always wanting to see that the numbers keep tracking down, as we have seen in the past two months. Arena Williams: What thoughts has the Minister seen on the success of police charges for serious offences as part of Operation Cobalt? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Operation Cobalt remains a driving force in supressing and also disrupting organised crime and gang-related activity within our communities. As of 17 August, police have laid 48,814 charges, which includes offences such as burglary, theft, fraud, breaches of bail, reckless driving, driving while disqualified, careless driving, and drink driving. These are serious offences and police are rightfully prioritising holding gang members to account—and also affiliates to account. It's a shame that some people talk down this work in describing these serious offences as minor charges. Question No. 10—Health 10. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Is it acceptable that as of July this year there have been 3,361 cases of staff being physically assaulted in Te Whatu Ora facilities, and is it acceptable that this is only 98 fewer assaults than the 3,459 physical assaults that occurred in the whole of 2022? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): No, and no. It is never acceptable that someone is assaulted at work. I am assured by Te Whatu Ora that it takes the safety and security of its staff very seriously and is taking a large number of initiatives to keep people safe. Brooke van Velden: Is it acceptable that, in the first seven months of 2023, seven out of the 20 former district health board districts have already recorded more physical assaults on staff than they recorded for the entire year of 2022? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, it is not acceptable. Brooke van Velden: Does she believe that Te Whatu Ora complies with the Government's expectation that public sector employers must "create safe and healthy places of work", when five Te Whatu Ora employees have been stabbed by a patient since 1 January 2022, and, if not, is it acceptable that any staff have been stabbed at their place of work? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, it is absolutely unacceptable that our staff are treated in that way, and, yes, I do have confidence that Te Whatu Ora works very hard on this problem and has a number of mitigations in place. Brooke van Velden: What changes will she advocate for, to ensure staff safety when providing healthcare to Kiwis, considering the occurrence of 8,600 physical assaults on staff since April 2021 and the absence of national guidelines for responding to violence against staff? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There is a number of measures under way already in Te Whatu Ora that I expect Te Whatu Ora to continue to roll out. That includes de-escalation training for staff across hospitals, but particularly in areas of high risk; the presence of over 800 security staff in our hospitals; in areas that are high risk, physical modifications to the environment; not to mention increased efforts put into reporting, which may reflect some of the data the member has mentioned today. Question No. 11—Local Government 11. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Local Government: Has he seen the recent report from the Helen Clark Foundation on sponge cities and, if so, has he sought advice about encouraging water-sensitive urban design and sponge cities as part of the three waters reforms? Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Yes, I have. I have it here. But I only became aware of it because of the member's question, so I appreciate her submitting that. I have not sought advice on this, however, because it is our view that the reforms do allow for such proposals to be considered by water entities. Specifically, sections 12 and 14 of the Water Services Entities Act set out the objectives and operating principles of the new water services entities. These include clear requirements for the entities to protect and promote the environment, to support and enable our response to climate change, and to have regard in the delivery of water services to green water infrastructure and water sensitive design. Hon Eugenie Sage: What role, if any, does he consider that nature-based stormwater solutions, such as more green space and urban wetlands, in cities and towns have in responding to a changing climate and more extreme storm events? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, the report itself, from what I've seen, makes for interesting reading. And from the conversations that I've had with those within the local government sector already, this is something that is on their radar. But the priorities that the entities will follow are set by the regional representative groups, of which local government each have a seat on there. It'll be through that venue that local government can highlight the best approaches for their own respective communities. Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he consider that green roofs, on-site rainwater storage, rain gardens, and more urban trees would help reduce stormwater volumes and improve stormwater management; if so, what action can water services entities take to encourage more use of water-sensitive urban design? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, I'm certainly not an expert in these things, but those that will be running the operational aspects of water entities will be. And so if they deem these examples that the member has provided as an appropriate approach to stormwater in the respective communities, I'm certain they'll pursue them. Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with Doctor Yu Kongjiang, the initiator of the sponge cities concept in China, that, and I quote, "We need a paradigm shift in planning and designing our cities to adapt to the changing climate.", and, if so, what measures will he promote through the three waters work programme to achieve this shift? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: One of the rationales behind the water reforms is to ensure that local voice and local priorities are at the heart of the decisions made by water entities. We've tried to ensure that central government direction of those entities is limited as much as possible so that the priorities of the respective communities within those entities would be reflected. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to express my opinion or indicate any potential direction, because that wouldn't be my intention. Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 12. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What benefits have New Zealanders gained from the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Act 2022? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealanders can be confident today that their banks and insurance companies are obliged to treat them fairly and will face consequences if they don't— Andrew Bayly: They already have that under the other legislation. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —thanks to this vital legislation, Mr Bayly. Since coming into office, the Labour Government has shone a light on the conduct of banks and insurers through conduct reviews, through court cases, and through the establishment of the conduct of financial institutions (CoFI) Act. We have put the onus on banks and insurers to demonstrate that they put the needs of consumers at the forefront of decisions, and we have given the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) essential new powers to hold institutions that treat customers unfairly to account with significant new penalties. This Government's work on fair conduct is already seeing hundreds of millions of dollars returned to Kiwi consumers by their banks and insurers, and those responsible for unfair treatment are already being discovered and held to account. Everyone on this side of the House should be proud of this fantastic piece of Government legislation. Anna Lorck: What led to the Government establishing this legislation? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. The FMA and the Reserve Bank reviewed the conduct of banks and life insurers in 2018 and 2019. Since that time, a whopping $161,300,000 has been returned to over 1.5 million Kiwis. In the words of the Executive Director for Regulatory Delivery at the FMA, this demonstrates "the extent of the [weakness] in the systems and processes across banks and life insurers." and "the significant amount of work required by financial institutions to ensure they are identifying, rectifying, and remediating issues". The enormous impact of poor bank and insurer conduct on customers is irrefutable, and that's why this Government took action. Anna Lorck: What other evidence is there that the conduct of financial institutions Act is necessary? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The FMA has taken seven of New Zealand's big-brand insurers and banks to court for fair dealing breaches and has seen multimillion-dollar penalties handed down to several of these institutions. Andrew Bayly: But they didn't do that under CoFI—they did it under existing regulation. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Bayly, without this Government's amendment Act passed last year, the FMA can only act retrospectively once harm to those customers has already been done. There is overwhelming evidence that a proactive, fair conduct regime with powers to monitor, licence, and enforce is sorely needed, the likes of which only the conduct of financial institutions Act provides. Anna Lorck: Do you have plans to roll back this legislation further? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Absolutely not. This Government takes its responsibility for ensuring New Zealanders are protected by our laws—we're in it for the Kiwi customers who rely on us to make sure their banks and insurers treat them fairly. Where that's not happening, we will act. We are proud of this critical piece of legislation, and on this side of the House we've no plans to repeal it. I agree with Hamish McNicol and Calida Stuart-Menteath, who said in the National Business Review on 18 August that "Ditching CoFI is bonkers". PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Hon Michael Wood—Privileges Committee Report Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I seek leave to make a personal statement. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Privileges Committee has tabled its report into my compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders. I thank the committee for their work on this issue. Their report confirms that I should have declared the shares I personally owned in the 2017 to 2021 period, and that I should have corrected the register of pecuniary interests after I did correctly declare them in 2022 and 2023. I have previously acknowledged this and I would now like to take the opportunity to unreservedly apologise to the House. As the committee notes, this was an error on my part and I deeply regret it. I've learnt a clear lesson: in an intense and all-consuming job I lost sight of the importance of these matters and I will prioritise complete compliance in this area as I continue my work in the Parliament. Again, I thank the Privileges Committee for their considered report on this matter; it points to a number of areas which I believe will be useful to all members. I also take this opportunity to thank a number of members from across the House who have been supportive of me in what has been a challenging issue to deal with. CROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Debate resumed. SPEAKER: The House will now continue with urgency. Before the lunch break, the House was considering the third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. We had completed call No. 6. We come to call No. 7. I call Julie Anne Genter. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party absolutely supports this bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and is very pleased to see it pass its third reading today. It has been a long time coming. We've known for decades that continued use of fossil fuels is at odds with a healthy, stable climate and the sort of future that we want to leave our children and grandchildren. We're already starting to see the impacts of climate chaos because we've put two much greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, and that has created a thicker atmosphere which is trapping more heat. We've seen a record heat dome this week in North America, as well as unprecedented forest fires, uncontrolled fires, burning in Canada. And this, of course, follows earlier severe weather events that have hit Aotearoa New Zealand, including Cyclone Gabrielle and the flooding of Auckland. These kinds of storms and fires have incredible impacts on people. They take their homes, they can take livelihoods, and they impact on food production. They will certainly be disruptive to the way people live their lives. So the cost of this is enormous and it far outweighs the cost of action and transitioning to an economy and a society, a way of living, that is reliant on clean, renewable electricity that we have harnessed from the sun and the wind. Here in New Zealand we already have our hydro dams and we do need to be working to increase renewable capacity. But one of the key things the scientists have been telling us for several years now, more than several years, is that we have to stop looking for more oil, coal and gas. That is irrefutable. It is impossible for us to carry on looking for more fossil fuels when we already know the world cannot afford to burn the fossil fuels that we know already exist. The debate on this bill should be enough for members, members of the public, people watching at home, and voters to understand how stark a difference it will be if we have a National-ACT Government. They are planning to continue exploration for fossil fuels. They see no reason to stop looking for them. They completely misunderstand the science and the clear direction that we've been given that says, yes, we're going to continue using some of the oil, coal, and gas that we already have but we have to stop looking for more. We have to rapidly transition away from using them to have any hope of meeting the Paris Agreement, which was to stay below 1.5 degrees of warming. Already this year we're going to hit over 1.1 degrees of warming, I believe, since preindustrial levels, and we're seeing the sort of chaos it's creating. Imagine how much worse it will be if we breach that 1.5 degree threshold or 2 degrees. We're on track for maybe 3 degrees. Every action that we take from now on has to be aimed at protecting the climate and protecting biodiversity, enabling nature to be restored. Changing our land use is absolutely essential. Humans are just taking too much from the Earth. We can live in harmony with nature, but we have to draw a line and stop doing the things we know are destructive and counterproductive. It's that simple. It's that stark. So anyone who tells you and people at home that it is important for our economy to continue exploring for fossil fuels and to just open the floodgates and promote more mining and extractive industries is just completely wrong, and their values are in the wrong place. They're probably being paid— DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, Ms Genter; we're here to talk about a bill and we're going a long way off it. So let's relate it to the bill, shall we? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The bill changes the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act so that it's no longer about promoting, but rather about managing, and that distinction is very important. It doesn't mean that there will be nothing happening. It does mean that the Crown will be exercising its responsibility to manage how those activities take place, where they take place, whether or not they're taking place in an environmentally responsible manner or not. But what the members opposite have said during this debate—that is the National Party and the ACT Party—that they want the Government agencies to be required to promote this sort of extractive industry and exploration for fossil fuels, is just unthinkable to me. It's completely at odds with the science and what we've been told. Most New Zealanders want to have that security—to know that we're looking after nature, that we're looking after the climate, that we can responsibly transition to a different way of living. But we can't do that if all of our Government systems and legislation is set up to carry on the way it was before. Ultimately, I do believe that ACT and National are completely in denial about the challenge that we're facing, and this is not surprising because the reason we have a Crown Minerals Act that was requiring, you know, the Government to be promoting exploration of fossil fuels was directly linked to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, who have denied the existence of climate change and put huge amounts of money into confusing the public about the science of climate change so that they could carry on their activities and continue to make obscene profits from activities that are hurting and damaging the very planet we live on, and it's threatening our very existence. So the Green Party is very happy to see this bill. It is of utmost importance that we carry on this trajectory of transitioning to a clean, green way of doing things and it's the Government's responsibility to manage how these things happen, and that's what the bill proposes. Yes, some minerals will continue to be used, but only if they are recovered in an entirely ethical and responsible way. That is why this bill is so important—because it is changing from promoting something to managing it. And managing is responsible; promoting is not. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill this afternoon, which, as we've heard, creates more flexibility of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand. When I was reading through my notes on this particular piece of legislation, I was struck by the importance of the amendment that allows for the decommissioning-related classification amendment that basically ensure that the likelihood of companies gaining permits to mine in New Zealand that do not have that financial and technical capability to undertake and fund decommissioning will be able to be taken into account. The very last thing we need is a repeat of events around the Tui oil field—events, I could remind the House, that cost the New Zealand taxpayer enormous amounts of money and created significant potential for risk to our precious environment. That's why I commend this to the House. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I've been listening to this debate for some time now, earlier today and more recently this afternoon, but also as the bill has progressed its way through the House. And the more I hear from Government members, the less convinced I am of their real heart and passion for this change that they're making in the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Now that we've got to the third reading stage, and it's the final part of the legislative process that will see this piece of legislation come into law after the Royal assent, what is it all about? Well, mostly it's about changing the tone of the existing legislation, and I'll come back to that in just a moment. The primary purpose of the Crown Minerals Act that we have is to recognise the importance that we as a Parliament, and as a nation, that is concerned about its economic wellbeing and welfare places upon the value of minerals that are administered and licensed and levied by the legislation that the principal Act creates. We have in New Zealand, as most countries around the world have, an understanding that minerals can create wealth, can be an addition and a practical part of a modern, exciting new world which we all want to enjoy. Pretty much everything that we do in our day-to-day lives has an element that comes from mineral extraction. Whether that's in the fossil vehicles that some of us still drive from time to time or whether it's the use of digital devices of the sort that we all find are such an important part of our day-to-day lives, they all contain and involve minerals that have been extracted from the earth. Now, we can as a nation either decide to administer the extraction of those minerals in a sensible, pragmatic, and rational way or we can choose not to. Now, coming back to what this bill is about, effectively, it simply changes the existing purpose of the Crown Minerals Act as we have it now from promoting mineral extraction to "managing mineral extraction". Now, some might say, "Well, that's not much of a change.", but actually it is. It's a very important and none too subtle change about the way Government thinks of mineral extraction. And we on this side of the House don't agree with this subtle and, frankly—well, it's none too subtle; it's a blunt attack on the mineral extractions industry. In my electorate of the beautiful Coromandel, we are fortunate to have a very good operation at OceanaGold. I've had the benefit of visiting underground there on a number of occasions and I've always been impressed with not only their environmental standards but the way they operate their business, the way it's conducted, and their genuine concern for the communities that they operate in and the way they conduct their business. That is a net benefit to us all. The good people of Waihī, I think, by and large understand that. Waihī is a mining town. Waihī would not exist if it was not for mining, and it has done for more than 100 years. So we can, as I say, choose to carefully, prudently, and effectively manage mineral extraction under the Crown minerals legislation that we have or we can send none too subtle messages of the sort that this Government is intending to do, which actually says, "No, we don't appreciate your work. We don't value that. We don't encourage and promote. We just want to merely manage." Well, I don't think that that's good enough. I don't think that sends the right messages to an important part of our economic sector that in my experience tries to do the right thing. I understand that the Minister—in fact, my colleague Stuart Smith has made it clear—apparently has never been underground into a mining operation. I would have thought that that would be a priority for her and something that, as involved as she is, she would have undertaken to do, because seeing is sometimes believing. So on this side of the House we are opposing this legislation. We think it sends the wrong messages. We think it is unhelpful, not useful, and we don't support it. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—the member needs to call. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Yes. Kia ora. Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I stand to speak on behalf of Te Paati Māori in respect to the bill before us, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and understand the purposes implementing the findings of the 2018 review. I note the providing iwi or hapū, whose rohe are included, enabling annual meetings with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and making explicit that decision makers have regard to feedback from iwi and hapū. Look, there are a couple of aspects that we want to bring up in this debate, and that's starting with rangatiratanga. You know it, and we know it, as tangata whenua, that we have rights and interests. The Crown has acknowledged this every time they've apologised for breaches of Te Tiriti and iwi settlements—the theft of resources. And like today—even those apologies are happening—we're seeing that they're trying to improve legislation that hasn't addressed some of the Tribunal findings from the Wai claim 796, where it was found that Māori had Treaty interests in petroleum, arising from the loss of their land before 1937 and the expropriation of the Petroleum Act—also, the Crown's royalties and 11 percent ownership in Kupe gas field, which could have been included in settlements like Ngāruahine Iwi, in fact, Taranaki Iwi katoa. So here we are today, being asked to support this proposition instead of what we should be doing, which is addressing the fact that there are changes to the block offer regime which are now out of date and not fit for purpose, especially if no ban on onshore exploration has been proposed, which iwi and hapū have been discussing with the Government now for more than two years. While annual engagement reports, which iwi are supporting—that is not a fundamental change or a big enough change that we needed to see happen. There needs to be legislative backstops to enshrine the best practice of engagement with iwi throughout the entire permitting process, which includes a partnership approach with the Crown to agree on designated mining permit areas and collective decision-making on planned work plans. We think there should have been an authentic partnership model for Taranaki specifically, which everyone seems to acknowledge are experts, but is way overdue. This could be a model for co-governance—Oh! Dare I say—and partnerships. There has been a complete missed opportunity to review the Crown Minerals Act in conjunction with the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. And I know we've said this before, but it could have included complexity of engagements in the artificial separation of permitting and environmental impact—if we go back and remember, the original Crown Minerals Act and RMA were proposed as one Act prior to 1991. From a kaitiaki perspective, I want to highlight that we should not be modernising an outdated Act but rather transition away from it completely. This would send a clear commitment and connection to climate change, our taiao change, and the overall transition agendas. We acknowledge that the Government was bold to announce a ban on new offshore permits, but where is the ban on new permits onshore in Taranaki? We need to take a step back and look at a total integrated model, which is ultimately about moving forward with a clear transition away from fossil fuels. In our opinion, this fails to bring regulation in line with the reality that oil and gas is a sunset industry, and the failure to reform the block offer system and failure to ban new onshore permits in Taranaki sit starkly in conflict with the stated commitments on climate and biodiversity. Based on those issues, we oppose this bill. What we need to see is changes that are really a step in the right direction, that need to be bold. Again, I repeat, while most of the provisions in the bill itself are sensible and should be supported, overall, it is lacking the ambition and vision that is needed to make the necessary transitions away from fossil fuels and towards real Crown partnerships with tangata whenua. Kia ora koutou. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill at third reading. I just want to say a huge thankyou to the Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, for also answering those questions in the committee stage as well and also to the select committee for their work in ushering this bill. This bill does a few things, and one of them, of which those across the House have also mentioned as well, is about making improvements to our permit licence holders, as well as permit applicants, to engage better with iwi and hapū to ensure the engagement demonstrates their respect for the authority, mana, and local expertise. I think this is one way to make sure that we strengthen our relationships with local iwi and leveraging off their knowledge and experience within that area as well. One of those ways that we can do that is requiring permit holders to share annual reports on iwi engagement to relevant iwi and also for them to agree on that. So there are many things. I commend this bill to the House. HARETE HIPANGO (National): I stand as the last speaker for the National Party in opposition to the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. For members of the public who may be listening in, this is the third reading, which means that after the completion of the debate before the House, this bill will go to the Governor-General for Royal assent for it to be passed into law. And the bill is going to pass into law because it has the numbers of the Government and—anticipated—the Green Party, all of whom have addressed the House this afternoon. By way of process, just before it came to the third reading, there was the committee of the whole House that reported back from the select committee, which was the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. The report back to the House from that committee was that they were unable to agree whether the bill as had been presented in its original form should pass, and on that basis recommendations were for further amendments to the bill. Now, I did not sit on that select committee; my colleagues Barbara Kuriger, Melissa Lee, Stuart Smith, and the Hon Michael Woodhouse did, and three of those members did in parts during the time that this bill was considered by the select committee. That bill was referred to the committee on 22 November last year. Public submissions were invited before the closing date of 23 January this year. There were 334 interest groups who did make written submissions and oral evidence was heard from 17. The position that the National Party arrives at, and really the thrust of this bill, which is an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act 1991, is to enable greater flexibility for allocating and managing Crown-owned mineral rights, improve permit and licence holder engagement with iwi and hapū, and clarify decommissioning-related obligations. So the National Party has expressed concern because the key element is a shift and a change in the purpose to the Crown Minerals Act. Therefore, clause 4, which is one of the amendments under the bill, is to alter the purpose of the principal Act, which will no longer include a requirement for the Crown and Minister to "promote" prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand. So it's to alter and amend the purpose of "to promote" and instead, under the amendment, with this bill passing into law, require the Crown and Minister to "manage" prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand. The main objection that the National Party has to this bill is that it will impact on Crown royalties that are drawn as a result of the promotion of licences for exploration for mining. And it may have been addressed in this House but I'm going to recap because Crown royalties are a little bit like taxes and we have a Government here that is very keen on taxing New Zealanders in this time of a crisis of cost of living. So Crown royalties that are extracted under this bill—this Government has been in power and had the luxury of having $51 million worth of royalties from Crown mineral extraction during the period of 2017 to 2021. Under this amendment, which will come into law, the Crown royalties will reduce significantly. To the year 2022, the Crown is estimated to receive just under $10 million in royalties from coal and mineral extraction, a significant reduction from the take of $51 million during the period of 2017 to 2021. This legislation will mean that the Crown will not promote mining and, hence, revenue from royalties will inevitably decrease. The impact of this amendment to the Crown Minerals Act is a reality for New Zealanders to be aware of. As the Reserve Bank has recently said, we are likely heading for a recession and Government debt is incredibly high. Royalties from Crown minerals are welcomed, have been welcomed under this Government, and are now going to be depleted and diminished, effectively reduced and extracted from the tax pūtea—or from the Crown kitty. So royalties from Crown minerals have been welcomed under this Government and have provided solid revenue for successive Governments. That will change. The other change that will come about—and, again, it has impact on local economy during this time of a cost of living crisis. Let's take it back to local towns. I heard my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson reference Waihī, known as a goldmining town previously—historically. So most of New Zealand's mines are situated in the regions. More than 4,700 people are employed in the sector, wages are high in the sector, and also the regional impact is significant in areas where there is mining. For example, mining is 21.3 percent of the GDP of Buller, on the West Coast of the South Island; 22.7 percent of Hauraki's GDP; and 30.8 percent of Waitaki's GDP. This bill will affect local communities and people with their jobs to provide for their families in this crisis in a country where we have an endemic of a cost of living hitting us. So this is one of the significant reasons why the National Government is opposing this bill; if the Crown does not promote mining, as is in this legislation, our regional economies will suffer and those earning high-paying jobs will go overseas. That's just part of it—the select committee report identifies what the concerns are expressed from the National Party. And in summary, to emphasise and reiterate that the National Party does have a concern and does have a lens and a protective blanket and cloak around environmental considerations. This legislation also adds more bureaucracy and layers of consultation which will ultimately make it expensive but also tardy and delayed for business to be done. So it was interesting, part of the debate that I listened to from my office, not having been a member on the select committee to be present to the whole of this debate before the House, is that we had a member, the Hon Michael Woods—and for the benefit of New Zealanders, the title "Honourable" is an indicator or signals that that member has served in a ministerial capacity as a Minister. So my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse sat on the select committee and has ministerial experience. The Hon Michael Woodhouse stood in this House earlier this afternoon and talked from his perspective and the Government's perspective that the "weasel words" of the National Government—the "weasel words"; not honourable words to be expressed from an honourable member. But for the benefit, again, of members in this House and New Zealanders—weasel words: words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading. There is nothing that's intentionally ambiguous or misleading about the National Party's opposition to this bill. And it's interesting that that member stood in this House but half an hour ago to apologise to the House for ambiguous statements— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Hipango—on topic, please. HARETE HIPANGO: Mr Speaker, to say that it's all very well for a member to stand and rise in this House and cast aspersions towards the National Party, to assert that the position taken is one of being misleading and ambiguous. It's most clear that the reason for the National Party's opposition to this bill is because of the economic impact it will have on regional communities, it will have on this country, and also that the party is very mindful of its environmental duties and responsibilities of care. In concluding, the National Party does not support this bill. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): And the Labour Party does, because it is really important that we make sure that we're doing the best for New Zealanders, that we are actually taking our foot off the pedal when it comes to our emissions. We need to give support to the agencies that help to decide how hard and how fast we go in this space, and that's what this bill is intending to do. Bringing iwi and hapū into the decision-making process is really important; giving them the ability to call for reviews in that process is also really important. It has support from this side, it will become law, and I look forward to it. I commend it to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 72 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere. Noes 47 New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. WATER SERVICES ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL Second Reading Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That is excellent. I move, That the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of a suite of legislation designed to give effect to the water services reforms. It introduces an economic regulation and consumer protection regime with the Commerce Commission as regulator, which will ensure the new entities promote the long-term interests of consumers by providing services that are efficient, effective, and responsive. New Zealand's water infrastructure and services are not meeting the needs of our communities in that the quality of service does not reflect what consumers demand. There has been long-term under-investment in water infrastructure, there are inefficient pricing practices and a lack of transparency around costs, and there are mounting concerns about the capability of the water services sector to deal with Government and community expectations. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland estimated the investment required to deal with these issues in New Zealand is between $120 billion and $185 billion. This investment needs to be made for the health and wellbeing of our water and our people, now and into the future. The water services reforms will ensure the costs paid by households remain at a reasonable level while these investments are undertaken. The new entities will provide the scale and operational efficiency to provide high-quality water services at a price that is much more affordable for New Zealanders in the years to come. This bill will subject the new water services entities to an economic regulation and consumer protection regime with the Commerce Commission as the regulator. The commission has experience in implementing economic regulation in other utility sectors such as telecommunications, electricity, and fuel, as well as enforcing consumer protection legislation. A Water Services Commissioner will be appointed to ensure the new economic and consumer protection regulation role is given the focus and prominence it requires. The wider water services reforms will ensure that New Zealanders benefit from upgrades to water infrastructure. The bill complements the wider reform package by providing for economic regulation and consumer protection, including minimum quality standards and dispute resolution. I would like to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their consideration of the bill. I would particularly like to acknowledge the chair, Ingrid Leary; and the former chair, Rachel Brooking. Thank you both for ensuring the bill undertook a robust and democratic process. Further, given that the committee was considering this bill and the Water Services Legislation Bill, I want to thank the committee for the extensive work—and I do know it's very hard—that went into considering submissions and providing recommendations on both of these bills at the same time. The committee considered 136 written and 65 oral submissions on this bill. I thank those submitters for their thoughtful and extensive feedback—hearing from the public is key to our democratic process. Every comment that submitters made was considered fully, and the resulting changes have significantly improved this bill. I would also like to thank members of Waikato-Tainui, Maniapoto, Raukawa, Te Arawa River iwi, Tuwharetoa, and all representatives of iwi that have participated in this process to date for their constructive and thoughtful engagement. It has resulted in improvements to the bill I present today. On 7 June, the committee reported the bill back to the House, recommending several amendments which I endorse, and I would like to mention a few of those key amendments. The committee recommended an additional qualification for the Water Services Commissioner, who will be responsible for the commission's functions under the bill. We established this role to recognise the impact that water infrastructure has on water quality and the importance of Te Mana o te Wai. The committee also recommended that knowledge of Te Tiriti and its principles and perspectives of Māori and tikanga Māori should be added to the list of qualifying domains for the position of commissioner. The committee made several recommendations to strengthen the commission's oversight of the entity's obligation to promote urban growth under the Water Services Entities Act 2022, including mandatory disclosure requirement relating to how an entity is fulfilling its obligation in relation to growth; ensuring the Minister and the commission take into account the obligations of the entities in relation to supporting and enabling planning processes, growth, and housing and urban development; providing for the commission to monitor compliance with the development code that entities are required to make under the Water Services Legislation Bill and provide enforcement mechanisms for contraventions; and making it explicit that a developer is a consumer. In supporting equity and fairness across the reforms, the committee recommended that the consumer dispute resolution service should be aimed at handling small disputes in a more accessible way than the courts. This involves allowing both parties to appeal, and capping compensation at $50,000 to enhance alignment with other schemes. The bill empowers the commission to establish minimum service standards through a service quality code, with the committee suggesting inclusion of a non-exhaustive list of code topics for improved guidance during its development. Additionally, the committee recommended that the commission prioritise safeguarding vulnerable consumers' interests in the delivery of water services. Thanks again to the committee's efforts. I think this bill will provide greater benefits to New Zealanders. Continuing to progress this bill will ensure that water services are meeting the needs of our people and our communities for generations to come. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Oh, this has been a disastrous process. We've had the two water services bills and now we're into this one, the third one—the treble. I think there's been a lot talked about the water services bill today. If people are beaming into this wonderful debate this afternoon, we've been debating under urgency because the Government's got its timing all wrong and it's shoving through all this legislation. We've been doing it this morning on the water services bill for, ooh, probably at least four hours, I think—I'm just looking at my colleagues here. So this is the last bill in the triumvirate of water services rationalisation proposed by the Government, and, you know, it's incredibly contentious. The Minister talked about savings of $120 to $180 billion, dreamt up by someone in Scotland. There's a lot of dispute, a lot of economic dissension on those estimates. We asked other people to be involved in it. I know there are other economic agencies who have looked at it on behalf of councils. They considerably dispute those figures put forward by the Scottish regulator. This wonderful thought that you can go ahead and spend millions on creating new offices in Auckland, which one of the entities already has—committed significant amounts of money setting up a new office even though Watercare is just parked up in Newmarket in big new offices. No, that's not good enough for one of these ones—they're going to have new ones, brand flash new CEOs, and because they'll have more employees and all that sort of stuff, they're going to be paid more; you can guarantee it, if this ever came to light. All this cost, this wonderful cost, and, you know, there's multimillions of costs being incurred in setting this up, let alone just the regulatory process—multimillions, if not tens of millions, that have been involved in this—and somehow, miraculously, the Minister's trying to claim in his speech that, you know what, everyone's going to be better off. Well, we don't agree with that. Some of the submitters were very thoughtful, very professional, and actually very experienced in these matters. I think the first issue with the water changes is the impact on councils. Not only is there the transfer of ownership of those water assets out of councils back into a new entity with all this diffused ownership structure—regional committees and all that sort of stuff—it does give rise to who owns these assets. No one, through all this process—and I've been involved in it right from the start—not one official, not one Government Minister, has ever been able to explain to me who will own these assets. If you look at the definition of ownership in a share—the legislation talks about a share—you must be able to exert some control over that share. That either may be through governance, through management, or by financial support—all that sort of stuff. Of course, the structure—that diffused and confused structure—that the Government has come up with, someone has dreamt it up on some whiteboard in the bowels of somewhere, is so convoluted that no one can point to me and say who will own those shares. If you cannot exert control or some form of influence, if you can't do all of those three things, if you look at the definition of a shareholding, that means that you do not have control. Where these assets will park up on someone's balance sheet, I am totally unclear of, even today, even though I come from the financial services sector and know a little bit about these things. That's the first thing. Standard & Poor's—we started to push back on some of this stuff. Standard & Poor's directors—after we got through a whole lot of mired conversations that we didn't have any clarity on, suddenly the S&P directors came out and said this will have an impact on the credit ratings of some of our councils. Again, this is a significant thing for New Zealanders, and significant for residents within those boundary areas, because their council's going to be paying more for debt and it's going to be more cost, and, of course, we're going to see the assets transferred off their balance sheet. It is a significant asset transfer from one entity into some other entity with this relationship that's really bad. The other thing we've heard about was the entrenchment provisions, where the Government tried to very sneakily make sure that these things could never be privatised. Even though we as a party, National, said we weren't going to privatise it, the Government tried to sneak through a provision around entrenchment, around stopping privatisation, that wasn't needed. It was totally uncalled for and, actually, it was against the parliamentary rules, where you need to have a supermajority to make those sort of long lasting changes with intention of the House. But this bill itself is all about economic regulation. Of course, this is one where—guess what!—the Labour Government have gone overboard yet again. This is one heck of a piece of legislation. Normally, when you set up regulatory authorities to look after the water industry, the starting proposition is that you have a whole lot of commercial operators. I know those people all over there—I'm looking at the Labour Party members—hate the commercial sector. But, normally, you'd have a whole lot of private sector organisations out there competing and trying to rip people off—well, that's what their view is. That's when you put in place very strong economic regulation. Hey—guess what!—if we listen to the Labour members, hey, these things are going to be wonderful; they're going to have all this influence on Aboriginal groups, we're going to have everyone having a go at it and telling them what they should be doing. Simon Court: Kumbaya. ANDREW BAYLY: "Kumbaya"—that's the right word. And, of course, if that proposition is to be accepted, why do you need such heavy hitting economic regulation? Because these guys never know when to say "No". It is not appropriate, Mr Bennett, because no one across the other side sits back and goes, "Do we actually need this? Is there another way of doing economic regulation? Is there a way—do we actually think about the intent of these organisations? Are they being set up to rip people off?" Well, if you take the Labour view, and the Minister's view just before—no, they're not. They're wonderful. They're going to solve all our issues. But we've ended up with regulations that no doubt we're going to get into. [Holds up bill] That's the book—that's the book. And there's regulations up the wazoo. What we shouldn't be doing is—actually, all entities need to be regulated to some extent, but the extent of regulations in here is an absolute overkill. Then—just realising that time is ticking on—I think the other thing is the need to determine who the regulator is. The regulator is someone who is going to be set up under the Commerce Commission—they're going to be an appointment of the commissioner. The thing I find interesting is the requirements of the commissioner, and I'm just going from memory here. First of all, they must have expertise in the water services industry. Well, I think, if you're going to be a commissioner, that would be a pretty good start point. In the next point, it then goes on to say, well, you could also be someone with experience in any other industry—not just one but any other industry. Not just the water industry but any other industry. That means you can be a politician like Mr Nash, who's just joined us. When he leaves here, he can be a commissioner because he's got experience in other stuff. You'd be a great water commissioner because, at the moment, you'd meet the requirements, Mr Nash. Or you could have experience in commerce—you've got that too. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no, no, Mr Bayly. I hate to interrupt your flow—"you" is me. ANDREW BAYLY: Oh, yeah, sorry. But Mr Nash, we were talking about here. Mr Nash—he's got experience in commerce, he's got experience in economics. Have you got experience in law? Hon Stuart Nash: I have! ANDREW BAYLY: Mr Nash—and accountancy. Mr Nash. I reckon Mr Nash should be the next water commissioner, because he doesn't have to have experience in the water services industry. Mr Nash has come out of the forestry industry, but that does not matter because you can have experience in any other industry. That's how ridiculous this is. This is ridiculous. Put a common-sense lens over this. This is why the Labour Government has got into such problems, because these people don't sit down and apply a bit of common sense. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the committee of the whole House. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'm very disappointed that the previous speaker wasn't as enthusiastic about the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill as he was in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where he actually contributed quite a bit to some of the substantial changes, including making the dispute resolution more robust and proactively to take into account the need to identify classes of vulnerable consumers and take their interests into account. Also there is a change to clause 74 where complaints can be taken by consumer groups. We think this also increases the consumer protections in the bill. The really interesting discussion that I thought the previous member would pick up on is around the presumption in the bill when it came to us that there would be price quality regulation. Now, that presumption is still mainly there and that's good. It sends the right signals around price and quality to the market, but it also means that there can be baseline data gathered and that the commissioner in its determinations as it gets that data can decide in the case of each of those entities whether price quality regulation is needed or at what point. Now, I think that's a really useful and flexible change to the legislation because what it means is it doesn't assume price quality. There's a signal to ensure that the providers act appropriately, but in the event that more competition comes into the market just through the other interventions and certainly through the exposure of data that will be provided through information disclosure, there is some flexibility for the Commerce Commission to respond accordingly. That's good regulation. It's something that Mr Bayly contributed to robustly in the discussions and it's a shame not to see that reflected in the House today. MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is lovely to hear Ingrid Leary, the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, complimenting my colleague Andrew Bayly. He is very passionate about these topics and no doubt he actually wanted to improve the bill and I acknowledge the chair and thank her for acknowledging the Opposition's contribution to make the bill better. So when I was listening to Andrew Bayly, apart from going half deaf because he's very loud very loud—ha, ha! I am just always very in awe of his passion when he speaks on these topics and what he reminded me of—as I'm a person who comes from the visual sort of industry before my time in Parliament—when he was talking about how this bill actually is wasting a lot of time in terms of flash offices or whatever, I just had this picture of an empty office space down in the viaduct when the former Minister of Transport actually decided that he wanted to create a walking and cycling bridge and he actually rented a big office space and paid couple of million dollars for it and it sat empty, and then the policy got cancelled. That's such a waste. As Mr Bayly said, on this side of the House we are opposing this bill. On economic regulations, we actually believe in sound economic and commercial regulation, including that economic regulation and consumer protection is actually paramount. We really believe in that, but we believe that it has to be for the right water services entity and the local councils that own the water assets, not the three waters bill. In a cost of living crisis, I think it is paramount that the Government becomes like a parent, in a sense, in a household, that they lead by example. And when the Government is seen as not being very cautious or responsible in the manner that they actually spend taxpayers' money, I think people, citizens, will be very disappointed and is not actually a good example. So the Water Services Entity Bill—not this one, but the Water Services Entity Bill passed its third reading in December of 2020. This particular bill, the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill, is "to provide the independent commercial scrutiny of the entities."—and I'm reading from the bill notes. It actually establishes a new set of economic regulations on the entities and consumer protection for the water services sector with the Commerce Commission as the regulator, with the appointment of a new Water Commissioner. And I think that's literally what Mr Bayly was actually talking about, that anyone with experience but without necessarily having worked in the water industry can actually become the commissioner. That seems a little odd. The reason why I say that is recently in this House—not so recently—when we were debating another bill in relation to the RNZ and TVNZ merger, they had consultants who were actually brought in to help the officials and members of Parliament who were debating the issue. Not one of the consultants who were brought in actually was an expert in media, nor public media or broadcasting. That would seem really ridiculous that people who the Government who spends taxpayer money is actually consulting had absolutely no experience in the subject matter that we were actually writing legislation about and debating in the Chamber. This seems like another one where just anybody could potentially be the commissioner, and that is a little bit worrying. There are actually several regulatory impact statements that I actually would like to quote, if I may. The regulatory impact statement states that there is a huge transitional uncertainty created because of the reform, and I quote, "Over time it may become evident that the scope or form of economic regulation is not in the best interest of water consumers." is actually one. The other one is that in the regulatory impact statement officials have actually warned that changes can be put on tenants via higher rents with substantial risks—and some prices increase significantly due to under investment and uncertainty. And when you actually create a mega entity, actually four entities— Hon Member: Ten. MELISSA LEE: Sorry, 10—10 entities. Obviously, I wasn't part of the select committee. I think that when you actually consider that, it's a humongous cost to the country. And when a lot of the consultations and public consultations through the select committee where people actually feel that their views and their opinions actually didn't matter, because of the way that the Government seemed to be ramming legislation through this House, it is rather disappointing. Not just disappointing. It is quite shocking that we are here under urgency debating yet another water services bill in the House. When you actually talk to local government and, you know, people who are in the regions, they actually feel that their assets have been stolen by Government. They want to own their own assets and they need the Government to assist them. Some of them have great water services, but there are those that who actually need help. For that, we will make sure that we have the right legislation when we are in Government after 14 October to make sure that the people of New Zealand can rely on decent and good water services legislation rather than this three waters legislation that this Government has produced. On that note, I do not commend this bill; I oppose it. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that, having to see these water bills through to where they are—to know that, now, we can say to ratepayers that, not only will their rates go down and cost less from what they would be, we are also making sure that we have the regulator to make sure that the charges that are put on our water consumers are absolutely on point. It has been a long time coming. I know that in my electorate and Hawke's Bay, the four councils that are part of this, are absolutely looking forward to seeing affordable water finally delivered for our region. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party has a differing view. It's here in the report back to the House from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I do want to thank the officials for the efforts they made to respond to the many questions that the ACT Party had about the legislation. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of Ingrid Leary as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee because she had a very difficult job to do—to inquire about all the flaws in the legislation, which was legislation proposed by her own Labour Party, and do it in a way that was even-handed and allowed for the best possible discovery of the issues with this bill. So it's wonderful to see that in Parliament, through parliamentary process, there can be an even-handed approach to assessing the costs and benefits of legislation. On balance, ACT will be opposing the legislation but we do agree there's a need for an economic or infrastructure regulator. What is the problem to solve? The problem to solve is that for decades local government has failed to invest in infrastructure in a way that keeps up with growth and maintains the assets that they own and that the Local Government Act already requires them to maintain and to provide for, to make provisions for, to renew and replace as infrastructure ages. So the ACT Party engaged constructively throughout the entire three waters reform process and we continue to engage constructively with officials, with submitters who came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in an attempt to discover how to make a regulator of infrastructure assets work. Now, the problem is no action has been taken by this Government or previous Governments to enforce the law. When it comes to the Local Government Act, councils have not been following the law. Some of them might know where the pipes are broken. They might know where the waste-water pump stations are failing and leaking into waterways. But the Government—central government—hasn't used any carrots or any sticks to get them to follow the Local Government Act provisions, which require them to maintain their assets and make provisions. And yet here we have a whole reform programme designed to solve a problem that the law says should already be solved. Remarkable. Imagine that. So the current system is not up to scratch. This Government's reforms will not help. In fact, they're likely to make it worse. The Government has established the Commerce Commission in the role, an awkward role, of having to be a market regulator that's not just regulating a market—in fact, they're not regulating a market at all. There is no market for a monopoly water services provider. There is no market for somebody to come and lay an alternative water pipe in your street and supply water to your house. This is a monopoly, so the Commerce Commission is required to regulate a public service and regulate infrastructure—infrastructure quality, mind you; not infrastructure investment, not infrastructure pricing, not weighted average cost of capital but the quality of infrastructure provided for the money that water service entities will allocate. But they don't have the competency of the tools to carry out that role. We've heard that they're proposing to hire up to 25 people to establish a unit to act in this regulatory role, and yet there other organisations that already do this within Government. The Office of the Auditor-General already audits local government, councils, against their long-term plan and whether they are meeting their objectives, whether they are in fact investing in infrastructure to meet growth, fulfilling their obligations to their communities, and doing what they say they do. The Auditor-General often reveals that they're not, and yet the Government hasn't taken any action against local councils, as I've pointed out, under the Local Government Act, to rectify that. But the most awkward thing of all for the Commerce Commission and for the people who work there, is that this piece of legislation requires them to become a regulator of tikanga Māori. How is it possible that if you're an economic regulator and an infrastructure regulator, you are required to determine whether a water service entity is respecting the Treaty, giving effect to Treaty obligations and Te Mana o te Wai? Well, how on earth are they supposed to do that? Te Mana o te Wai relies on a spiritual belief in mauri, or the life force of the water—water comes from some heaven and ends on Earth, and has a life force. I mean, anyone who's seen the Star Wars trilogy or the prequels or the sequels would be familiar with the term "life force" but who knew that in 2023 an economic regulator of water infrastructure is going to be required to work out whether water companies are fulfilling their obligations not only to work out whether these entities are meeting their Treaty settlement obligations—potentially as having some function of the Crown—but also whether they're taking care of the life force of the water. As far as I was aware, as a civil engineer, infrastructure is pipes, manholes, drinking-water treatment plants, waste-water treatment plants, stormwater overflows, culverts, and all of those things. The water that flows in them is only fit to drink, fit to flush, or fit to use for industry. As far as I'm aware, there is no engineering of scientific test for the life force or the mauri of the water. While it is entirely acceptable that one culture in New Zealand believes that water has a life force, it is completely unacceptable to require infrastructure regulators or economic regulators to have to take account of spiritual matters when they're working out whether people are paying a fair price for water. Then we get to the next problem with incorporating Te Mana o te Wai in the way water infrastructure is managed. Te Mana o te Wai, through applying a life-force test, actually means that instead of just fixing up the pipes and the waste-water discharges to meet an ecological test—are the fish in the stream OK; is it safe to swim in, is the water safe to drink?—they will have to platinum plate, cultural plate a tikanga cost on to water infrastructure. Nowhere else in the developed world would a society impose this cost on to households, on to business, and on to New Zealanders present and future. This bill is a recipe for a decline in New Zealand society. ACT supports the three waters reform objectives: to deliver high-quality water infrastructure to enable growth, to enable land to be serviced for more affordable housing. There's no good in putting through legislation that entrenches excessive costs in providing water infrastructure to new housing, new subdivisions, or to parts of our existing cities where we want to build up, say, around public transport hubs or around town centres. It's very, very expensive already to build network infrastructure in those locations without adding a spiritual dimension to decision making around water. This will be impossible for the Commerce Commission to regulate. They're going to spend time and money, they're going to hire people, and unfortunately for the Commerce Commission and any individuals who take up these roles, should there be a change of Government, this bill, the parts of it that relate to tikanga and Te Mana o te Wai and all of those metaphysical things will be repealed and those roles will be made redundant. It's not just ACT saying that this piece of legislation doesn't work. I can quote from Water Magazine, the July/August issue, where a gentleman by the name of Andrew Stevenson, who's worked for the Commerce Commission and is a specialist in regulating infrastructure, says that water services providers will have to publish asset management plans which actually don't meet the commission's specifications as set out in the bill. They won't align, these asset management plans required by this legislation; they won't align with local government or similar financial systems as the regulator is focused on different outcomes and applies different principles. Imagine that—three years of talking about water reform and this legislation, the last bill in a series of four, pushed through by Labour today under urgency, doesn't even address the most basic issues about how you align the need to invest in infrastructure with the regulator whose job it is to oversee whether that investment lines up with the land use planning and with the need to provide water infrastructure for affordable homes and so businesses can access water for business. We will oppose this bill. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Pleased to take a call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. The Green Party is supporting this bill because one of the fundamental tenets of the whole reform is that if you create larger entities, they will be more efficient, they'll be able to borrow more. So there will be less burden on councils and a recognition in the supporting documents that councils, because of rates and the community response to rates, have often been reluctant to raise the rates or spend much rates on infrastructure. With these bigger entities, that obstacle and constraint is seen to go. So therefore, with bigger entities you really do need a strong consumer protection and advocacy regime, and mechanisms for resolving disputes between consumers and the entity. That's what this bill provides. As others have noted, there was good debate in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. And like others, I acknowledged the chair, Ingrid Leary, and the former chair, Rachel Brooking, for their leadership on this and encouraging that degree of debate. The previous speaker talked a lot about the Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission regulates industries like the telcos, like gas, and so it's entirely appropriate that the economic regulation should come under the Commerce Commission, and with a specific Water Services Commissioner. The committee, in considering the bill, included some additional criteria about the expertise that that commissioner should have. So the Greens are confident that that person will have the specialist knowledge that Melissa Lee talked about. There are other improvements to the bill that occurred through the select committee process, in terms of—there was some concern that water services entities in the form of Watercare had not always been as responsive to developers' requests for new infrastructure. So there are specific new provisions in the bill which have a dispute resolution process around developers' requests for infrastructure. But the Green Party really believes that the commission and the Water Services Commissioner have got to look very closely at things like private plan changes, ad hoc requests for subdivision development and the infrastructure to facilitate that, to ensure that is not imposing big costs on the entities from putting new services in place. In some of the previous debates, members have referred to a number of boil-water notices as justifying the need for the establishment of the entities. Those boil-water notices in Canterbury are often the result of inappropriate agricultural intensification and a failure to control land use, so the water services entities won't in themselves have that regulatory power over land use. That's a key issue for the new regional planning committee, through their new plans, and of course regional councils under the Resource Management Act. We really do need to protect source waters in order to reduce the costs for entities, and reduce the cost of the provision of services. If they have to substantially treat a lot of water, run osmosis filters and the like, that will increase the charge to consumers and it will then be difficult for the dispute resolution service, for the tribunal that's being set up there, to actually have those charges reduced, because they go back to a fundamental inappropriate management of land use and an unnecessary contamination of water. The bill was significantly improved through the select committee, through the service quality code that's now proposed in terms of consumer complaints, the way in which the dispute resolution service would work, and also the establishment of a separate consumer advocacy agency, recognising that that was not really the normal responsibility of the Commerce Commission. So it is a bill that we really need with this economic regulation, and consumer protection with the establishment of the 10 new entities, and the Green Party supports it. HELEN WHITE (Labour): Hello. It's really nice to take this call and to be able to actually express my respect for the honourable member that's just sat down, Hon Eugenie Sage, and is in her last few weeks in this House and she is still tenaciously contributing in everything and we are really grateful for what she has done, including on this committee. It was a very constructive discussion over this bill in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and it was quite a creative one. We really thought about the issues, particularly with regard to power imbalance. One of the things that came out of that was a really strong discussion about the role of the Consumer Advocacy Council in making sure that consumers were protected but also the Commerce Commission's role in doing so. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Joseph Mooney for five minutes. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise for a brief call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. It's not one that I have been on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for, but I will make some comments— Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, you've missed out. JOSEPH MOONEY: —in respect of this. I've missed out, I've heard from the other side, from my colleague Rachel Brooking, I think. But, look, the National Party does not support this bill. The National Party will repeal and replace three waters, including this one. We do believe in sound economic and commercial regulation, including economic regulation and consumer protection, but for the right water services entities and local councils that own the waters. It's an important point: the local councils that own the waters, not three waters, not these mega-entities that are going to be part of this proposal. It's interesting, if you're reading the departmental disclosure statement, which notes that the three waters service delivery reforms will result in significant changes for the water sector, with the creation of four water service entities that will serve as 85 percent of New Zealanders. It does say, "We anticipate that there will be some uncertainty for the entities about what the new water service entities will inherit. They will inherit various systems and processes and water service assets in varying conditions. We therefore expect that the water service entities will need time to gain comfort with the new structure of the sector, their own internal processes, their assets, and their regulatory requirements. It is also possible that this uncertainty could lead to some water service entities acting too cautiously, focusing on compliance with little regard to efficiency in an effort to avoid any risk contrary to the provisions of the Act." I'll just pause on that point to note that this is one of a trilogy of different bills that are quite significant in and of themselves and have had significant changes over the course of the last year or so as the Labour Government has pushed through this three waters proposal that they are now enacting into law shortly before an election. Unfortunately, one of the problems with this very significant piece of work is that it has pushed this through the select committee in shortened time frames, which has given little opportunity for many of the affected communities and parties to actually make substantive submissions and to iron out the significant and substantial difficulties that have been identified with these bills. Frankly, it is not good lawmaking to push through such a significant piece of work without getting sufficient feedback from the communities who will be affected by this. The fundamental challenge and problem is that this is shifting the assets from those communities who have built them up over many generations into a completely new model and then expecting that there's going to be an economic benefit from it. I note this point which I started with in the departmental disclosure statement that the uncertainty about these new processes may lead or could lead, as was identified here, to some water services acting cautiously, focusing on compliance, with little regard to efficiency. Obviously, one of the main points that has been used to push this through is that it supposedly will be more efficient and, therefore, will be less costly. However, that appears to be unlikely, as this is likely to be more complex and more costly, and that is, unfortunately, the last thing that New Zealanders need right now in a cost of living crisis. So this is one of a number of actually very complex pieces of legislation that is going to take a huge amount of work for people to try and get their heads around. But I will say that there is an election coming up very shortly and there will be an opportunity for New Zealanders to vote for a new Government, and I can say that if it's a National-led Government, this will be repealed. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. Can I just begin by pushing back a little on the previous speaker, who claimed there was a truncated process here. This bill was introduced to the House in December 2022. It is now eight months later, and we are considering for its final stages. So I just want to push back that there hasn't been considerable analysis and consultation on this bill over the last few months. This bill is a critical part of our water reform programme. It's important that, with the introduction, obviously, of the affordable waters reform that we have a system to ensure that economic regulation is in place to protect consumers. I note that the economic regulation regime that we're introducing through this bill is similar to the existing economic regulation regimes that are under Part 4 of the Commerce Act, which regulates electricity line services, gas pipeline services, and specified airport services. The approach is also similar to the regulation of fibre fixed-line access services under the Telecommunications Act. This bill will complement the drinking water safety and regulation oversight that's provided by the water regulator, Taumata Arowai. It will ensure that consumers are protected through our reform. It's an excellent bill, and I commend this bill to the House. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It's my pleasure to take a short call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill in this second reading. This bill is part of the wider water services reforms launched by the Government in July 2020. It's absolutely long overdue. It will reduce rates for our households and it will be well received by the people of Waimakariri in particular. So I commend this bill to the House. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill—and I had to read that because I've just this minute got it in my hand, essentially. All this suite of bills around three waters have come about from what occurred in Havelock North a few years ago now. It was a terrible event, and I think we all agree on that, but, essentially, that came about because the Ministry of Health weren't doing a great job of regulating and inspecting water right across the country, effectively. In fact, there were very few prosecutions at all from them over the years, and as Havelock North showed us, there was a need for oversight and some rigour in that area. That was a very poorly managed wellhead. Anyone who's had anything to do with wells will know that you have to keep stock away from those things, and it is not only the management around that wellhead but the way the well has been secured around the ground itself is also very important, and that was clearly lacking. That was a terrible event, so something had to be done, and there's no doubt about that. Everybody agrees about that. However, this suite of bills has gone way too far. There's regulatory overreach and they've gone way beyond the safety issue that triggered these bills to come into being. While this one was introduced in December 2022, I believe, we are now rushing it through its last stages in urgency, and you'd have to wonder why, or I certainly wonder why. Rushed legislation is seldom good legislation. There are often occasions when it has to be done, like with the Christchurch earthquakes or like with the Kaikōura earthquake, when there was a real need that had to be addressed immediately. But often those are very short-term pieces of legislation where we come back later and do a better job. But this legislation is meant to be the first and final, but it's riddled with holes. I mean, some of the issues in this around all the committees—I heard my colleagues earlier on in the day talking about all of the problems with them. It's quite shocking, really, on some of them. For example, the regulatory impact statement states that there is huge transitional uncertainty created because of these water reforms: "Over time, it may become evident that the scope or form of economic regulation is not in the best interests of water consumers." Well, that's the whole point of this legislation as being in the best interests of water consumers, and yet, clearly, the regulatory impact statement sees a real risk there that this is not in the best interests of water consumers. The regulatory impact statement also warned that changes can be put on tenants via higher rents, with substantial risks and it says that some prices could increase significantly due to under-investment and uncertainty. These are mega-monopolies that are going to be set up to manage water. Now, the Commerce Commission will have a role to play in that, and we know that with the lines companies, for example, they come underneath the Commerce Commission's purview to make sure that they don't gold-plate investments and, indeed, that they don't under-invest in their assets, and that whatever they spend, of course, goes back to the consumers in the form of fees. But this does not give us any comfort that these mega-monopolies are actually going to do a very good job. So it's really overregulation, but the issue that I think really upsets people, or grinds their gears, if you like, is some of this stuff around the mauri of the water and the Treaty requirement for the Commerce Commission. I want to touch on this. Look, I totally get and respect the Treaty, and I totally get and respect Māori views on things, but the mauri of the water and so on is included in this bill. You can't measure the mauri, and so if you can't measure it, I don't know how you can manage it. So that's a real problem for us, because we want legislation that works, and I would wager there'll be different definitions of that. I mean, this is, essentially, vitalism. Most cultures—almost all cultures—had a form of this in part of their development, and then they've moved on from that and embraced science, which we pretty much work on today. So is that better? Well, it is from a regulatory and a legislative point of view. What people's personal beliefs are is their business, quite frankly, and I accept that and celebrate it. But we have to make laws. We have to make legislation that New Zealanders have to live by and will have to pay bills upon, and, essentially, this legislation puts so much uncertainty into it. The Commerce Commission will have a huge job trying to control these entities to ensure that New Zealanders are not being charged too much and that these entities are investing the right amount, but it has to have regard to the Treaty. Well, how does that actually affect how they are going to invest, or ensure that they aren't under-investing? I don't get that. I'm not aware of the Commerce Commission having any Treaty requirements that I'm aware of, and I've certainly looked at it a fair bit around the energy sector, so I imagine—I haven't seen any reference to it, so I don't think it's there. Look, I get that we want to have a New Zealand flavour on all of our legislation, and that's good to a point, but we have to be practical about these things. So I do not support this bill. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call, the last call on this second reading, and I just want to take a moment to thank the select committee. It was obviously a robust process and they made some great changes to this bill that will ensure that we have good, strong regulation and consumer protection. I am a little confused though, that people are worried about having an inclusion of Te Ao Māori or matauranga Māori or, you know, that you can't actually make good economic decisions and still consider Te Ao Māori. I challenge the other side of the House to go and have a little look at our Māori economy that's worth $70 billion; it's growing, it's resilient, and it's global. I don't think that this is a bad thing for a commissioner to have access to, and because of that, I commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Production Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 72 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere. Noes 47 New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill. In Committee Part 1 Preliminary Provisions CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought it would be useful, just whilst we have a chance, to just say a few introductory comments on the bill. Obviously, this is the last of the pieces of the puzzle to ensure that New Zealanders get safe, affordable, and reliable water services that support good health in a sustainable environment. The aim of this bill and the other bills is to improve New Zealand's water services system, which is made up of drinking water, waste water, and, of course, stormwater. We know that up to $185 billion in infrastructure is needed over the next 30 years to address historic under-investment. The increased size and scale of these water entities is the key to attracting this level of investment, and this reform will ensure that water infrastructure and services are planned, maintained, and delivered so that these critical services are affordable and fit for purpose. This bill establishes the Commerce Commission to oversee the economic regulation and consumer protection regime for the water entities and this will ensure that consumers directly benefit from these reforms and the delivery of affordable and high-quality water services. Before I draw the committee's attention to some of the more notable features, I do want to repeat my thanks to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and its considered amendments, and all those people who submitted on it. The affordable water reforms brought to light issues in the water sector that are often associated with critical infrastructure systems that have natural monopoly characteristics. These include service quality not reflecting community expectations, long-term under-investment in infrastructure, inefficient pricing that lacked transparency, and concerns about the capability of the sector to respond to consumer demands. It's important that New Zealanders receive water services that meet their expectations now and into the future. For these reasons, this bill establishes an economic regulation and consumer protection regime with the Commerce Commission as regulator. This regime is an integral part of the water reforms to protect New Zealanders from the sort of harms that can occur when essential service providers have substantial market power and consumers are unable to switch providers. How the bill addresses this is that alongside Taumata Arowai's focus on water quality, the economic regulation and consumer protection regime will promote the long-term interests of consumers in water services and ensure the new entities provide high-quality services at affordable prices. It will put protections in place for consumers so they can expect high-quality service when they contact the water supply with a query or complaint, clear communications about network outages, and transparency from their supplier about how water services are built. The Commerce Commission is a high-performing regulator with experience regulating other essential infrastructure services and ensuring consumers are treated fairly. A Water Services Commissioner will be established within the commission to reflect the unique nature of the water sector and the vital importance of water, guided by the fundamental principle of Te Mana o te Wai. The scope of the Consumer Advocacy Council will also be broadened so that it can advocate on behalf of water consumers, and an independent consumer dispute resolution service will be established to resolve disputes between consumers. I look forward to answering any members' questions. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for taking one for the team, taking this bill up so that the ACT Party can ask some hard questions. Minister, how is an economic regulator supposed to regulate Māori tikanga—Te Mana o te Wai, spiritual concepts in water? How is an economic regulator supposed to work out—if the Minister truly believes what he's said, that tikanga and Te Mana o te Wai is the primary reason for these water infrastructure reforms, how is it that an economic regulator saying, "Well, I'm looking at a $100 million proposal from a water services company to invest in a sewage treatment plant or a drinking-water plant but then I have this other report that says, actually, because of tikanga it's going to cost $150 million." Because that's exactly the situation that the Palmerston North District Council is in right now, Minister. That's the situation they're in right now. They are being required, because of the need to meet the obligations under the Resource Management Act to meet Te Mana o te Wai obligations, to invest an enormous amount more, maybe even double the amount that they could get a waste-water treatment plant to service the current and future growth needs of Palmerston North. They had a quote of about $200 million to start with; once you add in Te Mana o te Wai, it's closer to $500 million. This legislation, Minister, will further entrench flawed concepts like Te Mana o te Wai which says, "Anyone making a decision about water has to first regard the health of the water, its spiritual health or mauri—its life force—above the needs of communities for drinking water and above the needs of communities for economic and social development." What country on earth—what developed country on earth is incorporating spiritual concepts in decision making around water? Well, New Zealand has under this Labour Government. And if there's not an opportunity to change the direction of this Government in October, if that opportunity is not taken up by the voters, we could be on a slippery, slippery slope to having decisions about how water is allocated, about how pipes are built, about the cost of all our infrastructure, dedicated by people who are unappointed and unelected on co-governance panels in the water service entities, and, of course, will be unappointed—will be appointed but not elected—onto the Commerce Commission's water commission. Now, Minister, when we look at what else is wrong with this Commerce Commission approach, a gentleman by the name of Andrew Stevenson, who worked for the Commerce Commission, has pointed out some fatal flaws with this legislative approach. Andrew Stevenson says there will be a limited ability to have independent oversight of large projects and less opportunity for community input compared to the original intent of the regulation—less opportunity for community input, less oversight of large projects. Minister, it's large infrastructure projects where things can typically go more wrong than simply doing routine maintenance on stormwater and waste-water pipes. And yet this legislation, according to an expert who's worked in the water industry and in the Commerce Commission itself developing regulatory pricing models, has said that it's not fit for purpose. This gentleman Andrew Stevenson also says that if the purpose of the economic regulation is that providers will have to develop asset management plans and documents to meet the Commerce Commission's specifications—but that's different from the asset management plans that are required under the legislation that sets up the water service entities. Minister, this bill is being rushed through under urgency today. It is incomplete, it is incoherent, it introduces vague spiritual concepts into economic and infrastructure regulation— Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, sit down. SIMON COURT: The Hon Willie Jackson knows it, that's why he's moaning and groaning. Not even the Hon Willie Jackson knows how it's going to work. Minister, would you share with the House, with the people watching today: how is an economic regulator supposed to regulate tikanga? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I think it's important to recognise that this legislation is about economic regulation, and the member's comments strayed fairly well outside of the bill. And I certainly don't think it's a vague spiritual notion to say that the rights of Māori to the protection of their taonga accorded under Te Tiriti are to be protected in this bill. It's quite clear that that obligation sits with the entities themselves— Simon Court: Only because you made it so. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and under clause 5, if the member were to read it, rather than jibber-jabbering from the corner, he would understand that the Commerce Commission has a role to make sure that its function is discharged in light of the water services entities' obligations to take into account the principles of the Treaty and also, of course, Te Mana o te Wai and any settlement obligations. And I am surprised that a member from a party that prides itself on private property and rights doesn't recognise that the rights accorded Māori under the Treaty are just as important as the individualistic private property rights that the ACT Party sings for so loud. So I'm very proud that this bill properly protects, preserves, and enhances Te Mana o te Wai, because that's the right thing to do. In terms of the wider point he made about not having community input into larger projects, again, I think he's talking about a different piece of legislation which quite appropriately provides for widespread community input, and in this piece of legislation—which is about economic regulation, about ensuring appropriate price and quality regulation—that this is quite appropriately addressed. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member, can I just say that at 4:45 p.m., which might be while you're making your contribution, we will go to valedictory statements. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I see this debate's got off to a flying start! Of course, I was very intrigued with the Minister's introduction when he said this is the third leg of the puzzle. I would actually say it's a very confusing puzzle; it's normally called an conundrum, which means there's no resolution—you can't find the end of the puzzle. At least I acknowledge the Minister in the chair. I know it's a difficult time for him. We're going to have a long time on this tonight. I presume that's why Willie Jackson's turned up just now so he can help the Minister solve all these wonderful issues—the intellectual highlight here! But, look, the first thing I want to ask about is we are talking about—and this is the Labour proposition that we're going to set up these entities with really confused governance structures. We don't know who owns them. And then we're going to pile on this massive regulatory economic oversight. I think the question for the Minister is what other models did the Labour Government actually contemplate? Because this is not an industry where we've got a whole lot of people, a whole lot of players, commercial operators out there trying to rip off customers and consumers. The model that Labour has put forward is one where we've been told, time and time again, it's all going to be in the best interest of consumers. Miraculously the water rates are going to decrease, and yet the Government wants to overlay on top of that this really extensive economic process and regulatory burden on these four or 10 entities—whatever might happen; it's not going to happen under us. And when I look at the roles of the commission, I find it quite staggering. This is for entities that are not meant to be out competing. They have no obligation, no determination in the bill to compete. What they are: they've been set up under the Labour Government to look after certain geographical areas. There's no cross-competing over borders, nothing like that, and yet we've got a commission—I was just looking at the rights and functions of the commission under clause 4(1)(b) "to carry out inquiries, reviews, and studies (including international benchmarking)", it can act as a regulator—well, gee, it does that for certain! It can issues warnings, reports, guidelines, making comments, it can perform and exercise duties and powers, it monitors compliance—it just goes on and on and on. My first question to the Minister is: why on earth has the Labour Government decided that we need this over-the-top form of economic regulation on what would otherwise be reasonably benign organisations that are not meant to be out there competing, not meant to be out there ripping it off? If we listened to the member and actually to the Minister talking about the benefits of these types of organisations, it is way over the top. Can the Minister please explain that? MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good choice. Look, I wanted just to thank the Minister. Very brave for a Labour MP to front up the issue of three waters—the way it's gone down like a cup of cold sick in the public. I just wondered if he could confirm that the former Labour Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore said publicly that he resigned his Labour membership because of three waters—would never vote for Labour again. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. We were hoping the Minister was going to jump up in front of this wonderful audience and explain why this economic regulation was required. And Mr Grant Robertson coming in to rescue him—Mr Robertson rescuing us. So can you explain—just carrying on what I was talking about before—why have a definition of "competition" which means workable and effective competition when each of these entities are not in the game of competing with each other across geographical boundaries, about competing for customer base? Why do you have such an onerous form of economic regulation when that form of competition does not exist under the model that the Labour Government has put forward and so many people have said that is a poor and bad structure, ripping off the assets of residents and putting them into unaccountable entities? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Mr Bayly, I'm surprised, given your apparent background as a merchant banker, that you're not aware of the wide-ranging economic regulation we have across a number of industries like telecommunications and electricity where natural monopoly or a definition of workable competition issues throughout. This is a very normal form of economic regulation in exactly these kinds of situations. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for valedictory statements from members. This committee is suspended. House resumed. VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed for the valedictory statements. Members, following the valedictory statements, the House will suspend for the dinner break and will resume in committee on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill at 7 p.m. I call on Todd Muller to make his valedictory statement. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Whilst this boy from Te Puna might have dreamt of being a President of the United States, it was the Mayor of Te Aroha, my grandad, Henry Skidmore, that planted the seed of purpose in my teenage mind. Seared in my memory were my grandad's trips to collect the mail, years after he had retired, and shaking hand after hand of that community as he slowly walked back to his car. It was genuine affection from him to them and much in return. I saw, in my grandparents, how fulfilled one can be through a life of service. By my late-teens, I was determined to one day stand in this place—so determined, in fact, that according to Michelle, on our first date, I used that pretty cool pick-up line about how much I wanted to MP. Clearly I was a keeper. For some reason known only to her, that did not put her off and, 25 years later, here we are. And it is in thanking Michelle that I want to start. I think this House knows it hasn't been the smoothest of rides over the last nine years—in fact, at times, pretty dire—but Michelle kept our family together through it all, under the most intense of stress. She prioritised everyone else at the expense of her own health and career. Thank you for your intuition, selflessness, and being the glue for our family. In a world that feels increasingly conditional, your love was unconditional and, in a very real sense, I can stand, still, here today, because of you. I love you. To Aimee, Bradley, and Amelia: from little kids having their photo taken with John Key nine years ago to the remarkable young adults that you are today; my choices have been tough on you all, even tougher than Dad talking about you now! But thank you for your love and support. Aimee, I so love your humour and immense work ethic; Amelia, your passion for theatre, singing, and your insights on life; and Bradley, our Aquinas College captain of the first 11 football team, Aquinas captain of the basketball team, who broke his leg on Friday in an interschool competition two weeks out from the national qualifiers, watching now in Tauranga. Your courage and resilience that you are demonstrating right now is an example to me. Mum and Dad are so proud of you all. To my dear Mum, Trish, who has personally lived every political twist and turn and media interview as only mums can, thank you for your constant love and support, especially in the last six years without Dad at your side. We have all missed his wisdom and love but I, like you, can sense his guiding force still. To my brothers Gavin, Craig, Nathan: thanks for always reminding me that brotherly familiarity and depreciating wit, normally at my expense, is a love all of its own. To my close friends Lain Jager, Mike Graham, Sarah Paterson, Hamish Crafar, Lewis Graham, and Carrick Graham. Thank you for caring for me and bringing a large disinterest and buckets of humour to the machinations of day-to-day politics, which was hugely appreciated. To my Papamoa staff over the last nine years, Nigel, Raiha, Jo, Karen, and Greer. Nine years of constituent advocacy, nine years of making a difference in helping those most vulnerable navigate an often bewildering array of public agencies. You have changed people's lives. To my Wellington staff: Stefan, Sharon, Aaron, Megan, Nikita, and Jess, thank you for your remarkable commitment and passion to bring the very best of yourself to the job. Special hugs to Claire and Celia, for the tears and laughter and most extraordinary loyalty to Michelle and I. To my long-time supporters Jim and Joan Bolger, Sir Paul and Cheryl Adams, Sir Dryden and Margaret Spring, Craig and Shayne Greenlees; my Tauranga mafia mates Grant Eynon, Mike Chapman, Doug Voss, and Sir Peter Trapski, thank you for your remarkable belief in me and for your consistent perspectives, insight and support. To the GGPA—you know who you are—thanks for having my back through thick and thin. To the many parliamentary staff I have met and chatted to over the years, from security, to messengers, to the Chamber staff, to the cleaners, thank you for your quiet, humble service, and for sharing some of your own stories with me—a welcome drop of perspective in a place that can easily lose it. To my local National Party members, thank you for being there for Michelle and I, through the remarkable highs and lows of these last nine years. The commitment of your often precious time to advance our party's values is a treasure I will never forget. Thank you to Sean, Mary and Jim, Sandie, Bonnie, Valda, Don, Pam, and Jacci. To my Bay of Plenty electorate, it has been a genuine honour to represent the community I have lived amongst for 50 years. We fought hard for each other—petitions and protests for more roads, schools, health services, police—with some success but Tauranga is a city that continues to grow significantly faster than the infrastructure and services provision and, frankly, it's time for a National Government. Talking of future National Governments, can I personally thank you Christopher and Nicola for your private support and values-based leadership. I do deeply thank you. You are a partnership that this country desperately needs. Well, it has certainly been a ride, but I wouldn't change a thing—well, apart from perhaps a few less colleagues to get mistaken for! Earlier last year, I arrived in Christchurch and jumped into a taxi and headed north. The local taxi driver, disconcertingly, spent more time looking at me than he did the road, for many, many kilometres. After quite a while, he got up enough courage to turn to me and say, "It is an absolute honour to have you in my car, Mr Luxon." I felt I couldn't disappoint him so I to him, "No, no; I'm your local MP Matt Doocey." So, in the spirit of valedictories and the knowledge that what I am going to say can be attributed to at least two others, I would like to share some highlights and reflections. I hope political colleagues, the wider House, and media can see these comments for what they are—personal not political, conciliatory not critical, wary but not lacking in hope. I have two highlights I wish to reflect on. Firstly was the negotiation of the zero carbon Act with James Shaw. It was tough; we didn't get everything we wanted but we were focused on delivering something that would stand the test of time, a framework that would give New Zealand surety that this Parliament and those to come would prioritise climate action. Whilst I don't agree with pretty much everything the Green Party stands for, I want to acknowledge James as a gentleman and a friend. However, while we have embedded a useful advisory structure it will become increasingly meaningless if we don't follow its advice. I believe the Climate Commission must mature into an institution that this House respects. But that respect will come from telling truth to power. That truth will be uncomfortable for us all. I've just got to try and grab a water here for a moment, excuse me. It's a thing I've always had from my father—shaking hands when you have a water; he's thinking of me. That truth will be uncomfortable. The nations of the world will not keep global warming to below 1.5 degrees, rather they will overshoot 2 degrees by some measure. As the global climate continues to warm, New Zealand will bear significant costs due the impacts of climate change and attempting to adapt to it over time. These impacts, on our coastal and stretched infrastructure, will dwarf the medium-term challenges and costs of emission reductions. I hope the commission's future advice will include principles that could inform how we could share this adaptation cost within and between generations in an equitable manner, because, with the possible exception of agriculture, we will be a technology taker, so we need to balance our international obligations with our capacity to scale up new technologies at pace. We are a tiny country seeking to play a meaningful role in global action on climate, but we must be realistic about our size, distance from market, infrastructure vulnerabilities, and balance sheet capacity. But all that strategic context cannot mask the inevitable: we must reduce our gross emissions and seek efficient ways to offset them in the short term. It is a challenging path for a country so small and so distant, but it will become impossible if dispassionate assessments of complex options provided by the Climate Change Commission, get drowned out by simple tag lines of denialism or catastrophisation, or even kick it down the roadism. As we sit here today, we cannot meet the gaze of our youth on climate action and that should not sit easy with us. The achievement I am most proud of was becoming the leader of this great National Party. I walked into a school hall 34 years ago as a young man, seeking a tentative political home and found New Zealanders who were hard working, entrepreneurial, deeply caring for their communities, and I felt immediately comfortable. To become leader of New Zealand's most successful political movement was humbling and exciting in equal measure, but as is well documented, such sentiment was quickly subsumed by anguish and horror. As I slowly pulled the pieces of my life together, I struggled with regret and loss. I turned up here late-2020 caught between trying to apologise and rebuilding a career, walking around constant triggers of what might have been. There were many messages of support from this place, which I was grateful for, but, unfortunately, behind the public utterances of many, there remained a persistent view that somehow having a mental breakdown was a function of poor political execution, as opposed to a contributor to it. I acknowledge this is a sensitive space, but we should be open about the unique challenges of experiencing poor mental health when you are a political figure. It is important to provide suitable space for rehabilitation, including some distance from scrutiny and accountability. We do that for cancer; we should do it for poor mental health. In my case, that largely happened with the mainstream media, but less so with some in my party still coming to terms with a terrible 2020 result. I hope that when the occasion arises in the future, for it surely will, empathy replaces silence, and understanding—blame. To the many hundreds of New Zealanders who have reached out to me over the last three years, nearly all of whom spoke of their own moments of suffering and hope, thank you for your care, for your searing honesty and words of encouragement. Please know that apart from my family, friends, and professional support, there was no greater comfort or contribution to my recovery than those messages—especially your words of hope despite your often very private hell. This needs to be the bipartisan cause. I commend MPs for establishing a cross-party committee on mental health, but we are losing New Zealanders, every day, including a friend of mine just last week. We can't care for them to the level they need, and we have to fix it. When you or someone you love is suffering, you don't care about political blame, you don't care about policies or working groups or reviews or dollars to be spent over the next four years; you just want someone to help—you just want the pain to stop. We have to support the many hands that can reach out to them. Thank you Sir John Kirwan, Mike King, and many others for your relentless pursuit of the care of others. Because you walked it, survived it, but most of all shared it, many others stand up still—kia kaha. Finally, there is a broad change occurring in New Zealand that concerns me, and I can sense in our private moments, concerns many in this House. There is anger at a level I have not seen before. Boiling frustration, weaved through the personal conversations of many of our fellow New Zealanders. From this discontent swells greater partisanship, which is fuelling a level of political toxicity that is corrosive to our society. I think the most explicit example of community division at the moment is the issue of Māori and economic and political aspirations. There are two polar opposite views that are pulsing through our communities. One: that this country is being radicalised by the Māorification of our society, and the other is that we are very slowly, but inexorably, moving to a Treaty-centred future which was imagined in 1840. From these opposing philosophies emerge policies calling for the Treaty's impact on New Zealand's life to be seriously curtailed, and policies that seek to apply Treaty principles more broadly to guide all we do in this House. There is a building resentment that fundamental legislative changes are occurring without due consultation, and there is intense frustration that the promise of 183 years ago continues to be denied. As we would hope in a representative democracy, these perspectives are not only represented in this House, they sit side by side, but their world views could not be more at odds. How we deport ourselves on this issue matters. We are a House of Representatives, political debate in this unique New Zealand cauldron should be strong, ideas tested, and their articulation critiqued. But we must ask ourselves: are we standard bearers of civility and decency or amplifiers of division? We set an example here, and the ability to temper our language when we are fighting for closely-held beliefs is not a weakness, but a strength. We need to model the capacity to disagree with respect. The two great tribes of New Zealand politics—the Labour Party and the National Party—have a real responsibility here. As collective representatives of the significant majority of the country, we need to be mindful of where these debates and policies are taking us. One of the great examples of bipartisanship of the last 30 years has been our focus on settling historical Treaty claims—often in innovative and inclusive ways. But the areas of common agreement around the role of the Treaty in New Zealand are being eroded by increasingly fierce and partisan demands and responses. We progress as a society when the centre holds, whilst slowly moving that centre to reflect the changing nature of our aspirations and beliefs. But if the centre collapses because the extremes are too unyielding, or either one of the main parties rapidly moves to embrace that extreme, we put the bonds that bind our society at great peril. But the political centre has to move as well. I believe one person, one vote is the bedrock of democracy, but bedrocks can be built on, so where there is inequality in political representation, we should be open to ensuring these voices can see a pathway for greater representation. For if our political institutions are to endure, they must reflect our changing country. In 1993, I voted against MMP; I was fearful that the National Party's political power was going to be diffused. I was right, it has been. We lost the clean efficiency of majority Governments, but gained the capacity to govern taking into account a more diverse range of perspectives. The future is more of that, not less. Framing Māori aspiration as a binary choices between radicalism and conservatism is as dangerous as rapid changes to our institutions without due diligence and consultation. So I ask the two great tribes of New Zealand politics to quietly begin refreshing and strengthening their relationships across the aisle on this kaupapa, and work together to allow the centre of NZ politics to move but also to hold. But enough of my reckons; it is time to leave. So with a sense of immense pride, love of family intact, close friends still close, and many handshakes and nods as I walk around my community, I will take my leave. I have done some things well, some less well, but I gave it my best. My grandparents were right: there is much value in a life of service. Thank you very much. [Applause] Waiata—Tauranga Moana SPEAKER: I now understand that folks in the gallery will be departing and we'll have Mr McKelvie's friends and family locate themselves in the gallery. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is kind of the time when you know there's no going back—ha, ha! I'm done. Oddly enough, I've lived my 28 years in public life with a lot of things in the back of my mind—but one in particular, by an unknown author, has stuck with me. It goes like this: "I have wept in the night for the shortness of sight that to somebody's need made me blind. But I never yet shed a tear of regret for being a little too kind." Now, anyone who knew me in my 20s would not believe that this is the same person they knew then. That's the effect life experience has on one; it's also why this place needs people with life experience, because we change a lot from our 20s and 30s to our—I'm not going to say how old I am—to our 70s, ha, ha! When I entered this place, I had no great expectation that I would have a profound impact here. So, as I leave 12 years later, I can only hope that I have enabled others to live a better, more enabled, and independent life than they could before I came. I hope that I have been able to give more Rangitīkeians hope and aspiration to achieve, to enable them to feel better about life, and to encourage them to visit and speak to their MP at any time in the hope of making their country a better place for them and their families to live. I have never been a pothole-and-road man or a person who worries about the cost of a council lunch or the colour of the library door; I have always been much more interested in where we want to be in 20 to 30 years and how we get there. As such, I joined the National Party and came to Parliament, having been elected as the member of Parliament for Rangitīkei in 2011, having previously served nine years as the Manawatū mayor, a role I really enjoyed but needed to move on from, as I don't believe mayors should stay around for much longer than nine years—probably nor should backbench MPs. One of the principles I brought to my public life was never to deny a problem or failing, to admit to a problem and get on with fixing it. I have to say one of the greatest downfalls of successive Ministers in this place is their failure to recognise or admit to a problem and getting on with fixing it; after all, they have the power—and some, the ability to do so. It seems we are able to go on blaming previous administrations for years and years. If I had a piece of advice for members of Parliament it would be that: don't blame the others, don't hide from the problem; admit your shortcomings, and use your considerable influence and power to change what you can while you are here. One further piece of advice is: never be convinced by a senior Minister to swimming in a very public place—ha, ha! If I have a single regret on leaving this place, it is that I have been unable to encourage more collegiality within and some degree of common acceptance universally around the big decisions facing us—climate change, child welfare, family violence, and progress on environmental changes needed to ensure our futures as a world-leading food and fibre producer, and that's not to mention health and education. Sadly, I have to report that I have failed in the collegiality thing; however, it is not for the lack of trying, meeting with MPs across the House; the former Speaker Trevor Mallard—who inexplicably wanted the best for this place but showed it in very odd ways at times!—participating in cross-party events, select committee, and Speakers' tours, even cricket tours. That cricket tour allowed me to have lunch at 10 Downing Street, and, on the same day, attend the bulk of the infamous world cup cricket final at Lord's—stuff dreams are made of for a romantic like me. All of this to pretty much no avail, and if you go back to my maiden speech, it was all about "creating more collegiality in Parliament". One big issue I want to comment on before I leave this amazing place is the wellbeing of MPs and their staff. In my experience, we generally look after each other pretty well; we also look out for each other when personal wellbeing is at stake. There are two matters which break these boundaries and cause much stress. One is thinking that staff of politicians can be politically neutral while working under a party banner—it is just not plausible. The second is the extreme and unacceptable prying into the private lives of MPs which have no relevance to their ability to perform the roles they are elected to undertake. This would never happen in the corporate world or down on the farm, and it shouldn't happen here. If we don't reach some agreement as a society as to the boundaries here, we will undermine democracy and chase the very people we want running for Parliament away for good. We come here accepting the risks but our friends and family do not, and it is totally unacceptable that they should be compromised by the fact we choose to serve. You might ask what I've been doing in this place for all those years—well I wonder that as well! But I've ended every day in politics wondering if I have done enough, wondering what I could have done better, and if I could have done a little bit more to help people; even wondering at times if I am a very poor actor. I have listened to so many people tell me how to do things better, with great ideas for the future, and, consequently I might ask of all of you, as I leave here, what are you going to do about it? Because we all come here knowing what needs to be done—we just take such different paths as we strive to put it right. I hope you will forgive me for stealing a phrase from a great New Zealand retailer Alan Martin—who most of you won't remember—"'It's the putting it right that counts". One thing I have been doing here is passing two members bills, with a third picked up by the Hon Andrew Little with help from the Hon Kieran McAnulty and planted in a Government bill all under a Labour Government. These concerned three subjects very dear to me: horses or racing, livestock, and dogs. That's why we come here, to promote the issues we're interested in-and it does show that collegiality is achievable if one chooses to work at it. One role I really enjoyed was my short time in the Speaker's Chair as a temporary Assistant Speaker. The help I got from the team behind the wall in the Clerk's office was amazing, and there is no doubt they could make any person appointed to the Speaker's role look great—that is no reflection on you, Mr Speaker, ha, ha! Sorry to give your secret away! Whilst on the people behind the wall, there have been so many who help us on a daily basis, from the security team; to those who clean up after we leave for the day; to the messengers; to the House team; to the select committee staff, who are amazing; to the team in Bellamy's—you have been so kind to Sue and I, and I thank you. Another role I particularly enjoyed was my spokesperson for seniors—it's quite appropriate, I imagine—and subsequent involvement with our National SuperBlues, a wonderful group of older New Zealanders. It's been an amazing experience talking to older New Zealanders. It's interesting what you find out. I am a farmer, born a farmer, and never intended to be anything else—oh how life can change. As such, I recognise that change is essential to achieve our aspiration to be the world's cleanest and greenest food and fibre producer, and it needs to be done in an incremental manner that most can agree to. To achieve this, we need a plan bought into by the majority of this House, particularly the two major parties and all businesses and producers affected by it. It has to allow those businesses and those responsible for the implementation of change to be able to plan and budget for the future with certainty, to know the plan is achievable, and to be confident that achieving this will ensure they are valued and have a business with a certain future. One Government starting these processes and the next one stopping them will never see us making the progress our farmers deserve. Whilst on the topic of agriculture, I will quote from my maiden speech. I said, "I want to make a plea for us not to encourage, through suspect policy, the planting of pine trees on land that can be used for food production". How prescient that proved to be, as we continue to allow the planting of pine trees in the permanent forest sink on land that should otherwise be available to agriculture and the productive forestry sector. This is one of the biggest single challenges we face in New Zealand, with respect to our future as a food-producing nation, and one that must be resolved urgently—and will be by a National Government when elected in October. Having said that I also firmly believe that the emissions trading scheme has a place in our climate change response. I have spent a lot of my time in Parliament sitting on select committees and have had the privilege of chairing two of — one while in Government and one whilst in Opposition. As I leave here, I am sad to say that they do not work any better than they did when I arrived. By that I mean, they miss the opportunity to achieve much more for New Zealanders because of the partisan nature of them. Were they able to operate in a semi-bipartisan manner, doing what is best for the legislation or the inquiry or financial review in front of them, we would produce a much better result, for the Parliament, the Government and the people of New Zealand. This approach to select committee work would also help maintain a very strong democracy, which I believe is being weakened by the day in New Zealand. Remembering whatever the select committee does can be overturned by the Parliament—or the Government of the day—if so desired. The Minister concerned would then have to have a much stronger and more public reason for doing so, and that would be great for democracy and the legislation concerned. I have seen so much legislation bulldozed through select committees and returned to Parliament, only to need a quick and poorly-thought-out fix at committee stage or need to be returned to Parliament shortly after Royal assent. Haven't we seen, this very day, an ill-considered and ill-conceived water legislation rushed through the select committee under urgency, only for a 250-page Supplementary Order Paper to be dropped on the Parliament a few days later. A four-year term would make that process much easier. One of the things many will have noticed is my reticence when it comes to asking questions of Ministers, and I will explain this very quickly. One my early questions was to a Minister—who shall remain nameless—a primary and three supps. Being a new and very clever MP, I listened very carefully to the answers, knowing that the Minister concerned had answered the third supp in the answer to the second. I did not ask the third—and amid much glaring from the Minister concerned, I sat staunchly in my seat. Needless to say, I didn't get a question for another 18 months. I have been privileged in my time here to have been looked after by some amazing people, hereby Fiona Julian, Leanne Marshall, Ainslie Newell—who has put up with me for the last 11 years—in the electorate offices by Norma Humphries, Jacky Short, Suze Redmayne, Hilary Webb, Bernadette McIlwaine, Jane Cameron, Leanne Marshall, and the Taumarunui version of the MP Kay Kidd, who's been with me from the very start. I have also been fortunate to have had two excellent policy advisors here in Ben Henderson and Jamie Allan; and voluntary and special ones in Grant Hadfield, Simon Taylor, and Wiremu Te Aweawe—and, of course, I've got a vintage model on some days in Rob Webb. I have also had four great youth MPs in Jacinta Gulasekharam, Ben Henderson, William Wood, and Daisy Tumataroa, all of whom I am sure will make a great impression on New Zealand during their lives—possibly as a result of that experience. A few words about my Rangitīkei electorate, who without the great support of, I would not be here today. Electorate chairs the late Bruce Mills, Gary Massicks, Jamie Cunningham, and Shelley Dew Hopkins, all of who have been great support to me; my campaign chairs Simon Taylor, Jamie Cunninghame, and Grant Hadfield; my campaign organisers Kathy Johnson and Adrienne Pierce; and my sign teams bosses the late Mervyn Craw, the late Johnny Monckton, the late Brendon Mickleson, the late Bruce Mills, the late Anton Smith, and the late Neville Wheeler—it's a very tough job, that sign job! And those surviving—there have been some—in Cameron McKelvie, Greg Weston, Mark Monckton, Jamie Cunningham, and Shelley Dew Hopkins. Special people in Elaine Wheeler, Jacqui Campion, Marion and Bill Abbiss, Diana Hansen, Claire Hare, Jane Bolton, Stuart Picken, Norma Humphries; and my late brother BJ, who was both a great critic and a great supporter; my late mother Rosemary, who kept on asking me when the Labour Government came to power, have I see then Prime Minister today? I said, "No mum, I haven't!" She's no longer with us, of course. And so many others who have been special to Sue and I. I followed a very good MP and senior Minister in Simon Power into this place, and I hope to be followed by an equally good one in Suze Redmayne. I wish her all the best in the upcoming election; I know she will be a star in a future Government—the fact that Simon and I played a role in her education ensures that. Gotta claim it now! I have always had a good relationship with my neighbouring MPs, and I must mention particularly—because there's been a number more too—Tangi Utikere, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe—Mr Speaker—and my own National neighbours Nathan Guy, the late Chester Borrows, and Jono Naylor. We are all loyal to our region. Finally, in this respect, I must mention the person I rate most highly and that's Dame Tariana Turia—I think she's the most courageous politician of my time. Other very important people, especially to our provincial MPs, are our mayors. I've had a few—16 in all—and all have worked very hard for our region and been very supportive of me. I must especially mention—because I can't mention them all—my successors at the Manawatū District Council: Margaret Kouvellis and Helen Worboys, Don Cameron, Andy Watson, Grant Smith, Tracy Collis, and Brendon Duffy. The class of 2011—I have loved our time with them. We started as a group of nine, grew to 11, and I wish the four of you left standing—Simon O'Connor, Mark Mitchell, Scott Simpson, and Paul Goldsmith—all the best in the upcoming election. I will never forget Paul Foster-Bell's take-off of Tim Groser or Paul Goldsmith just being Paul Goldsmith—or Maggie Barry just being Maggie Barry, even if it was at 2 o'clock in the morning. Also to demonstrate the somewhat treacherous nature of this job, there have been 98 National MPs here with me; now there are 34 left—64 have been and gone. When I appeared before the interview panel for selection to become a candidate in May 2011, one thing in particular stuck with me and that was being told by the chair that my wife would play very little part in my political life. Well, I told her that—you can imagine how that went down with her. Of course, she has effectively been the other half of the MP for Rangitīkei for the past 12 years. How lucky have I been to have had a hugely supportive family and Sue, who lived the business for all those years. She has also driven many of the 850,000 km our cars have travelled, just touching the brakes from time to time when she got a little bored—with me sitting on the computer, your head goes up pretty quick when that happens. I am sure she will miss this place and its people more than I will. She has seen the world while I have been an MP, as it is only fair as we become slaves to the role our partners need a life of their own. We will wake up on the morning of 15 October with nothing to do—the first time since we went to school 66 years ago. It will be a new adventure in a life together that has been full of them. To our very adult children—Diana and Thaine, Cam and Rachel, Angus and Harri—and our eight grandchildren, thank you for putting up with the at-times unwanted publicity and the fact that we cannot attend birthdays, sports events, and other family occasions that "normal" people do. I have loved my time in here, serving the people of the Rangitīkei, visiting businesses, people, and houses all over the country—in fact, in many parts of the world—battling with constituents from all over the place, and some have literally been all over the place. I know and have learnt so much, and as I leave here, I have no idea what will happen to that or what I will do in the future. I will not be joining the critics of this place on leaving—that's the job of the press and the voters. Finally, I have served under two great New Zealanders in Sir John Key, Sir Bill English, the unlucky Simon Bridges, Todd Muller—and we just heard today what might have been—and the courageous Judith Collins. I wish Christopher Luxon, Nicola Willis, my 2011 colleagues, and the National team led by Sylvia Wood all the best in the upcoming election. They will make a fantastic Government for all New Zealand, if elected—albeit in very challenging circumstances. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Applause] SPEAKER: I'm going to now ask Ian McKelvie's family and friends to vacate the gallery so that we can have David Bennett's friends and family come in. Thank you. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Tēnā koutou katoa. Salaam alaikum. Sat sri akaal. Dajia hao. A recent opinion piece in the Waikato Times quoted from the Shakespearean play Macbeth, saying, "Nothing in David's political life has become him so much as leaving it." That commentator never said a truer word. I leave this great Parliament with a new and exciting chapter in life that involves a family. This place has taught me what to value in life. Thank you, Nicky, for being a beautiful, smart, and strong partner. We are very fortunate to be able to build a loving family together. As you all imagine, she is the more rational one of the partnership. Thank you for the blessing of our beautiful Julia. The little one has been a treasure and continues to bring much joy and love. Julia has a very outgoing personality and loves people—natural political skills! Thank you to my family who have supported me through this career. To Mum and Dad, thank you for all your support. I would not be here or have had the opportunity to be here without your sacrifices. To my brother Tom and his children, Livi, Greta, and Nicholas—they have grown up while I have been here and are smart, caring, and positive young people with amazing futures. We are very proud of who you all have become. I would like to thank Nicky's family, Carol and Bill and Debbie, who have welcomed me into the family and been wonderful to Julia. I stood for the Hamilton East National Party nomination in 2004 on one platform: to build the road from Hamilton to Auckland. My driver has been to get infrastructure for Hamilton to achieve its destiny. My focus has been on delivery, not stories. I wanted to build the Chicago of New Zealand, an industrial heartland city. Hamilton has a strategic advantage in its proximity to Auckland. The expressway meant we could build the Hamilton, Auckland, and Tauranga "golden triangle". Hamilton could have easily been bypassed like inland cities around the world. Instead, we have connected through infrastructure to the population centre of Auckland and the export and import centre of Tauranga. As industry relocates to Hamilton, we are seeing Penrose move to Pūkete. Head offices are now coming to the city. Hamilton is booming. The National Party has made this possible through the provision of infrastructure. Judy Kirk, Peter Goodfellow, Sylvia Wood, and Roger Bridge have all been great support on the National Party board. Thank you to our leader Christopher Luxon. He is a genuine, driven, and aspirational leader. He will be one of New Zealand's best Prime Ministers, and I look forward to celebrating your success in October. Thank you also to Nicola Willis, who will make a huge contribution to New Zealand politics. [Interruption] That's the little one; she's getting confused. Ha, ha! I would like to thank my good friend the Hon Judith Collins. Judith took over the leadership with a party and caucus in disarray. As with most times of difficulty, a strong woman is required, and thank you for keeping the party together. Thank you to the Hon Steven Joyce, who always supported projects for the Waikato. Steven's understanding of politics and business is a very rare skill. The Hon Jacqui Dean and myself are the last two remaining members of the 2005 intake for the National Party, and my thanks to Jacqui and the class of 2005 for their friendship over that time. The Hamilton East electorate executive have been very supportive, and thank you to Bill and Judith Noble, Trevor and Julie Follows, John and Louise Bridgman, Dave and Merle McGall, Ryan Higgins, Lawsen Harte, Marilyn Hemming, and Ron Williams. My special thanks to Stuart Anderson. Stuart has been my campaign manager throughout my time here. His loyalty and political instincts have been invaluable. Thank you, Stuart. Murray Porter, Jon Webb, and Pienaar Piso have always been there to support all my campaigns, and my best wishes to Ryan Hamilton, who will be the next MP for Hamilton East. Thank you to all members in this House for their service to this country, and my special thanks to the Labour ladies for babysitting Julia so I could do my House duties. After being elected in 2005, the leader Don Brash sought our portfolio preferences. Transport was mine. The new leader, the Rt Hon John Key, sought our transport policy for the 2008 election. I suggested to the senior spokesperson at that time that we borrow the Australian roads of national significance policy, so the roads of national significance were born. We were to announce the first preferred road from Auckland to Whangārei before the election. As my reward, the expressway was to be a back-up and, through a twist of fate, the Waikato Expressway became the preferred announcement. We wrote the press release as the team drove to Hamilton, and the road was to be built within 10 years and with no tolls. It has been the most transformative event in the history of Hamilton. Waikato-Tainui have benefited greatly, and I would like to thank Kīngi Tuheitia and Tukuroirangi Morgan for their support. Māori have the most to gain from an expanded New Zealand, with their increasing role in land assets like Ruakura. Thank you to the Waikato Times, who are a strong advocate for the region. They epitomise good reporting, putting both sides of the story together. The impressive editorial teams include Jonathan MacKenzie, Bryce Johns, Roy Pilott, and Geoff Taylor, and the excellent reporters of Aaron Leaman, Natalie Akoorie, Nikki Preston—another one—Belinda Feek, Mary Anne Gill, Elton Smallman, Jo Lines-MacKenzie, Stephen Ward, and Rachel Moore. Politics is about serving the people of your community. The Hamilton seats are on the front line of the battle of political ideals in New Zealand. I have invited Tim Macindoe and Martin Gallagher here today; we worked as a team over many years. Neither Tim nor Martin had the opportunity to present a valedictory speech—in fact, there has not been a valedictory speech for Hamilton West since 1972. On behalf of the three of us, we thank the people of Hamilton for their support and hospitality. It has been an honour and privilege for the three of us to represent Hamilton. Our thanks for the opportunity to serve our fantastic city. Thank you, Tim and Martin. Hamilton East is a socially liberal and economically conservative electorate. I am proud of having voted for marriage equality and abortion reform. As Jamie Strange kindly commented in his valedictory, I did a lot of doorknocking—so much, in fact, that one day I managed to interrupt a couple of teenagers who were up to no good and obviously thought I was one of their parents coming home early. I wasn't sure who was more relieved when I left. Hamilton East is the only university seat that National has consistently held since 2005. They say you aren't a true University of Waikato student if you don't have a David Bennett pen. Thank you to the student union and Nexus magazine for your support. One of my passions has been in advocating for a more open immigration system. Migrants bring aspiration, a competitive spirit, and they value education. Hamilton's success is very much linked with welcoming migrants to our city. In serving our communities, my office has had great staff like Marianne Mclean, Victoria Young, Grace Shaw, Katrina McCann, Jan Mudgway, Raiyan Azmi, Alex Dykes, and Jenny Young. We specialised in immigration cases, and one of our special memories involved the Afghan interpreters. Many of the interpreters were relocated to Hamilton, and they were deeply proud of their service. However, they were not entitled to wear any medals. We enabled them to get medals, and now they wear them with pride at Anzac Day services. I started the speech with the greetings of the Chinese, Indian, and Muslim communities. The migrant communities make up a third of Hamilton East and represent the future demographics of New Zealand, and their support has enabled me to be the longest serving member of Parliament in the history of Hamilton. They are my friends and my supporters, and thank you for your support. And a special thanks to those that have made it here today. Hamilton has suffered at the butt of many jokes over time. Some thought of us as a "Cowtown", a bogan capital, and, more recently, as the city of the future. Hamilton, for too long, hadn't had its fair share. Hamilton is set to become New Zealand's third biggest city. Both Hamilton and Tauranga will be bigger than Wellington in the next decade. The population of the Waikato - Bay of Plenty region is, effectively, the equivalent of the South Island. Every dollar spent in Hamilton and Tauranga on infrastructure provides a significantly greater return for New Zealand than anywhere else in the country. New Zealand now has the same opportunity as Hamilton had, when I came to Parliament. Australia, through its "big Australia" policy, along with Canada and Britain, have made the decision to embrace population change. We have a choice of being part of that change or being a feeder for others' change. The rise of Africa, climate change, and the large populations of Asia will mean over 40 million people will live between Adelaide and Townsville soon. Sydney and Melbourne are projected to be cities of 9 million people each. It will initially be driven through economic reasons, and then security reasons. Australia wants to be a world player and they need a population to do that. We can be part of the Australian eastern seaboard growth and springboard into the Asian-Pacific market. This is the greatest economic opportunity for our generation. The new "golden triangle" is now Greater Auckland, Melbourne, and Sydney. New Zealand's ability to produce the scale of population and economy to take advantage of this opportunity is firmly rooted in having a strong top half of the North Island. Auckland's role in the future of New Zealand is inevitable. As we link from Whangārei to Tauranga, Hamilton's destiny is secure. We can accelerate the growth in the area and have seven million people in these four large main urban centres. New cities are possible, and Hamilton can be the link for the Taranaki, Manawatū, and Hawke's Bay to Auckland. My passion for building a stronger Hamilton hasn't been meet with a desire for a public profile. Being a Minister was never a priority, but I did have that honour. I'd like to thank the Rt Hon Bill English for the opportunity to serve in his Government. Thank you to Dell Watson and Audrey Malone for your professionalism. It was an absolute pleasure to be Minister of Racing and meet some of the most successful and dedicated New Zealanders. David Ellis, Karyn Fenton-Ellis, Sir Peter and Lady Pam Vela, and Brendan and Jo Lindsay represent the success of our racing industry. Racing is a primary industry that will continue to shine and has great potential if linked to the Australasian market. I also had the privilege of being spokesperson for several portfolios, and my thanks to leaders, like Bruce Cameron from Zespri, that have made a real contribution to our primary sector. For me, I defined success in building the Waikato Expressway; the internal ring-route road for Hamilton, just like Melbourne and Moscow; Hamilton as the first broadband city; new secondary schools in the fast-growing north of the electorate; the velodrome; and a rebuilt Waikato Hospital campus. Recent announcements of the Cambridge to Piarere extension of the Waikato Expressway, Southern Links, and the "Shane Reti Medical School" have meant my job in this House is done. The Waikato has unlimited potential. It has land to grow on. It has an iwi willing to invest. It has the population to deliver results. It has the natural resources to continue to be the food bowl and energy hub of NZ. It has the industrial base to deliver for NZ. In Hamilton, we have demonstrated the power of promoting location and connecting with other centres, building infrastructure, and welcoming a diverse and growing population. Thank you for the honour to serve the National Party and the people of Hamilton East in this Parliament. Kia manawanui. [Applause] SPEAKER: Can I ask the friends and family of the Hon David Bennett to make space for the friends and family of the Hon Jacqui Dean. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Mr Speaker, we certainly couldn't start this without my favourite sister being seated in the front of the gallery. Oh, no, that way [Points to the gallery] No—anyway, I've got so many of them, just putting it out there. I was sitting in the hairdresser's chair—I don't know if anybody noticed, but I was sitting in the hairdresser's chair—at about 11 o'clock this morning, after having bunked off my Speaker duties. I wanted to make myself presentable for this important speech—you know, 18 years; maybe I have made a contribution. You know, it's really important—I just wanted to give it something, and my hair was going to do that. So the hairdresser was back-combing me and he looked at me and he said, "Were you really on Play School?" And I thought to myself, "OK, there are some things you just cannot leave behind!" When I entered Parliament in 2005, I did that to serve my community of Otago; my province. So I came in as the member of Otago. As electorate boundaries changed, I became the MP for what is now known as Waitaki, which is twice as big and one of the big five blue electorates in the New Zealand Parliament. You know, I've always smiled as other MPs in this House talk of "getting around" their electorate. For me, getting around has meant traversing Central Otago, the Upper Clutha and Wānaka, the Waitaki Valley, the Mackenzie Country, East Otago, North Otago, Waitaki District itself, and South Canterbury. That's nearly 10,000 kilometres of roads in total, and obviously there's an enormous amount of driving involved in getting around the traps. You know, I can drive for 8 hours a day or more in a recess week, and I can do that for a few days in a row. So if my productivity was measured in meetings and engagements and constituency work, it would be a major fail in the business environment—and this news I haven't shared with my leader. The real challenge, though, starts in the business involved in travelling to Wellington. So first question: where to fly from? It could be Dunedin Airport or it could be Queenstown. It could be Timaru Airport or Christchurch Airport. So on Monday of a House sitting week, I work my way from my home base in Oamaru to say, well, Queenstown Airport, stopping along the way in Ōmārama, Tarras, maybe Cromwell for appointments. Then I fly to Wellington—job done. The next challenge at the end of a sitting week is to decide where to fly back to, and that depends on where in the electorate I need to be on Friday. So the next question is: will my car be at the right airport? Where is my car? And that is the question—quite seriously—that is asked very often. So for 18 years people have turned to me for help and advice. And while I am the wife of a well-known Oamaru lawyer, I do decline to give legal advice. No, I'm not magically a lawyer just by virtue of being married to one, and no, I won't casually ask Bill what he thinks about a constituent's issue. Some people have asked me to do that. I have the most wonderful team: Charlene, Alice, Rachael, Charlotte, Makona, and Sarah. Most of them have been with me for many years and they really know their stuff. Their roles include looking after constituents, managing my diary, and being my eyes and ears around our many communities. And a large part of their work is organising getting me to where I need to be and back again. Although, there was this one time back in 2007 when I was trying to find my way to a tiny remote rural school in the Maniototo in Central Otago. This was way before smartphones and Google Maps. I used an AA road map and it did not go well. So when the maps are folded, they are this big, right? But once you open them to try and find where you're going to be, you're dealing with something that is like literally this big; it's really hard to do while you're driving. So I set off through Ranfurly, past Gimmerburn and on to a really tiny remote school somewhere—somewhere— somewhere near Patearoa. Well, of course I got lost. Actually, I had absolutely no idea where I was and the stupid map, of course, was no help at all. I did have some signal, that is a miracle in and of itself, so I called the mothership, my Oamaru office. All I could say was: "I'm lost". Pathetic, yeah, I know. To her credit, Char—hi, Char—may well have been rolling her eyes, but her tone was very helpful. Long story short, I didn't know where I was, she had no hope of knowing where I was, but that was the day she ordered me one of those newfangled Sat Navs. So I was sorted—except for the time when we set off, this time all of us in the car, for, again, the Maniototo. The highlight of the trip this time was to be a visit to the new Lamamore whiskey distillery, literally—literally—many miles from anywhere. Not only did we get very lost, but we took a very wrong turn and ended up travelling on what best can be described as a goat track. It was so rutted it was becoming impossible to literally drive any further, and can I just say that there wasn't much happy chatter in the car just at that point in time. So we ended up having to reverse back quite a long distance, probably about a kilometre it felt, or more, before there was even enough room for us to safely turn the car around. And we were so late; we were very, very late. But when we finally arrived our gracious hosts plastered smiles on their faces, welcomed us into the distillery, and gave us a nice dram of whiskey and happiness was restored. The Waitaki electorate is a special part of the country and one that I have advocated for and championed every step of the way. Over the years there have been issues that I have felt very strongly about and have campaigned tirelessly for. I think of maternity services in Wānaka and Central Otago—I have fought for years for the maternity facilities that this fast-growing region desperately needs, and it's not the region that needs the maternity services, it's the mums and the babies and the dads and the families. So I expressed cautious optimism when it was finally announced last year that a birthing facility had been secured and would be open in January of this year after it needed a short amount of renovation. Sadly, my scepticism was justified as this important facility for our mums and babies has still not opened its doors and will not likely do so until next year. How many more babies will need to be birthed on the floor of the midwife's office or on the side of the road on the way to Dunedin Hospital? I just think it is a failure. I'll stay on health; recently many of you will have seen the headlines around Oamaru Hospital and the repeated closing of its emergency department during the night hours due to a locum doctor shortage. Just to give you a little bit of background on that, when Healthcare Otago withdrew from health services in 1998, Waitaki District Health Services rose from the ashes. It is a company owned by the local community through the council. Waitaki Health Services took over the provision of health services for us, and ever since then successive mayors, including Mayor Gary Kercher, council, and Oamaru Hospital themselves have had to fight endless, endless battles to get adequate funding. I just feel throughout that time that Oamaru Hospital has been very much the poor cousin to other health facilities elsewhere. You know, recent closures of the emergency department are heartbreaking—heartbreaking. Hospital management have tried everything. It's particularly galling for the Oamaru community to have to compete with Te Whatu Ora for locums. How can that be? Part of the problem has been immigration policy. This has meant that the doctors and the nurses that we need have gone elsewhere these last couple of years. The region I have been very proud to represent has been held back by immigration settings which I don't believe in any way meet the needs of our local community and our local economy. Aged care, hospitality, agriculture, horticulture—they've all suffered from lack of workers. Just while I'm at it, we now have a proposed housing and commercial development just out of Cromwell being opposed by Waka Kotahi because it would mean that people would be too reliant on private vehicles. What? We have no public transport! It's not like Mayor Tim Cadogan and his council haven't tried. Any Government—and I mean any Government—needs to understand what life is like in places like Central Otago, where there is a chronic and severe shortage of housing for workers. With 3 to 4 percent growth year on year, we just need to plan for that, and we need to make it possible, because if we don't allow these projects to proceed, if we don't allow for more housing, affordable new housing, New Zealand will never be able to thrive in the regions. And I'm here for the regions. So I want to acknowledge the mayors and deputies here today. Look, I've so appreciated your willingness to work with me on matters that have been large and small across many years. It has been most helpful. Well, just to brighten things up, I want to acknowledge the members of the Kurow community who staged not one, not two, but three separate events to celebrate the opening of the new Kurow bridges. Full credit to them—they knew how to lobby me, they knew how to lobby our Government, and they sure as heck know how to party. Shout-out again to the council and all of those who worked so hard in the establishment of the UNESCO Waitaki Whitestone Global Geopark. That is a significant, significant thing to happen for New Zealand and Australasia. It is the first in our part of the world. Again, you're it—you're it, you guys up there. Meanwhile, back in Parliament, early on in my career, I tried and failed twice to get Easter trading reform through the House, with two members' bills. I had more success with increasing the fines for the smuggling of native species, and failed again with another member's bill which aimed again to protect native species. I've sat on many select committees over 18 years, chairing four of them, and I've really enjoyed the collegial and challenging nature of the work. Occasionally, though, there is some high drama in select committees—actually, it can be a lot of fun, select committees. We were in Christchurch with the Environment Committee some years ago hearing submissions on Resource Management Act reform. The room was absolutely packed, and submitters and supporters were making some very strong points and the passion really just began to build. The chair was Nicky Wagner, and she kept things well under control, but, ultimately, things did get a bit too fiery, so as chair Nicky did all she could do and she stood, suspended the meeting, and cleared the room so that everybody could cool off. Look, I just want to thank you, because I will never forget the professional way that the clerk of the committee faced the crowd. She wasn't a big lady, but she faced the crowd and she calmly, with authority, cleared the room so that we could all go, "That was intense." and then start again. I asked for the job of an Assistant Speaker, and I've relished the role. My family in the gallery, including four of my five siblings, may well say that the role allows me to indulge my bossy tendencies, but I couldn't possibly comment. Members may think that when I'm gazing into the middle distance with sort of an unfocused stare while they're speaking that there's not much going on in my head. Well, I can assure you there is. There's a fast and furious internal conversation going on, and it goes something like this: "Are they speaking to the bill? No, they're not speaking to the bill. I just wish they would speak to the bill—how much time have they got left to go? OK, they mentioned the bill; that's OK. They're not straying too far from Standing Orders. Oh, good grief—they've still got two minutes. Never mind. Well, OK, so, who's speaking next? I'm going to have to remember their name—oh, my dear Lord! I call…" Anyway, on it goes. It is a blast. You know what, though? I don't always get it right, and members certainly let me know when they disagree with my rulings—thanks very much. But more recently, as some of the newer members have found their confidence and found their feet, we've had some really good, quality debate in this House, and I think that democracy is being well served. I do have a plea: in the debate, in the heat of the moment, let's just play the ball—let's just play the ball. While I'm here, I want to thank, again, the Office of the Clerk—endless source of support and advice. We'd be hopeless without the support of our officials, so thank you all very much. A cross-party group of us have been considering the Debbie Francis report into bullying and harassment here in Parliament. We've made progress, but there is more work to be done. While we've established the parliamentary commissioner for MP standards, I believe that more clarity is needed in the expectations of what is good behaviour for all of us who work on the parliamentary precinct and who have signed up to the code of conduct. This is work for the next Parliament, but, you know, it's a bit like what Patrick Gower said recently: he found himself at times forgetting that MPs were human—I really think that's something for all of us to think about. And my family, all of you: I'm beyond thrilled that you're here, and my friends. Bill, you have been a most patient and supportive husband. Thank you. One of the best things about you, though, is that you intuitively know whether it's a "put the jug on" kind of welcome when I come home or a "Oh, God, I better quickly knock the top off a nice bottle of pinot gris" kind of a welcome. I mean, the guy is just perfect. My adult children have shared me with constituents, with the National Party, and the wider public for the best part of 20 years. To Mick, Steffy, and Aiden: I'm so proud of you all. When I first stood for Parliament 18 years ago, Otago was held by Labour, and I was told by National Party whip Simon Power to "just win or else". Well, I did win, and I've won five more times after that, but I have to say, that last election at 2020, oh my God, it got a bit dodgy at times. I've done all that with the support of family, friends, and amazing volunteers and supporters. I'd like to thank you all, but I'd like to particularly mention Ele and Grant Ludemann, who have given so much of themselves to the National Party and to causes dear to their hearts. To my littlest sister, Ra, who is so loyal and so politically very astute. For 18 years, she has supplied me with gifts of barley sugars and muesli bars to keep me happy and safe in the car on long trips. Serving as a Minister in the Bill English Government was an honour and a privilege, and I'm very proud of what our Government achieved in those nine years as we navigated New Zealand through the global financial crisis and built the economy, the strong economy that New Zealand needed. Over the years I've held many roles across different portfolio areas and have been absolutely blessed with fantastic support staff in Wellington. Some of you are here today: Gareth, Olivia, Paige, Charlotte, Makona: I want to thank you. With the election only a few weeks away, I want to wish all the best to the Christopher Luxon - led National Party. Christopher, you are a fantastic leader, and you have a very talented team full of energy, focus, and talent—and soon you will have a caucus full to the brim with new talent, which is good, because there's going to be plenty for you to do. It's a true privilege to have been a member of Parliament in the National Party and in this place, and to have made my contribution. I want to acknowledge Madam President, Sylvia Wood, and wish Miles Anderson all the best as he aims to take the seat. Recently, I was asked for advice on what the new crop of MPs should do when they're elected. My answer, and I didn't even give it too much thought, was—well, it was simple: work hard, read your papers, put your phone down, and remember why you are here, and that's it. Man, it's been tough sometimes, but I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you. [Applause] Sitting suspended from 6.20 p.m. to 7 p.m.